I’m sure this topic has been talked about before on here many times, but not sure I’ve ever seen anyone start a thread about it. I’ve read through many of Satoshis threads over the years (some more than once), studied everything about him I have been able to find etc, and one aspect of his creation I find really fascinating is that he left the project when he did. I’m convinced he knew from day one he was going to leave the project like he did. That fact that there’s no face to bitcoin lends so much to its value as a currency and asset. Do you feel the same way, or have a different take on it?
he never planned to be the decision maker. the central point of failure and it seemed from his earlier messages he never had a exit plan scheduled. although he did have an idea that other peoples contributions would mean he can/would walk away at anytime. but it didnt seem like he planned when/why to leave as a schedule.
when he left it seemed like a decision he made at the time of leaving rather then a scheduled exit planned from the start.
he still had idea's flowing of things that bitcoin could become and wanted to help right up until the end, so it didnt seem like he was ready to leave in a sceduled way where he was wrapping things up ready to retire. but ended up leaving because it all just got too much risk for bitcoin/himself if he stayed as it will going to break his philosophy of bitcoin by staying any longer.
parts of the reasons he left were not just wikileaks or silkroad or gavin talking at a CIA presentation. it was that other devs were asking satoshi if they could/should add things, as if he was a decision maker. which he did not like being thought of as a central point.
i feel like he had a light bulb moment at the end where he realised he was becoming a central point.
EG not liking wikileaks/cia presentation. and realising if he starts to dictate what others should do, visit, accept. aswell as continue to pat people on the back for contributing, or weighing in on patch idea's too managerially, he would be breaking his own philosophy, so he just left
as for the leaving 'lending so much to its value as a currency and asset'.. not really.
the non-requirement of a central guy/core(central point not brand) team should be part of bitcoins value, although recent years people have foolishly become reliant on a core team(brand and central point)
the real value is this.
after 13 years. satoshi still has coin associated with certain public keys. anyone can see these. and yet after 13 years.
no one has been able to hack that value, or use the public data to associate to a human persons birth certified identity. now thats the true value indicator of a good currency that offers value store protection and identity dis-association.. not the fact that he left, but the fact that others cant use/abuse thecoins he left
(ontop of this block reward address of block9 is a 're-used' spend address, yet 13 years later no-one has been able to use the FUD of 're-used address risk' to gain anything out of satoshi)