Rubbish.  
Satoshi's motivations to speak to you go against a lot of his established demeanor.  
Satoshi's motivations for anonymity were very likely (but of course, unproven) for reasons beyond making a puzzle for a community to figure out.  I've been spending the last several weeks looking into Satoshi's identity and in my research I have found a lot of clues that, if previously discovered, have not been published in an analysis or overview of someone else's research.  
In the event that you did find an identity from cryptographic clues, which by nature introduces a lot of exposure to false positives/leads, there isn't any evidence that the person you spoke to is actually Satoshi.  Of course you can always hide behind the "Well, I wont reveal my research otherwise someone else will find him/her" - but if that's what your research is grounded in, then you really shouldn't have made a post at all.  
The notion that Satoshi would not only welcome your communications but use it as a medium for communication to the community is absurd.  If he wanted to interact with the community/fanbase, he could through an alt. If he wanted to communicate with the developers in regards to bitcoin's development, he would privately as he has in the past.
Even if he lost all data that would allow him to cryptographically sign a message (which is something Satoshi rarely, if ever did), he would still have a decent shot at proving he is the real Satoshi by using his brain - his unique writing structure and vast knowledge of Bitcoin's code base and underlying theories would allow him to make contributions with or without proving his identity.  If you wrote a piece of revolutionary software, don't you think your understanding and therefore your potential contributions would be in the top 1% percentile compared to others?  
Of course, that's the point: Satoshi didn't have to do anything other than be careful with the variables that could pin point him down. The rest would be done by people like yourself, flooding search engines with innocuous, useless posts such as this, slowly building up the cancerous tumor of informational noise.  
From my research, I have found only 3 unfounded clues that can, at the very least, be verified as related to Satoshi's pseudonym (not to imply that those are the only ones out there). Its taken so long because of the enormous amount of web pages, articles, and posts that are flooded with SEO terms related to finding Satoshi's identity. Out of the 100s of articles and sites I've visited, I have found less than 10 sites with original theories that were actually researched to their logical conclusion. Everything else is the same rehashed dead theories such as CW, PLR, HF, ect. ect.

Unlike yourself, if I am to find his identity, I will not relish in being invited into a metaphorical "Secret club" that includes Satoshi like a fan in front of a celebrity with an inability to read a room. I wouldn't even contact him/her/them letting them know, as an incoming email to the real Satoshi that explains how he was found/that he was found could compromise his identity to certain groups/agencies that may be monitoring him - and you are very naive if you believe these groups/agencies are incapable of finding him. If I had the full backing of the US intelligence branches, I could find Satoshi's identity in a matter of hours, depending on how quickly certain websites respond to warrant. And that's assuming that I would even command them to do it in the eyes of the law -- look at Stuxnet and ask yourself if a group capable of that would be incapable of finding Satoshi through unconventional/gray area means (I'm aware these are different in scope, but that's splitting hairs for the encompassing analogy). Based on my research, Satoshi was more than aware of this and this need for anonymity in the 2 years after his departure actually makes finding him a bit easier by looking at potential identities and their abrupt change in their publicly available daily active activities online. This totally contradicts your totally baseless claim. Join the club with the other fake Satoshi's on twitter that post cryptographic clues to the "True identity of Satoshi" as if such a tide changing discovery would be held like a carrot on a stick.

In my opinion, this is why he left. The concept of anonymity through a pseudonym is flawed. Unless you adopt a totally new writing style and can cover the tracks of the circumstances of your activity (such as time zones), then you will slowly be leaking your identity. Obviously with the skills Satoshi displayed, that slow leak could be a few drops of water a day sinking a 200 foot boat -- not in our lifetime. But every single time he posted he essentially gave us a very small amount of data to use to pinpoint him. And he wrote a lot.  Every time stamp of a post, every gap of time without a post, ect is useful, actionable data.

So I'm very sorry if I'm breaking any of the forum's rules or gentlemen agreements of civility when I say: Fuck off with your flamboyantly written click bait post designed to do nothing but delude any intelligent conversation. And to those who subscribe to the "Satoshi's identity doesn't matter"/"Quit looking for Satoshi" school of thought - please grow up from your childish ideas of the space. The cypher/crypto communities have always been under watch by authorities (just take a look at the DEFCON FBI/CIA/NSA incidents/mentions). In addition to this, it's realistic that authority figures/employees would camouflage themselves as both low level and high level members of the community to influence discussion to learn more about something or to distract away from something. Consider Russia's interference with the American's election (keep your blue and red ties at the door, please) - such a simple thing (relative to advanced counter-intelligence/intelligence operations) that caused so much destabilization that it will likely take beyond our current generation to repair what damage has been done. Now imagine something more impactful than undermining the leading world dollar/petrodollar. Now I'm not saying that Satoshi's mission was this, but crypto communities have always operated under some form of the homage "trust, but verify". I'm not even sure Satoshi wanted to avoid the messiah-esque following with him and his words, assuming he was positive he wouldn't be ousted in his lifetime, because it reinforces that the creator of bitcoin was not for profit (yet).

TLDR: Post your research abstract or GTFO.