the initial idea of satoshi was great but if you mind taking the trouble and reading some of the debates on the bitcoin talk forum there were some really serious concerns about the openness of bitcoin from the very early day on. you will find public talks about how at least the sender and receiver information could be hidden but satoshi didn't know how to implement it. maybe the tech back then didn't exist. yes, he didn't spend his coins. but this does nothing good, does it? it brings uncertainty. in fact it could be seen as a possible risk if at one point +1 million coins would awake which were considered lost before. the halving period was chosen purely arbitrarily. if it was 2 years or 8 years bitcoin wouldn't be worse or better. it's all about the public known information and predictability. this also doesn't have anything to do with low or high time preference. even if it would, low or high time preference is neither good nor bad. what is low or high time preference is subjective, depends on human individuals and can't be measured in any way. it's unimportant how fast the coins are mined. even in bitcoin 94% of the total supply is already mined. the 6% spread over the next 120 years really don't matter. as i already mentioned, it's all about predictibility. these informations were known to the public from very early on. on top of that monero has tail-emissions, so feel free to mine monero, have luck and always get 0.6 XMR + fees :) (though I'll say I don't have a strong opinion on that one. it may be OK during the bootstrapping phase).

cheers

If Satoshi left, and you don't know who they are, how are you so sure the creator of Moneros protocol isn't Satoshi? Especially suspicious when hes outlining almost an exact prototype of Monero in detail in conversations on old Bitcointalk forums.

Private, fungible, targeted mining censorship resistant, and cheap to transact. You are right they are definitely not the same.