Giving Hal the title of Satoshi is not a bad thing, and honors his contributions since 1993 in developing PGP, proof of work, and hash cash and elliptic curve methods.
If Hal was not Satoshi, then he was a parent.
When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them.
I have only now realized the importance of this. Hal must have been the third person connected, or blocks 1-70 would not have been mined. Perhaps Hal had mining off, or Satoshi used two computers?
Adding to that Hal's wallet:
It was not an unreasonable assumption to believe Hal is the Satoshi. There are many threads, here, on other forums, and in professional articles articulating such a belief. Perhaps I could have framed it differently, but this was a question about the implications of if Hal was Satoshi, which is different than whether Hal is the individual behind the original pseudonym.
In terms of implications, there was an attempted extortion on Hal when he was alive beyond what Hal possessed. We know Hal's politic (a libertarian with Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged type). Hopefully his family will be ok.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/?sh=7eff57934a37Thank you for your responses.
