Okay - so it would appear that in general at least most people here don't think that Satoshi's stash should be a significant reason for governments not to decide to adopt Bitcoin as "Gold 2.0".
I am going to continue this discussion with a new topic (so am locking this one for good now).
Topic: Are Satoshi's percentage of BTC a serious problem for government acceptance? (Read 1361 times)
January 28, 2016, 11:17:29 AM
January 28, 2016, 08:24:30 AM
So if it is unlikely that governments are going to be worried about "Satoshi's stash" and assuming that they all can agree that the 21M limit can never be raised then we are starting to see that Bitcoin really does have the potential to become the new "gold standard".
This is why I am unconcerned with increasing block size as being something that is so important. I think it would be of far more importance for governments to decide to invest in Bitcoin (not just to make holders of BTC richer but to fix up the Fiat problem that is going to see us hit another financial crisis sooner rather than later).
This is why I am unconcerned with increasing block size as being something that is so important. I think it would be of far more importance for governments to decide to invest in Bitcoin (not just to make holders of BTC richer but to fix up the Fiat problem that is going to see us hit another financial crisis sooner rather than later).
yep governments need to fix their "money creation"(uncontrolled inflation of greedy bankers) and the only way is to move to a asset currency of proven rules of predictable and limited creation that cannot be manipulated (bitcoin). even if its just used as the hidden reserve
but only if
they all can agree that the 21M limit can never be raised
otherwise bitcoin would be just as bad as fiat and defeats the purpose January 28, 2016, 08:20:34 AM
So if it is unlikely that governments are going to be worried about "Satoshi's stash" and assuming that they all can agree that the 21M limit can never be raised then we are starting to see that Bitcoin really does have the potential to become the new "gold standard".
This is why I am unconcerned with increasing block size as being something that is so important. I think it would be of far more importance for governments to decide to invest in Bitcoin (not just to make holders of BTC richer but to fix up the Fiat problem that is going to see us hit another financial crisis sooner rather than later).
Also - the issues of the electricity expense for Bitcoin start to become far less relevant if you consider the main blockchain as being the world's settlement network (rather than a new VISA system).
This is why I am unconcerned with increasing block size as being something that is so important. I think it would be of far more importance for governments to decide to invest in Bitcoin (not just to make holders of BTC richer but to fix up the Fiat problem that is going to see us hit another financial crisis sooner rather than later).
Also - the issues of the electricity expense for Bitcoin start to become far less relevant if you consider the main blockchain as being the world's settlement network (rather than a new VISA system).
January 28, 2016, 08:01:28 AM
governments would be more worried about blockstream changing the reward sceme to allow more than the 21m bitcoin cap
About this I think that the only concern for now is actually Bitcoin Classic (unless the quotes about 21M being "voteable" I've been reading today are rubbish).
In regards to gold - governments don't like it now (and it was America that led the push to abandon gold even though it likely still has the largest reserves of gold in the world).
america didnt want public access to the gold rush. but secretly governments were profiting from it to fund wars. governments secretly love gold but dont want it to be in the control of citizens holding it and ultimately governments owing the citizen..(old bank notes were IOU's)
as for the classic thing. i dont want classic. but nothing stops someone on the core team to make a similar Bip next year or a new group do something in 2017 or later.EG pieter wuille of segwit fame himself proposed increasing the 21m cap every 200 years https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0042
so the debate is not limited to just a 1 time event of the classic crooks that will die and never be a risk again.. yes classic will die. but another group can appear later
there is more risk of a group smashing apart the block reward cap(bitcoin creation limit) then there is a risk of unknown early miners popping their heads up. which doesnt smash the cap and just creates a temporary price change bit of drama
January 28, 2016, 07:43:41 AM
governments would be more worried about blockstream changing the reward sceme to allow more than the 21m bitcoin cap
About this I think that the only concern for now is actually Bitcoin Classic (unless the quotes about 21M being "voteable" I've been reading today are rubbish).
In regards to gold - governments don't like it now (and it was America that led the push to abandon gold even though it likely still has the largest reserves of gold in the world).
January 28, 2016, 07:34:44 AM
if they think that some unknown person or persons owns even 5% then that might be reason enough to decide not to go down this path
if the government think that egypt has a hidden temple of 2% of world gold. the amazon rainforest had 1%, the oceans had 1% of lost gold and saudi-arabia had 1% that wont make america hate gold. governments would actually like it more oh wait they already do(for their benefit not citizen benefit)
January 28, 2016, 07:31:58 AM
Okay - am awake now but probably will have to lock this again soon as unfortunately I have some IRL stuff to deal with today.
I read elsewhere about questioning how correct the analysis about Satoshi's stash is and of course it is going to always be open to a fair amount of uncertainty.
I think simply the fact that there are so many coins from 2009 that haven't moved is what tends to lead people to believe they were only mined by Satoshi (and many believe that Satoshi was not one person and that Hal Finney could well have been a part of the group).
Certainly I accept that this cannot be proven - so the point of this topic is to discuss whether or not this would be a likely concern for governments (not to try and answer the unanswerable question as to how big Satoshi's stash actually is or whether he/she/they still have control over those private keys).
I read elsewhere about questioning how correct the analysis about Satoshi's stash is and of course it is going to always be open to a fair amount of uncertainty.
I think simply the fact that there are so many coins from 2009 that haven't moved is what tends to lead people to believe they were only mined by Satoshi (and many believe that Satoshi was not one person and that Hal Finney could well have been a part of the group).
Certainly I accept that this cannot be proven - so the point of this topic is to discuss whether or not this would be a likely concern for governments (not to try and answer the unanswerable question as to how big Satoshi's stash actually is or whether he/she/they still have control over those private keys).
governments dont and wont care.
just like they dont care about the gold in the ocean or the gold lost in some amazon rainforest that has the slightest chance of appearing one day.
but putting aside the number of people debate(day1: satoshi, hal, |)ruid were atleast 3 people. then in the first 2 weeks there were atleast 9 people.) and just classing it as a large clump of many wallets.
again the debate about the large clump doesnt matter either. and it actually adds value to the coins that are in circulation. because although there are 14mill mined.. there are only 12-13mill in circulation.
governments would be more worried about blockstream changing the reward sceme to allow more than the 21m bitcoin cap
and even if the early miners do pop back up or someone brute forces the addresses (yes ciyam i know the odds) then the price change is just temporary drama which gives opportunity for a nice cheap coin buy up.. so again not negative. just like treasure hunters raiding the oceans or rainforests. it all ends up as positives in the long term
January 28, 2016, 07:11:41 AM
IMO the "age of fiat" (in terms of the inflation cycle that eventually turns all such currencies into worthless pieces of paper) is coming to an end but a return to gold (as a standard) is not likely to happen so this leaves us with the possibility of a future economy based upon Bitcoin as the settlement "super currency" across the world.
This is perhaps only likely to happen if most major governments of the world decide that they are able to purchase enough % of BTC to make this happen (if they think that some unknown person or persons owns even 5% then that might be reason enough to decide not to go down this path).
I am of the opinion that if this is at all likely to happen then it will begin to happen this year (which would likely see the price of BTC skyrocket).
This is perhaps only likely to happen if most major governments of the world decide that they are able to purchase enough % of BTC to make this happen (if they think that some unknown person or persons owns even 5% then that might be reason enough to decide not to go down this path).
I am of the opinion that if this is at all likely to happen then it will begin to happen this year (which would likely see the price of BTC skyrocket).
January 27, 2016, 09:58:29 PM
Okay - am awake now but probably will have to lock this again soon as unfortunately I have some IRL stuff to deal with today.
I read elsewhere about questioning how correct the analysis about Satoshi's stash is and of course it is going to always be open to a fair amount of uncertainty.
I think simply the fact that there are so many coins from 2009 that haven't moved is what tends to lead people to believe they were only mined by Satoshi (and many believe that Satoshi was not one person and that Hal Finney could well have been a part of the group).
Certainly I accept that this cannot be proven - so the point of this topic is to discuss whether or not this would be a likely concern for governments (not to try and answer the unanswerable question as to how big Satoshi's stash actually is or whether he/she/they still have control over those private keys).
I read elsewhere about questioning how correct the analysis about Satoshi's stash is and of course it is going to always be open to a fair amount of uncertainty.
I think simply the fact that there are so many coins from 2009 that haven't moved is what tends to lead people to believe they were only mined by Satoshi (and many believe that Satoshi was not one person and that Hal Finney could well have been a part of the group).
Certainly I accept that this cannot be proven - so the point of this topic is to discuss whether or not this would be a likely concern for governments (not to try and answer the unanswerable question as to how big Satoshi's stash actually is or whether he/she/they still have control over those private keys).
January 27, 2016, 01:28:37 PM
Well - as I'm going to get some sleep now I am going to lock this topic until I wake up (otherwise I'm sure I'll just find pages of rubbish posts which I won't want to be bothered with).
If you are wanting to reply then you'll have to wait for around 8-10 hours (I don't use alarms - just wake up when I do - but I normally only sleep between 8 and 10 hours).
If you are wanting to reply then you'll have to wait for around 8-10 hours (I don't use alarms - just wake up when I do - but I normally only sleep between 8 and 10 hours).
January 27, 2016, 01:12:49 PM
Yes - I think that is a fairly reasonable summary of the current situation in regards to the "Satoshi stash".
For sure it will keep Bitcoin's value unstable for the foreseeable future IMO as any "stock" that had 5-10% of its ownership unknown and able to be dumped at any time would do as well.
This is actually probably a blessing for "day-traders" but for those wanting Bitcoin to be "a real currency" it is not helpful at all.
For sure it will keep Bitcoin's value unstable for the foreseeable future IMO as any "stock" that had 5-10% of its ownership unknown and able to be dumped at any time would do as well.
This is actually probably a blessing for "day-traders" but for those wanting Bitcoin to be "a real currency" it is not helpful at all.
January 27, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
Government adoption of BTC seems unlikely enough without considering Satoshi's coins. But for anyone using Bitcoin, the way things are now is about the worst possible, given the initial condition of Satoshi having mined a huge stash in the early days.
What we could have:
-Satoshi is still around, doesn't say what he intends to do with the coins.
-Satoshi says he intends never to use them
-Satoshi says he does intend to use them, and outlines how
-Satoshi starts dumping his coins
-Satoshi destroys his coins in a provable fashion
and what we have now:
-Someone who may or may not be Satoshi may or may not control the coins, and may or may not do something that may or may not be hugely disruptive with them.
Uncertainty is the problem here. It can't get much more uncertain than it is now.
What we could have:
-Satoshi is still around, doesn't say what he intends to do with the coins.
-Satoshi says he intends never to use them
-Satoshi says he does intend to use them, and outlines how
-Satoshi starts dumping his coins
-Satoshi destroys his coins in a provable fashion
and what we have now:
-Someone who may or may not be Satoshi may or may not control the coins, and may or may not do something that may or may not be hugely disruptive with them.
Uncertainty is the problem here. It can't get much more uncertain than it is now.
January 27, 2016, 01:01:09 PM
Almost deleted that post but you did have this:
and I think this is relevant as we have recently read that apparently China is already considering the creation of a state-owned blockchain.
I have also read of work being done in Australia and other countries by banks with blockchain technology (but *not* with Bitcoin).
Quote
We will rather see government issued cryptocurrency with blockchain technology than acceptance any existing cryptos.
and I think this is relevant as we have recently read that apparently China is already considering the creation of a state-owned blockchain.
I have also read of work being done in Australia and other countries by banks with blockchain technology (but *not* with Bitcoin).
January 27, 2016, 12:58:08 PM
Actually I think answer is simple. Government acceptance won't happen because bitcoin is not something they can control, or have influence over.
Bitcoin's origing is unknown, it is creation with enigmatic roots. In addition it can't be centrally controlled by financial institutions.
Accepting bitcoin would be like allowing US citizens to pay taxes in Rubles or yens. We will rather see government issued cryptocurrency with blockchain technology than acceptance any existing cryptos.
Bitcoin's origing is unknown, it is creation with enigmatic roots. In addition it can't be centrally controlled by financial institutions.
Accepting bitcoin would be like allowing US citizens to pay taxes in Rubles or yens. We will rather see government issued cryptocurrency with blockchain technology than acceptance any existing cryptos.
January 27, 2016, 12:56:43 PM
Quote
those funds are most probably locked out forever and never going to be part of circulation.
That's what a lot of people say each time someone brings up Satoshi's stash but I'd like to know why this would be true against all the other scenarios. For instance, (1)Satoshi dumping it once the price is high enough, (2) Satoshi giving it away to everyone who claims to want a share, (3) Satoshi burning his stash little by little as he buys bitcoins at market price, or anything else.Because, I mean, if this stash is not meant to be part of circulation anytime in the future, why isn't it properly burnt now?
As for me, I'm not saying that I believe that Satoshi is going to dump, give everything (or even bits) away or anything. I'm just listing the possibilities that they have to hand. Frankly I don't see them dumping away (because it would mean taking the risk of destroying their creation), or giving away, or anything else, but I can't really imagine that they're gonna lock their coins forever either, otherwise they should already have burnt the whole stash by now.
January 27, 2016, 12:54:59 PM
russia's bitcoin hatred is more about the russian people finding new ways to get out of ruble and into dollars.. ever since the whole VISA/Mastercard sanctions saga. places like BTC-E make it easy to convert ruble to dollar. definitely nothing to do with satoshi stash
I accepted your Russia's concern is capital flight rather than Satoshi envy so that's fine - now let's get back to your "base nonce" stuff.
(you can't get away with posting nonsense by quoting an earlier point to deflect in my topic)
January 27, 2016, 12:52:26 PM
So your opinion is that Russia is simply protecting its Ruble against all possible foreign threats *including Bitcoin* - that make sense - please continue (you have made a reasonable point that Russia's motivation might have nothing to do with Satoshi's stash at all).
russia's bitcoin hatred is more about the russian people finding new ways to get out of ruble and into dollars.. ever since the whole VISA/Mastercard sanctions saga. places like BTC-E make it easy to convert ruble to dollar. definitely nothing to do with satoshi stash
January 27, 2016, 12:50:24 PM
that analysis was debunked when people like hal finney was there on day 1.. mining! yet the analysis treated hals blocks as satoshi blocks.. the analysis treated alot of peoples blocks as satoshi blocks. all because they were all using the same basecode and ultimately the same base nonce
Huh - base nonce?
That is nonsense - what exactly is a "base nonce" even supposed to be (apart from something that you just made up)?
January 27, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
Well - how do you come up with only 1-5% vs. 5-10% for a start then?
(my figures came from the analysis that was done according to the nonces used - where does your 1-5% figure come from?)
that analysis was debunked when people like hal finney was there on day 1.. mining! yet the analysis treated hals blocks as satoshi blocks.. the analysis treated alot of peoples blocks as satoshi blocks. all because they were all using the same basecode and ultimately the same base nonce
January 27, 2016, 12:48:11 PM
(I think I did say that "pointless posts" will be deleted - and most especially pointless posts from ad siggers)
Jump to: