Edit: I misread the initial post, but still think what I wrote is reasonably relevant. Had I been Satoshi (and I'm not), I would have no trouble not talking about it.

I think this is unlikely. I think it is much more likely that he deleted his keys -- on purpose. Despite the common "Bitcoin was created as a scam" sentiment, I see very little evidence of this. Satoshi appears to have just been a very idealistic person who thought that he was doing something useful. From the beginning he said that he shouldn't hang on to those initial coins because it would undermine the validity of the currency. Out of curiosity I've read through a fair amount of the original dev forum archives (I forget where they are, but I'm sure they are not hard to find -- last time I looked I found them right away). As far as I can tell, it is what it appears to be. Which is not, of course, to say that there aren't plenty of scammers in the Bitcoin world. It just seems that Satoshi wasn't one of them.

Plenty of artists have tried to stay anonymous.

Happy to stay anonymous and leave a huge amount of money alone is an unusual mix, but the diversity of how people think should surprise no one.

Name an artist who has stayed anonymous under focused public scrutiny as effectively as Satoshi. The only one I can think of that comes close to this level of exposure is Banksy, and his identity is right there on his Wikipedia page for anyone who really cares to know.

Besides, Banksy does plenty of communication despite his supposed anonymity. It's not the anonymity; the total lack of communication from Satoshi is what makes me suspect he is dead. Even famously reclusive artists such as Bill Watterson don't cut off all communication with everyone.

The claim that it was impossible because of human nature is what I’m challenging.

You asked for an example: Jane Austen was anonymous until her death.

The anonymity of Jane Austen was not remotely similar to Satoshi. Plenty of people knew her identity. According to Wikipedia she was contacted directly by the king's librarian. Also that was in the 1700s! In Satoshi's case, it's possible that no person on Earth has ever known his true identity other than himself.

But that's all beside the point. You misunderstand my claim. I'm not claiming that it's unlikely for Satoshi to want to remain anonymous. What's unlikely is for a successful person to not talk to anyone, not a single other person in the world (as far as we know), about their success. Even people who value their privacy and anonymity very highly typically still want to communicate with other people somehow. Satoshi clearly had good communication skills, and knew how to communicate while remaining anonymous, so if you want to argue that he was some kind of loner recluse who rejected communication with other humans you'll have a tough time convincing me of that.

There was nothing stopping Satoshi re-joining and buying back 100,000 cheap coins once there was enough transactions to hide the fact that it wasn't him.

> No living person could resist the temptation to talk about their creation of a 100 billion dollar phenomenon.

This is a very strong claim, with precious little evidence. If you think this is impossible, you haven't met enough different kinds of people.