More evidence that Bitcoin was created by the US government

[Alpha Marine]

When a person has a conspiracy theory in his head, every argument you want to make against it will be deflected, and you will keep going round and round.
It's similar with people who claim the moon landing was faked. No matter the evidence you provide that it was not, you can't convince them, so there is no point. What I always ask is, "What is the endgame?" What could be the reason the US intelligence agencies would create Bitcoin? And of course, it's normal for conspiracy theorists to come up with another excuse where they put two things together even though they are completely different, but I have never heard a sound argument on why the US government would create something like Bitcoin. 

The idea of electronic cash has been in existence for a long time. Bitcoin was not even the first electronic. The idea of eCash and hashcash has been in existence since the 90s. The fact that Bitcoin was the first decentralised, blockchain-based cryptocurrency doesn't mean it is the first time the idea has been published.
So you can't use the fact that an intelligent agency did research on an idea to say they created Bitcoin.

I can't come here to say Bitcoin was created by the US government, nor can I say it was not created by the US government. But the evidence and endgame don't show what they stand to gain from a completely decentralised and transparent currency. 
I am of the school of thought that there can be truths to some rumours or conspiracy. Maybe Satoshi had worked for an intelligence agency before, like the NSA. Maybe some people in the organisation assisted him and helped him/them disappear. But they are all maybes, and there is no need to act like you have an answer.

[legiteum]

I can't come here to say Bitcoin was created by the US government, nor can I say it was not created by the US government.

Same here.

But the evidence and endgame don't show what they stand to gain from a completely decentralised and transparent currency.

I'm against conspiracy theories too, and the idea that the two million employees of the US Federal Government all act in lockstep unison based on some complicated analysis of the what the US supposedly stands to gain from a small project is... a conspiracy theory. The fallacy involves believing this collection of employees is a unified hive mind that makes decisions like an individual would--and that individual is also mistaken about Bitcoin's potential impact.

The fallacy also involves the misjudgment that Bitcoin somehow damages the USA, which after 17 years it hasn't done so in the slightest, and now the US president owns a half billion dollars in Bitcoin and it's just another asset traded on our markets. People love this idea that Bitcoin "brings down the traditional financial system" and whatnot, but it simply does no such thing--and there's no way anybody would seriously believe it could. Hence this idea that "the US would never do that" is false on multiple levels.

Neither Satoshi nor anybody else at the time of Bitcoin's creation had any idea what the future would be, and surely most thought it wouldn't amount to anything at all (based on the market price). This fallacy is called The Historian's Fallacy, which is when people look at Bitcoin's $1 trillion market cap and project that backwards assuming that's what Satoshi knew they were creating it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

[suzanne5223]

I will believe you said this based on what you are also willing to know, but who are the jobless people who spent millions searching for Satoshi when they should have spent that money helping people who actually need it?

There have been many journalists, and they even made a movie out of the question. I don't think those people are... jobless. Quite the contrary, they have made a good living trying to find Satoshi, which is based on very significant demand for this question to be answered.

Trillions of dollars are spent each year on things that are more trivial than this. Humans love their entertainment after all.

They have made a good living trying to convince people they know who Satoshi not trying to find Satoshi. Therefore, they leverage their money making on selling fake information to the public because they know it's a story that will sell.
This is why I consider the journalist to be jobless because they are chasing after someone that invented the currency that innovated how we see digital currency/asset instead of them doing something that will also change the world positively.

The significant demand for who Satoshi was is from the people who are not Bitcoiners and are looking for something or someone to sue for the decentralization of BTC.

[danadc]

There are many theories, and it's not wrong to start exploring things that seem far-fetched, but I don't believe that BTYC was created by the US government. I'm more inclined to think that Satoshi was a group of people, or perhaps I like to think that maybe he was the creator of Apple, but I don't believe it was a government. Even if the government had the best intentions, I don't think so.

It's not worth revealing who Satoshi was; the fact that we don't know who he was is what makes the story even more fascinating.

[shinratensei_]

There is discussion on X between Nicolas Bacca, ledger co-founder and Adam Back from Blockstream about the NIST curves mystery seed that recently got solved by Claude, Nicolas Bacca is saying that industry spent years avoiding NIST curve only for the mystery turning out to be benign and Adam Back and Pete Kim from Coinbase Wallet lead confronted that the choice of secp256k1 over P-256 (r1), insinuating that if BTC were made by government it would've used NIST/NSA curve which might be interesting fact to know regarding this discussion.

[legiteum]

The significant demand for who Satoshi was is from the people who are not Bitcoiners and are looking for something or someone to sue for the decentralization of BTC.

Um, you don't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. It is not a secret system run by some guy named Satoshi. Finding Satoshi would not de-decentralized Bitcoin. 

Regardless, I think the much simpler explanation is that people are curious...

[bitbollo]

there is for sure an undeniable fact: who has written the whitepaper was for sure an academic at university "of certain level".
this cannot exclude or confirm your theory but it's another clue about bitcoin origin: it can't be a work made by an "amateur" likewise a good student of highschool.
The paper has been written by some expert in academic writing - Post PhD if not full professor somewhere.  Has some nuances that requires years to be mastered.
Just imagine, how much time was required if it was only one single person to make all of this?

[m2017]

There is lots of circumstantial evidence--although no direct evidence--that "Satoshi" was a person or team working within the US government.

If the government were involved in this, they surely wouldn’t have left any evidence behind, not even circumstantial traces. Do you really think those organizations don’t know how to cover their tracks?

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA including Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto:

How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash

So, should we now suspect every employee in organizations with a Japanese name of actually being Satoshi?

If I were a guy named Satoshi of Japanese descent who wanted to conceal his true origins, the very last thing I would do is adopt a Japanese pseudonym.

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

The only connection here is that the names are of Japanese origin. There are about ~120 million such instances worldwide.

My circumstantial evidence of "Satoshi" being a person or team within a US agency is as follows:

1. The US government has thousands of employees who do research and have the time and opportunity to do a project like Bitcoin.

Of course, it is easier to carry out any undertaking when you have a group of people on a state salary and access to sponsorship. However, enthusiasts, driven by their ideas and a desire to see them realized, will pour all their own resources (time and money) into bringing their dreams to life, simply because they are far more motivated.

2. Various US government agencies i.e. the NSA, CIA and DARPA, have the expertise to pull off the necessary tradecraft to hide the identity of Satoshi. It's doubtful that a mere amateur individual could pull stay anonymous under such intense scrutiny as Satoshi has undergone.

I’m also inclined to think that Satoshi might actually be a group of people (after all, it’s easier to carry out a project as a team) though it’s certainly not impossible for an individual to do it alone.

I don’t see anything implausible about Satoshi maintaining his anonymity. He simply did something quite modest (yet nonetheless valuable): he didn’t go around sharing unnecessary details about himself.

3. US government employees, especially ones working for spy agencies like the CIA and the NSA, and especially those whom are not field agents are not ideological. Moreover, they don't all operate as part of a coordinated strategic plan. The idea that "the US would never create Bitcoin because it hates Bitcoin" is utterly ignorant. The two million employees of the US government don't operate that way, and the CIA/NSA definitely doesn't operate that way.

I agree with you here: the government is not a single organism with a collective mind, but rather a collection of disparate structures -and the projects being developed by any one of them are often unknown to the other parts of this supposed "single organism".

But, then again, that still doesn't prove anything.

4. Satoshi never spent a single sat. This fact is simply impossible to overlook, and there is only one reasonable explanation for it: that he/she/they couldn't spend their Bitcoin--even a dollar's worth to try it out--because to do so would create a massive paperwork shit storm within the US government.

That’s already a conspiracy theory.

The explanation could be simpler: Satoshi didn’t need the money (for instance, due to a terminal illness), and he might not have had time to use it (because he died). Why is my theory any worse than yours?

Then as Bitcoin got bigger, the problem got bigger. (And only the US government is big enough to ignore $hundreds of billions just to keep a state secret).

The U.S. government can easily print money out of thin air, even without bitcoin. Why would they want to complicate things?

I continue to solicit comments that will disprove this theory. So far I have heard nothing even remotely compelling. All I have gotten so far is:

I didn’t see anything that could prove your theory. Your arguments are completely unconvincing.

1. Satoshi was just a nice guy who didn't want any money. Besides being against everything we know about human nature going back thousands of years, it also doesn't explain how "some guy" could maintain the tradecraft necessary to keep himself hidden like this.

Satoshi could have had other sources of income, couldn't he? If he managed to pull off the "Bitcoin" project, he surely possessed the skills required to secure a decent standard of living for himself. Also, don't forget that some people, when deeply engrossed in a project, aren't necessarily driven by the desire to make money; for them, the "obsession" with bringing their idea or project to life may be what matters most.

You are overstating the level of hidden involved.

2. Satoshi died before he could spend anything. This doesn't explain why he didn't spend even a single sat, and doesn't explain why he formally said goodbye before he stopped posting, which goes against the idea that he died suddenly.

Because at that time, bitcoin was worth nothing.

That, in fact, explains everything quite well.

What’s to stop people from dying after an official farewell? He might have known that his days were numbered, for instance, due to an illness.

[Cleanshit]

Am with you on this. Most people do always assume that Satoshi only owns the famous untouched stash of coins.

Come to think of it, what if he mined on other computers with different wallets ? Like you made mention also we do see old 2009 or 2010 wallets showing up out of nowhere to sell out some coins. Satoshi might be one of this early whales cashing out cold deadly without drawing any attention to self.

The whole US government theory is just an overthinking things. Cause the main know wallet has not moved does not mean the creator has not spent a single sat.

For sometime now this question has been raised in my through adding to what you have said people think the famous and untouchable stash is all he has but that could not be, if you think about very well you might see that he could have minded it on a different computer just as you have made mention in fact him could use different wallets like any Dev testing code

Till date even the US government theory are overthinking it, If he wanted to stay hidden, leaving the famous stash untouched while using small test wallets is exactly what he would do but the picture is not still clearly, and humanly speaking all this about bitcoin were planned out before every move…if you have ever watched Money heist you might a picture of what am trying to say….

[legiteum]

4. Satoshi never spent a single sat. This fact is simply impossible to overlook, and there is only one reasonable explanation for it: that he/she/they couldn't spend their Bitcoin--even a dollar's worth to try it out--because to do so would create a massive paperwork shit storm within the US government.

That’s already a conspiracy theory.

The explanation could be simpler: Satoshi didn’t need the money (for instance, due to a terminal illness), and he might not have had time to use it (because he died). Why is my theory any worse than yours?

I guess I base my theory on an understanding of human nature, life experience, and basic logic. As in, it's simply impossible that somebody would not spend anything if for no other reason than to see if it works.

It's also impossible for me to believe that somebody would just disregard millions--or even billions--of dollars. They could have given it to charity, their family, the EFF, or any number of things.

On the other hand, the US government theory explains that perfectly: that the sats could not be spent lest the action reveal an important state secret.

Then as Bitcoin got bigger, the problem got bigger. (And only the US government is big enough to ignore $hundreds of billions just to keep a state secret).

The U.S. government can easily print money out of thin air, even without bitcoin. Why would they want to complicate things?

That is actually my point about it being the US government in particular: no human individual could disregard billions of dollars, only a government could, and this is so much money that it would have to be the US government in particular.

Satoshi could have had other sources of income, couldn't he?

That made him $80 billion? Um... no.

2. Satoshi died before he could spend anything. This doesn't explain why he didn't spend even a single sat, and doesn't explain why he formally said goodbye before he stopped posting, which goes against the idea that he died suddenly.

Because at that time, bitcoin was worth nothing.

That, in fact, explains everything quite well.

What’s to stop people from dying after an official farewell? He might have known that his days were numbered, for instance, due to an illness.

He was still around when Bitcoin was tradable to USD. My point was that any normal person--especially an engineer proud of their work--would at least try it out.

And if he knew his days were numbered we would have made arrangements for the billions of dollars, and, frankly, it's impossible to imagine somebody wouldn't want to at least tell the world who they were after they were gone (and this all assumes he wasn't close to another living soul whom he cared enough about to leave them his money and/or knowledge).

I agree this is all a theory in absence of direct proof, but I have yet to see a theory that doesn't involve believing a lot of very unbelievable things...

[abaeze]

I have never thought about the fact that Bitcoin was created by a government, rather I believe that it is always against the government and against the conventional fiat economy, but I have read your entire post and now I feel that Bitcoin was not invented by a single person, but a team or multiple people created it with a lot of research and hard work. So without proof, it would not be right to say that Bitcoin was created by the US government and I can't prove that it was not created by the government but I can present some arguments, but even that will not solve this conspiracy theory. Because it is now a lot of faith involved. However, we believe the story of Satoshi Nakamoto very well and the reasons given behind believing it are not wrong or unbelievable.

Finally, I will say that no matter who or what creates Bitcoin, if its good aspects and good uses can be realized, then all the governments and people of all countries in the world will have to be accepted it and its volatility will attract people to invest.Therefore, it is better not to come to a single decision on the conspiracy issue and let the matter remain as it is.

[nullius]

You fucking racist troll, idiot, and liar, this paper wasn’t even written by the person with the Japanese name:

There is lots of circumstantial evidence--although no direct evidence--that "Satoshi" was a person or team working within the US government.

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA including Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto:

How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

It’s not the first time I’ve seen that paper, by the way; the paper is very well-known.  But whether or not others here have seen it before, any literate person who clicks the link can see that you are lying:

HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH

Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas

National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology

Cryptology Division

18 June 1996

Tatsuaki Okamoto did not write that NSA paper—and in fact, Okamoto did not work for NSA.  Okamoto is a famous cryptographer (arguably best known for co-discovering the FO transform), a Japanese citizen, who worked for NTT (the Japanese telephone company; think of it like Japanese AT&T/Bell Labs).

Some of Okamoto’s work is discussed in §4.2 and §5 of Law’s, Sabett’s, and Solinas’ paper—and thus, three papers authored or co-authored by Okamoto are amongst the 14 papers cited by Law, Sabett, and Solinas.

Oh, but Tatsuaki Okamoto is a Japanese name like “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  All japs are the same, amirite?  And Okamoto is mentioned and cited in the paper, so Okamoto wrote the paper.

As a rule of thumb, Hanlon’s razor suggests that I should call you merely stupid, not malicious.  However, this is far too blatant and too ridiculous to be adequately explained by only stupidity.  The only plausible explanation is stupidity, plus Alex Jones tier dishonesty.

Therefore, I am giving you red distrust.  This is not mere disagreement of opinion:  You’re a grifter spreading misinformation.  You should not be trusted with money, either.

Your unedited OP is archived.  (Page 2, page 3 shortly before my post.)

P.S., don’t bother making excuses like “a superintelligent AI summarized it for me” or “a dog ate my homework” or whatever.  You are responsible for what you write—and when what you write falls into the category of totally making shit up, no reasonable person will believe your excuses, anyway.

Thanks.  After I wasted time skimming the first two pages of the thread, you saved me some time writing my post.  You made one-and-a-half of the four major points I wanted to.

When a person has a conspiracy theory in his head, every argument you want to make against it will be deflected, and you will keep going round and round.

Yup.  Tenfold so when they can weave a bullshit story that just sounds too good for them, as a tall tale to tell others.

The idea of electronic cash has been in existence for a long time. Bitcoin was not even the first electronic. The idea of eCash and hashcash has been in existence since the 90s. The fact that Bitcoin was the first decentralised, blockchain-based cryptocurrency doesn't mean it is the first time the idea has been published.
So you can't use the fact that an intelligent agency did research on an idea to say they created Bitcoin.

Notwithstanding a few ambiguous technical errors (see below), at least you know some of the context.  Why does no one else in this thread know Bitcoin’s antecedent historical context?

I add (a) Cypherpunks, and (b) academic research.  Satoshi cleverly assembled years and decades of others’ ideas in a new form.

Corrections or clarifications:  Despite the name, Hashcash was not electronic money; it was an antispam system, first proposed by Adam Back on Cypherpunks in 1997.  The blockchain itself was first invented by Satoshi (based on decades of old ideas, such as Hashcash, and such as Merkle trees invented by Ralph Merkle in 1979).

My third major point:  Bitcoin was patently invented by an amateur.  I should write a post about that sometime.  But this thread is not the appropriate place for it.

Suffice it here to note that much of Bitcoin’s design and original implementation are riddled with mistakes, which no cryptographer (let alone a team of NSA cryptographers) would have made.  I am on record as saying that Bitcoin Core is rock-solid—but that’s only because crypto-wizards and A-grade software engineers have devoted years of their lives to cleaning up Satoshi’s mess.  Nonetheless, Bitcoin still bears the imprint of design by one lone, intelligent, passionate, idiosyncratic, slightly paranoid amateur.

My fourth major point is at the start of this post.  Even if no one else here has ever seen the [Law, Sabett, and Solinas 1996] paper, do people check the link to see if it supports what is claimed!?

Note:  I started to write this post when I sent merit to Alpha Marine, at 2026-10-25T02:56:28Z.  I see now that some other replies have been made—one mentioning something about the foolishness of latching onto a Japanese name, but somehow not noticing that Okamoto didn’t even contribute to the NSA paper!  WTF, is everyone blind?

[shahzadafzal]

There is lots of circumstantial evidence–although no direct evidence–that “Satoshi” was a person or team working within the US government.

Forget about whether the US government created Bitcoin or whether Satoshi was a single person or a team. Just look at Bitcoin today!

Look around and try to wrap your head around how big Bitcoin has become. Do you seriously think today the US government, or any government for that matter, can simply control it or shut it down?

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Bitcoin was indeed created by the US government. Does that mean the US government controls it today? Who actually runs Bitcoin?

That’s the beauty of Bitcoin. It’s a decentralized, global network that doesn’t depend on any single government, institution, or authority to operate. Governments can regulate its use, restrict access, or even attempt to suppress it, but controlling the entire network is a completely different challenge.

Bitcoin’s strength comes from its mathematics, cryptography, proof-of-work, consensus rules, and the trust people place in a system they can independently verify rather than in any central authority.

And if you’ve read the original Bitcoin whitepaper, you’ll know that Satoshi never claimed to have invented everything from scratch.

Bitcoin didn’t just appear overnight. It was the culmination of decades of research and earlier ideas. The whitepaper itself includes eight references, including Wei Dai’s b-money and Adam Back’s Hashcash.

Satoshi studied and built upon these earlier concepts, combining existing ideas with crucial innovations into something that had never successfully existed before: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system without a trusted central authority.

So whether Satoshi was one person, a group of developers, or even a government project, the real question is:

Does anyone control Bitcoin today?

And that’s precisely why Bitcoin’s design matters far more than the identity of its creator. ₿

[legiteum]

My third major point:  Bitcoin was patently invented by an amateur.[/anchor]  I should write a post about that sometime.  But this thread is not the appropriate place for it.

Suffice it here to note that much of Bitcoin’s design and original implementation are riddled with mistakes, which no cryptographer (let alone a team of NSA cryptographers) would have made.  I am on record as saying that Bitcoin Core is rock-solid—but that’s only because crypto-wizards and A-grade software engineers have devoted years of their lives to cleaning up Satoshi’s mess.  Nonetheless, Bitcoin still bears the imprint of design by one lone, intelligent, passionate, idiosyncratic, slightly paranoid amateur.

This is consistent with Satoshi being an average software worker within the CIA/NSA/DARPA/etc. Just because you work in a US government agency, that doesn't mean you are an expert on... anything. It's also consistent with a small group as well. Again, just because you have a project in one of these agencies doesn't mean your project garners the input of every single expert within the US government, or even anybody else besides yourself for that matter.

As for the rest of your apoplectic post... dude, calm down...  

[Upgrade00]

3 pages on you are still passing conjecture as theory and asking that yo be disproved. I have seen a lot better conspiracy theories on satoshi's identity online which stemmed from actual curiosity.
Why do you think the US government created and maintains bitcoin?

Neither Satoshi nor anybody else at the time of Bitcoin's creation had any idea what the future would be, and surely most thought it wouldn't amount to anything at all (based on the market price). This fallacy is called The Historian's Fallacy, which is when people look at Bitcoin's $1 trillion market cap and project that backwards assuming that's what Satoshi knew they were creating it.

When you design something to gradually trickle in for the next 140 years before the supply is completed you do have a future plan. This plan was never based on the price either but on the application. People who joined in first were inherently curious and fascinated by the potential of the creation and not fixated on the price as you suggest.

[Taskford]

My third major point:  Bitcoin was patently invented by an amateur.[/anchor]  I should write a post about that sometime.  But this thread is not the appropriate place for it.

Suffice it here to note that much of Bitcoin’s design and original implementation are riddled with mistakes, which no cryptographer (let alone a team of NSA cryptographers) would have made.  I am on record as saying that Bitcoin Core is rock-solid—but that’s only because crypto-wizards and A-grade software engineers have devoted years of their lives to cleaning up Satoshi’s mess.  Nonetheless, Bitcoin still bears the imprint of design by one lone, intelligent, passionate, idiosyncratic, slightly paranoid amateur.

This is consistent with Satoshi being an average software worker within the CIA/NSA/DARPA/etc. Just because you work in a US government agency, that doesn't mean you are an expert on... anything. It's also consistent with a small group as well. Again, just because you have a project in one of these agencies doesn't mean your project garners the input of every single expert within the US government, or even anybody else besides yourself for that matter.

As for the rest of your apoplectic post... dude, calm down...  

So do you really think Bitcoin is a side project of government?

Look at Bitcoin, its design shows the creators have deep expertise on economics, cryptography and also how to distribute it well. That form is not actually just like a side project which random employee of government can easily build.

That innovative creation is created by well verse crypherpunk and not just an average random bored dude.

[gracreavix]

You might say Satoshi once worked for the US government. That might fly. But saying the US government created Bitcoin is not true. Take a look at world today. Who rules the world? USA of course. They love control. Bitcoin on the other hand is a stand alone entity. No government can control it. So tell me, for a country that loves control, will it be happy over Bitcoin creation? No.

Look at it again from this angle, the USA loves to give sanctions and Bitcoin can make countries that sanctions are imposed on them to bypass that. So how will that ever favour the US?

[suzanne5223]

The significant demand for who Satoshi was is from the people who are not Bitcoiners and are looking for something or someone to sue for the decentralization of BTC.

Um, you don't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. It is not a secret system run by some guy named Satoshi. Finding Satoshi would not de-decentralized Bitcoin. 

Regardless, I think the much simpler explanation is that people are curious...

I know perfectly well what i am saying. Ask yourself why is who Satoshi was is such a big deal that some people spent billions on knowing who he was, if it's not for shady purposes?
Satoshi identity not been know is the reason why some people didn't sue him for the features of Bitcoin because some people never like the idea BTC.
An example. Is Tornado cash which some people use to it some ETH years ago, and the person who developed it was prosecuted years ago.

[Luzin]

I know perfectly well what i am saying. Ask yourself why is who Satoshi was is such a big deal that some people spent billions on knowing who he was, if it's not for shady purposes?
Satoshi identity not been know is the reason why some people didn't sue him for the features of Bitcoin because some people never like the idea BTC.
An example. Is Tornado cash which some people use to it some ETH years ago, and the person who developed it was prosecuted years ago.

I have never questioned who created Bitcoin. But claiming that the U.S. government made it, I am not sure. I am puzzled by people who keep trying to find out who Satoshi is. Even those who claim to be Satoshi cannot prove they are right. Various attempts to convince many people about who created Bitcoin must be prepared with proof and be ready for their historical traces to be exposed. No one will easily believe various arguments unless they are accompanied by valid and verifiable evidence. 
Today I am not curious about who Satoshi is, but I am very grateful for how his genius was able to bring the vision of the future world. What needs to be done now is to continue being an agent of change according to the decentralized vision. So that Bitcoin can be accepted by countries as a means of transaction. If this happens, Satoshi would be happy to see it if he were still alive. CMIIW

[suzanne5223]

I know perfectly well what i am saying. Ask yourself: why is who Satoshi was such a big deal that some people spent billions trying to find out, if it's not for shady purposes?
Satoshi's identity not being known is the reason why some people didn't sue him for the features of Bitcoin, because some people never liked the idea of BTC.
An example. Is Tornado cash which some people use to it some ETH years ago, and the person who developed it was prosecuted years ago.

I have never questioned who created Bitcoin. But claiming that the U.S. government made it, I am not sure. I am puzzled by people who keep trying to find out who Satoshi is. Even those who claim to be Satoshi cannot prove they are right. Various attempts to convince many people about who created Bitcoin must be prepared with proof and be ready for their historical traces to be exposed. No one will easily believe various arguments unless they are accompanied by valid and verifiable evidence. 
Today I am not curious about who Satoshi is, but I am very grateful for how his genius was able to bring the vision of the future world. What needs to be done now is to continue being an agent of change according to the decentralized vision. So that Bitcoin can be accepted by countries as a means of transaction. If this happens, Satoshi would be happy to see it if he were still alive. CMIIW

Same here.
That's why I consider the people who are after the search for Satoshi's identity to be jobless individuals and due to how some of them are spreading false information to make money out off the people or to gain trends through their social media.
Second, I never want the identity of Satoshi to be known  because some people or organizations will find a reason to sue him.
If we have people who sue someone who saves them from getting hit by the car for inappropriate touch. I won't be surprised if we have some people who will want Satoshi to be jailed if his identity is revealed.