drawkbox

These systems also came from tinkering. Most programming languages even are really the investment of one person for a long time, doing apparently what you aren't supposed to do.

When it comes down to it, whatever works best and is usually the most simple, non-breaking, used to win out. That decision has been disconnected from the value creators to the value extractors. It is impossible to extract value before value is created.

Additionally, programming is a creative skill no matter how hard they try to make it not one. Creativity means trying new things and new takes on things. People not doing that will harm us long term.

I dig WebComponents because I love building on standards which promote interoperability across frameworks and have long term lifelines. Standards reduce platform + dev lock-in and reduce framework balkanization and frankly chaos in many cases. You are a better developer if you understand the root standards and core systems, which WebComponents get you closer to.

I also like the Lit Framework (https://lit.dev/) from Google which is rarely mentioned but it is quite nice for some of the simplifications and extras you might need when building them but it doesn't get in the way or try to take over your entire domain with dev-lockin.

Whether going direct to WebComponents or a higher level simplification like Lit, they really are a freedom from dev lock-in that is nice to see.

I like that it mimics SQL queries/filtering which is straightforward.

Typically I use something like JSONPath [1] (basically XPath for JSON) [2] or jq for this but having more options with other syntax and style is helpful.

For streamed JSON like NDJSON [3] there are some nice filtering options [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSONPath

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9535

[3] https://github.com/ndjson/ndjson-spec

[4] https://github.com/mbostock/ndjson-cli?tab=readme-ov-file#fi...

Looks like they have until January to change to fully on-site. That isn't much time to make life changes that allow using 2+ hours extra per day that was typically remote.

The decision marks a significant shift from Amazon’s earlier return-to-work stance, which required corporate workers to be in the office at least three days a week. Now, the company is giving employees until Jan. 2 to start adhering to the new policy.

So on top of all the hustle of end of year, everyone will need to frantically prepare for return to office one day into the new year. Just seems a bit heartless.

Remote jobs just allow a team to be more robust and dynamic to life changes. I just don't understand the need to force RTO so drastically.

End of an era. TouchArcade was one of the better review sites and it was great to get featured there. Going for 16 years was a really good run. I hope the people involved land in good places. Game marketing has changed so much during that time. I do wish affiliate programs for games never went away as it was an entire economy and another way others would help get sales.

Developers are clearly the weak link today, have given up all power over product and it is sad and why software sucks so bad. It pains the soul that value creators have let the value extractors run the show, because it is now a reality TV / circus like market where power is consolidating.

Developers and value creators with power are like an anti-trust on consolidation and concentration and they have instead turned towards authoritarianism instead of anti-authoritarianism. What happened? Many think they can still get rich, those days are over because of giving up power. Now quality of life for everyone and value creators is worse off. Everyone loses.

Again with the ad hominems and strawman arguments in your shadowboxing diversion...

I knew you wouldn't answer. You fail to even acknowledge evidence, what do you know about it? Nothing. How do you think evidence comes about? Just shows up one day? It takes people researching it and events to happen. Your hypothesis is not even attempting to start to see evidence, never be an investigator with that vibe.

Our discussion on your diversion is done, I know where you stand.

- You like crypto consolidation, you won't even attempt to answer that one.

- You are diverting from the point so far it is laughable now.

- Nick Szabo thanks you.

Admit you are an absolutist not a probabalist. Absolutism to no change is more religious than probability. You sure do preach absolutism.

A "conflict" or false opposition can also be used in a theater like play. Maybe this was setup to get Microsoft to take on the costs/liability and more. Three board members left in 2023 that allowed this to happen.

The idea of boards might even be an anti-pattern going forward, they can be played and used in essentially rug pull scenarios for full control of all the work of entire organizations. Maybe boards are past their time or too much of a potential timebomb/trojan horse now.

No evidence doesn't mean it didn't or won't happen. There is a very large canyon between something happening and evidence. There you have to go off of history, timeline, motive (large piles of money get things to happen) and more.

Glad you could go on record and show you are an absolutist not a probabilist. Even cryptography itself is probabilistic. There are no absolutes in time except change.

You also skipped these two questions:

- Do you understand what diversion from the point is?

- Do you think Satoshi is Nick Szabo?

We are so far deep in this distraction that we have run out of room to reply without it being a line of vertical text.

Let's agree to disagree. I'll let you have the last word on this diversion.

Something is up with the timing of that, the dev day and this event.

GitHub Copilot is made with OpenAI's Codex model, a descendent of GPT-3 though.

Anyone putting anything into ChatGPT is taking a risk, or any third party tool really. Especially LLMs/GPTs because all AI models are like immutable datastores in some aspects. Once in, never getting out.

This also coincided with it being integrated directly in Windows. If there is a security issue, and I am sure there are many, this could be majorly problematic for business intel and confidentiality.

I mostly agree but Web Components is a web standards as is templates/custom elements now. Web Components are a standard.

You did ask. heh.

As I mentioned, I prefer direct standards or at least frameworks that make standards a main part of the design, even if only on output.

Standards are slower to finalize, frameworks front ran them via abstractions that may have been needed for a while --like Flash with interactivity before HTML5/canvas/svg/WebGL/etc and I was huge into Flash and plugins, those days are over though. Standards will be around longer and more maintainable on standard schedules not just feature/dependency pump frameworks of today that have verbloat.

Plugins and now frameworks innovate and front run, and influence standards, then standards win the long game every single time. Like why use virtual DOM when shadowdom is now available, unnecessary abstraction now that will always lose to native dom abstractions like shadowdom.

Right now with web standards where they are at, Javascript how far it has come, and the coming WebAssembly + WebGPU platforms now being ready or close to ready, the current frameworks are about to be lapped. It is just the way things go and the typical waves in innovation to standards and repeat.

About Lit, I mentioned it as I said in another comment "if you like the component style of other frameworks but want to use Web Components, Google Lit is quite nice"

We can agree to disagree on the rest.

I wonder if it is related to this: [Microsoft briefly restricted employee access to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, citing security concerns](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/09/microsoft-restricts-employee...)

You fail to acknowledge again. We already agreed to disagree on that point. We are getting your take on things now.

Answer these, let's get you on record:

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%?

Do you think early bitcoin keys from 2008 will never be broken (disregarding tools and being found which is more likely)?

Do you understand what diversion from the point is?

Do you think Satoshi is Nick Szabo?

You won't eventhough these are very easy YES/NO questions.

C'mon, put your money where your mouth is.

I mostly agree but Web Components is a web standards as is templates/custom elements now.

The others like React/Vue/Svelte etc are all going more for platform/framework lock-in over making sure people are doing augmentation of standards.

Those frameworks have incentive to lock you in while standards are lock-in at a lower level.

Other standards I like playing with direct like html/css/canvas/WebGL/storage/svg/video/audio/geo/etc and ones that are newer are WebRTC/WebGL/WebGPU/WebAssembly etc. All of these are and will be abstracted by some frameworks and people will know less about them and more about the platforms on top if they aren't regularly going direct. I think people that know about the standards more low level make for better framework developers an developers that use frameworks even.

I like platforms that make web standards the core aim not the platform lock in.

Lit is just a lighter weight version of that and closer to web standards without having it bolted on to a larger, almost monolithic framework now.

Lit is somewhat Angular like since Google make both.

Yeah agreed, that is why I said "if you like the component style of other frameworks but want to use Web Components, Google Lit is quite nice"

Lit is just a lighter weight version of that and closer to web standards without having it bolted on to a larger, almost monolithic framework now.

I still prefer direct and custom with less dependencies but Lit is somewhat trying to communicate web standards while other current frameworks really want lock-in to the platform rather than caring about making sure devs understand the standards.

I completely disagree with your limited focus take on this, aside from the main point of the comment, and you still are not taking into account what others are saying which I shared.

You are very focused on "winning" rather than the topic of concentration in currencies in the digital space, whether those keys are found, solved or some future system or hole is able to break them.

Good debate but I feel you were debating and shadowboxing yourself mostly, some side point that I guess you "won". I answered all your questions and provided sources on them to back them up. You still refuse to acknowledge.

Can the keys be broken now? No. Will they? According to you... NEVER!

Since you still won't answer these questions for our future observers, I take it you think they will never be broken.

Let's get you on record...

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%? According to you YES!

Do you think early bitcoin keys from 2008 will never be broken (disregarding tools and being found which is more likely)? According to you YES!

Ok, glad to get you on record. I work on probabilities and that we don't know all parts, is there a probability that these keys will one day be broken, YES. A high probability, with lots of time, YES. Even higher if the values of these early coins/keys are multiples of what they are today, YES.

We can agree to disagree on this point without you going into ad hominems again on some side point. Where there is loot and prizes, some will be very motivated to find a way to get at those keys, either finding them, finding holes in tools used to make the keys or with lots of time, break the algorithms or brute force them.

I work in games and no matter how well you hide things, players will find the holes. It is actually quite amazing when you see it. Never underestimate the human with tools and intel/tracks. I am sure you will misinterpret this but it is true.

Staying closer to web standards is always best for maintainability and portability. I personally like custom direct standards but that doesn't always work in a team for some reason today. There will always be less dependencies in a straight standards solution, that makes for better maintainability and opsec. I also think it is better for web developers to know standards over just abstractions, it makes for better developers.

Additionally, web standards like Web Components/templates/custom elements will always be faster at browser level.

The article from OP mentions this:

But the unique power of web components (in the browser) is that they can render before JavaScript. React components cannot do this — full stop.

There are other reasons as well but these are the best reasons.

I think using a framework for a team isn't a bad idea, but for products and personal projects I like going custom or newer framework like Lit simply because of the web standards being less abstracted away and due to that, less need to constantly update on others schedules due to dev lock-in. There is less weight in straight standards.

If you remember React/Vue originally won due to virtualdom and being small parts that work into an existing web, but recently they have been very monolithic in that they take over the entire project. The web is more about augmentation as the article mentions and I agree, those items will be easier to maintain.

I am more a fan of the augmented style because it doesn't entrap you in dev lock-in to platforms.

The problem with frameworks, especially web frameworks, is they reimplement many items that are standard now (shadowdom, components, storage, templating, base libraries, class/async, network/realtime etc).

DOM rendering speeds have been improved due to virtualdom but is no longer needed with shadowdom.

The web standards of today are amazing and take away the need for frameworks today: from templating to html templates [1], vanilla javascript with classes [2] and async [3] and better api access like fetch [4] and browser support for vdom with shadow dom [5], components with WebComponents [6][7], css now with lots of additions like variables [8] transitions[9]/animations[10], flex and media queries, canvas/svg/etc for interactivity, and so much more. There is little need to use frameworks except to sell books and conferences and keep developers locked in.

React for instance jumped ahead and front ran WebComponents and ShadowDOM, those are both part of the browser and standards now. The killer feature phase of React is over.

If you like the component style of other frameworks but want to use Web Components, Google Lit is quite nice. [11]

Google Lit is like a combination of HTML Web Components and React/Vue style components. The great part is it is build on Web Components underneath.

[1] https://caniuse.com/template

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

[3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

[4] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Fetch_API/U...

[5] https://caniuse.com/shadowdomv1

[6] https://caniuse.com/custom-elementsv1

[7] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components

[8] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Using_CSS_c...

[9] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transition

[10] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/animation

[11] https://lit.dev/

Now you are into ad hominems. You are completely lost. You can't acknowledge the topic nor the point of concentration in currency, which was 80% percent of my entire point. You are shadowboxing and really have that strawman on the ropes.

Nice job distracting from the OP even about concentration and early owners of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's encryption is elliptical curve.

Did you just learn this? The point is processing power at quantum level already starts to threaten some of the encryption methods and early keys are definitely at risk over time. Additionally there is motive to find holes in early tools that someone could unlock all that lost bitcoin... over time.

Did you ignore everything like this?

"AES-128 and RSA-2048 both provide adequate security against classical attacks, but not against quantum attacks. Doubling the AES key length to 256 results in an acceptable 128 bits of security, while increasing the RSA key by more than a factor of 7.5 has little effect against quantum attacks."

Since you are so singular focused, combative, and black and white on this. Since you don't adhere to future probabilities over time and unknowns, you seem like you fully think today's encryption will never be broken by advancements in decades or longer, as cryptographers fear could happen which I just shared with you, even programs at NIST regarding research on this.

Let's get you on record...

Do you think encryption methods today will hold up over time 100%?

Do you think early bitcoin keys from 2008 will never be broken (disregarding tools and being found which is more likely)?

See if you can contain yourself to what topic you wanted to talk about and double down on your take, answer the questions.

That wasn't even the point but let's get this for future generations to giggle at.

This was my main point "Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties."

You are already accusing a theoretical cryptography expert of being "biased" against you?

What are you talking about? Cryptographers would be biased to their field, like yourself, about their system being incapable of being broken. It isn't just about breaking algorithms...

However some are even talking we have to start worrying about advancements by 2030-2040

[When a Quantum Computer Is Able to Break Our Encryption, It Won't Be a Secret](https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/09/when-a-quantum-computer-is...)

"One of the most important quantum computing algorithms, known as Shor's algorithm, would allow a large-scale quantum computer to quickly break essentially all of the encryption systems that are currently used to secure internet traffic against interception"

[The NIST has a "Post-Quantum Cryptography" Project](https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum-Cryptography)

[Waiting for quantum computing](https://techbeacon.com/security/waiting-quantum-computing-wh...)

"Large universal quantum computers could break several popular public-key cryptography (PKC) systems, such as RSA and Diffie-Hellman, but that will not end encryption and privacy as we know it."

"The most widely used PKC systems, including RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and ECDSA, rely on the intractability of integer factorization and discrete log problems. These problems are hard for classical computers to solve, but easy for quantum computers."

"This means that as soon as a large-scale universal quantum computer is built, you will not be able to rely on the security of any scheme based on these problems."

"To quantify the security of cryptosystems, "bits of security" are used. You can think of this as a function of the number of steps needed to crack a system by the most efficient attack. A system with 112 bits of security would take 2112 steps to crack, which would take the best computers available today billions of years. Algorithms approved by NIST provide at least 112 bits of security."

"AES-128 and RSA-2048 both provide adequate security against classical attacks, but not against quantum attacks. Doubling the AES key length to 256 results in an acceptable 128 bits of security, while increasing the RSA key by more than a factor of 7.5 has little effect against quantum attacks."

"When large-scale universal quantum computers are built, you will still be able to securely use symmetric encryption algorithms, but not the systems like RSA and Diffie-Hellman. These PKC systems are widely used today to create digital signatures or to securely transmit symmetric encryption keys."

"Fortunately, there are several families of quantum-resistant PKC systems: Lattice-based, code-based, hash-based, isogeny-based, and multivariate systems. NIST's Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography describes each of these families."

Encryption will still exist with more compute and new systems but it will evolve. That doesn't mean keys of the past will that aren't updated.

Additionally every cryptography expert know the system is only as good as the keys not being found,

I like how you cut out that sentence to disregard the context...

The rest is "and that can come from other means not just breaking the algorithm or brute force... it can be how the key was created and what tool was used."

Actual experts do not say this. Why do you keep repeating this with zero evidence?

Again let's get the full quote not the biased selective clip you made for you context "With time all encryption will be broken, we may be gone by then but maybe something comes along that changes the game. History is filled with leaps that were not expected. The early keys will get weaker and weaker over time, that is fact."

If you have a problem with that statement you have a problem.

I gave examples you brushed off. You can agree to disagree but historically most crypto either is broken or has trapdoors for export even, so you don't need to break the algorithms, you might just need info on the tools. Try using any non approved encryption algorithm for communicating with defense/military, you'll get a visit from the FBI.

More than anything, I'm fascinated when someone makes an outrageous claim, someone gives them evidence that it is completely false, they give zero evidence that backs it up, yet they dig in, repeat their claim, distract from it and try everything to not just admit they don't actually know what they're saying.

I am fascinated as well when someone entirely disregards the point of the post and tries to tell others they know everything. I even said it might take longer than lifetimes or the universe even to break the algorithms, yet you still can't get past that point. Quite fascinating indeed.

No, I'm responding to things you said and you keep trying to distract from them instead of admitting there is no evidence for what you said.

No I already alluded to the time situation, it doesn't matter much in the main point of my comment.

The concentration of currency in digital currencies is a problem and makes people that own that leveragable or too powerful.

The longer it takes to find/break the keys the more the value will be worth potentially...

Yes that is my entire point. You just laser focused in on cryptographic algorithms and not all the things around it. The first sentence of my first comment was a bit salacious but a lead in to the dangers of concentration in currency, and the power people have, or want to take, of the early owners.

Yes I do believe cryptographers know that not all tools and keys will stand the test of time, especially keys made in 2008... just as cyber security people know even with the best security there is always dependency holes, social engineering, and tools that can be trojan horses.

The point was, of my comment, not shifting goal posts, the concentration in digital currency is a problem and is an even bigger problem with large swaths of it in keys out there floating around, either found physically or other means.

You seem a bit combative, you are starting in with the selective context clipping so let's just agree to disagree on the rest. You have been successful in completely derailing the main point... if that was your goal, Good job!

find a cryptography expert that agrees with you

Do you think they'd be biased to answer in a certain way?

Additionally every cryptography expert know the system is only as good as the keys not being found, and that can come from other means not just breaking the algorithm or brute force... it can be how the key was created and what tool was used.

With time all encryption will be broken, we may be gone by then but maybe something comes along that changes the game. History is filled with leaps that were not expected. The early keys will get weaker and weaker over time, that is fact.

In any case, you are focusing on the wrong thing. I was talking about this concerned about the contentration in currency as the problem, not necessarily the encryption/key.

Exactly... we don't know yet.

Blast from the past, the Excel easter egg. Solid.

You originally said that "quantum computers will be able to break satoshi's keys"

I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin."

As one part of my message. Now read the second, longer part.

Summary: "Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties." Not just for Bitcoin either.

What I was getting as we the concentration part and because of the amount, the desire to find Satoshi's (and other early crypto) keys will be immense whether that comes from technology or physically located.

Those keys are locked in earlier encryption algorithms and will be easier over time, maybe a long time, but still.

The longer the time actually the more concentration it may have depending on many factors but still.

The other concentration problems have also been seen in other areas like hosted wallets and shared mining sites/services. Situations for control of large amounts would be some hosted wallet sites being compromised and collecting keys or even using exploits/holes without the keys then issuing a broad push of many accounts at once, or even slowly.

Concentration in wealth, currently and banking is always a problem. In newer financial markets with less regulation there are always more gaps from many facets to technology to processes and tools.

I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key.

If you have some insight to the tool that created the key you could, lots of systems have doors by design, typically by creators or regulation for export.

My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. If they aren't broken then actually found, and that much concentration is too much. It creates a rug pull for an entire currency ecosystem. Other crypto coins are even worse in this aspect.

You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past.

You are basing this on modern tech. Making the same mistakes of people of the past. Right now I said AES-256 would take longer than the universe in existence, I get the orders of magnitude. I just think people base these ideas off of the present, not the future.

"some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak."

Do you believe in 40 years we won't have advancements that may make this statement look silly? Right now they are secure, we don't know what is to come.

That is besides the point though, the keys are dangerous as they are concentration of leverage/power of not just a stock, but a currency...

You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever.

You are making the same mistakes of time, you don't know what is to come and the past has shown previous algorithms actually last LESS time than they expected. It does play into it.

Let's simplify this because you are lost in the weeds and resorting to ad hominems.

Do you think it is a good idea that a currency has keys out there, that can be found either directly or with time, that have heavy concentration?

Is concentrated unknown wealth of a currency, the root of all financial systems and power, a good idea?

Might be misdirection PR because of the recent Okta issues which were directly at Okta. [1] Okta having lots of issues last few years. [2]

[1] https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/10/okta-says-hackers-b...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okta,_Inc.#Security_incidents

I like the thinking and dependencies are a weight that make at least personal projects more maintenance long term, even if they help in the short term.

This doesn't fly at clients/customers usually but what you control needs to be highly maintainable and simple. Whatever works for you to achieve this is good. In regards to personal projects or internal products, in that case a framework with massive dependencies just isn't easier to maintain long term over simple web standards and market standard formats like HTML/CSS/JSON/Markdown/etc.

My only complaint is the lack of capitalization on the content, so many tech/devs do this, just don't. Even Sam Altman...

How dare you not capitalize in a capitalist system. /s

Seriously though, just capitalize your sentences.

Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system. Easiest way is finding/stealing the keys but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure". There may even be ways to target earlier keys easier than later. It could take decades but it will happen.

Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? 40-bit SSL certificates, Triple-DES encryption and MD5 + SHA-1 hashing would like a word. AES-256 could outlast the universe but that is based on our current knowledge, and sometimes encryption systems have doors, not only in the algorithm but the tooling that does the encrypting... the creators of bitcoin tools they used for keys may also be a weak link or even had doors they put in themselves as a failsafe, humans tend to do that due to game theory.

Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far.

Even if that holds, the chance that someone finds the keys or tracks them down, might be faster and most likely will happen as time goes on.

The point being mainly that too much concentration in any financial system is a time bomb.

Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin.

Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties.

Satoshi owns 5% of bitcoin. Other crypto coins are more concentrated and more problematic. This isn't like a large institutional investor in a public stock, this is a large percentage of all currency.

The rug pull was set from the beginning.

The identity probably isn't one person but there are people that stand out.

Nick Szabo has been potentially mentioned as Satoshi for sometime [1] due to him working on decentralized currencies since 1998 with Bit Gold [2]. Elon Musk mentioned Nick Szabo on Lex Fridman's podcast as Szabo was also doing Bit Gold prior and is heavy into crypto and currencies. [3]

"Obviously I don't know who created bitcoin ... it seems as though Nick Szabo is probably more than anyone else responsible for the evolution of those ideas," said Musk, adding, "he claims not to be Nakamoto ... but he seems to be the one more responsible for the ideas behind it than anyone else."

Szabo is best known as the inventor of one of bitcoin’s predecessors, Bit Gold, and digital smart contracts—which eventually evolved to become a key part of the ethereum blockchain. Szabo has previously denied he's Satoshi Nakamoto, telling financial author Dominic Frisby in 2014, "I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it."

Szabo's full name is Nicholas Szabo [4]. Just seems quite a bit like Satoshi Nakamoto. It feels like there is something there potentially.

He uses his initials for his Pseudonyms (N.S)

Nakamoto Satoshi = Bitcoin

Nicholas Saberhagen = Monero

Bit Gold was maybe to test out interest, then when the real one was made it would be more anonymous. If you think about it, bitcoin being anonymous is a feature as it makes it seem less centralized eventhough Satoshi owns a large chunk of it. Today companies or individuals will control a large chunk of other coins/platforms and it feels more centralized or even autocratic. At any time those big fish could wreak havoc. Satoshi seems more hands off. Another potential reason is the money it would generate and the recognition would attract too much attention. The successful decentralized currency like bitcoin might have been foreseen as a threat to the creator after it takes off and gains in value.

From the wiki on Nick Szabo, he is more 'reclusive' and not wanting to be known. On his blog he mentioned his intent on creating a live version of the currency as Bit Gold was more of a prototype/demo and was never launched. Even the name Bit Gold and bitcoin are very similar as is the name Nicholas Szabo (N.S.) and Satoshi Nakamoto (S.N.) in a few ways. Satoshi Nakamoto always seems like a purposeful shroud of a name, looking for someone by that name is probably not going to find them:

Nathaniel Popper wrote in The New York Times that "the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo." In 2008, prior to the release of bitcoin, Szabo wrote a comment on his blog about the intent of creating a live version of his hypothetical currency. [1]

Hal Finney was the first to receive 10 bitcoins from Satoshi Nakamoto [5][6]. Hal Finney was the next employee after Phil Zimmermann at PGP. So he knew the potential for being pursued by governments for software creations. Hal, who died in 2014 unfortunately, probably knew Satoshi and would have known he was shrouding/anonymous for good reasons as seen in the PGP history just before that and around the same time bit gold was being created.

The very likely people to be Satoshi Nakamoto are Nick Szabo and Hal Finney due to the early interactions and transactions, and potentially Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, but that seems unlikely they would use their real name [7]. Maybe it was all three or someone else entirely, these guys are just around the early days and some of the first transactions. Either that or someone or some group saw the need for decentralized currency from their efforts and then front ran them and made it seem more like them to help shroud themselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Bit_gold

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/12/28/elon-...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo#Satoshi_Nakamoto_sp...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto#Possible_iden...