By removing himself from the picture Bitcoin stands alone, controlled by the masses - which is exactly how it ought be. If instead Al Gore created Bitcoin, it will be intrinsically tied with his name as some sort of central person which is contrary to the entire idea. The reason I think this is particularly important is because decentralization is generally going to be seen as intuitively impossible to laymen.
And the possibility of a person is always greater than the reality. Fischer is still the greatest chess champion to ever live in the minds of many, even though he only played in one world championship - and against a champion who was on his way out in any case. Him disappearing after a meteoric rise paradoxically cemented his legacy. Satoshi is a much more meaningful creator than John Doe could ever be.
Presumably "some people" includes its creators, given that "coin" is in the name. If that isn't meant to evoke currency, that's quite an oversight.
> It is not limited to 21M "units", and it never was. It's arbitrarily divisible into whatever units you like.
This response doesn't seem to address the parent's related point: that bitcoin as implemented seems to have inflation and deflation built in.
> Again, since it is not a national currency, it doesn't matter. It isn't "deflation" when the price of gold goes up.
It's certainly the giant problem it would be if it were a national currency, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Speculation in anything can have consequences that are undesirable, and for that reason, it's often regulated.