I doubt that he's in much trouble with his 400m

The whole point is that it paints a huge target on his back. And he isn't even using that 400m to do anything deserving of vigilante/criminal attacks, and no one knows if he even really has it

I did a quick Google search and found plenty of information about Bill Gates, including pictures of his house.

In fact you can do this with just about anybody. How and why is he at more risk than any other multimillionaire for whom all this information is public?

Bill Gates uses his money. That means that he can use some of his money on security.

He would be in much more danger if he neither used his money nor kept his money in institutions that would raise alarms to authorities if you tried to force him to withdraw all of it.

Nakamoto could use his money too, if he's worried about security. Whether he does or not isn't up to Newsweek.

You assume he could. He may not actually still have access to it.

This situation isn't really comparable to the general public learning that somebody may or may not have a few million in investments and savings accounts. It is closer to the general public (excluding the police) learning that somebody may or may not have a few kilos of coke stashed somewhere in their home.

This hypothetical bitcoin wealth, and the hypothetical coke wealth differs from hypothetical 'traditional' wealth in that they can be burglarized or extracted via torture without attracting outside attention.

The blockchain is visible to all... of course it would attract outside attention.

But only if Nakamoto were actually able to spend it! If he's not able to spend it then he can't hire security I guess, but that would also put him at much lower risk of being burglarized for goods he can't give up. The important thing would seem to be making it clear he doesn't have access (that is, if he doesn't).

Taking the wallet would not attract attention. Only transferring the coins would, and that could be done hours, days, weeks, hell even years after you've finished beating Satoshi with a wrench in his basement. You could be on step "Getaway" before the rest of the world was notified that something was going on.

Stealing the fortunes of conventional multi-millionaires however necessarily involves interacting with the outside world at the time of the theft. Unless they are drug dealers anyway... there is a reason that drug dealers get hit by thieves so often, and it isn't only because the thieves know they will hesitate to contact police.

If he can no longer access the coins (either because he intentionally destroyed the keys, or because he neglected backups), then proving that to be the case would be damn near impossible. In this hypothetical case, Satoshi may very well believe that he has a better chance of making it unclear that he is actually Satoshi.

Generally, kidnapping and torturing a suburbanite and/or his family attracts some attention.

I doubt that he even has that bitcoin anymore. I expect that he lost the coin and thus is bitter and doesn't want to talk about it.

What makes you say that? It seems wildly speculative (at least, far more than the opposite opinion of believing he likely still has the coins he's believed to own).

Yup, it is wildly speculative. Seems just as likely a speculation as any other towards why he hasn't sold/spent the coins yet though.

Wildly?

When you develop software based on your own novel framework, wouldn't you need to do several test-runs, performance runs, sanity runs in the process? Do you keep all the intermediate debug data? I know I don't. In this case bitcoins would be part of the intermediate data.