Satoshi is really intelligent
he does not want bitcoin to die
he won't do anything nonsense
Topic: Aren't Satoshi's coins a liability? - page 2. (Read 3213 times)
I think they're a liability, but a tolerable one, all things considered.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
Notch sold Mojang to Microsoft. Everyone has a price.
I don't understand all the angst. So if Satoshi liquidates 7% of all bitcoin in a market order. So what? We get a one-day drop in price, and a huge buying opportunity. Within days, Bitcoin is at 90% or better of its t=0- price, and Bitcoin resumes its incessant climb.
Besides, the dollar seems to absorb almost unlimited dumping:
Why would we expect it to be fatal for Bitcoin?
Besides, the dollar seems to absorb almost unlimited dumping:
Why would we expect it to be fatal for Bitcoin?
I think they're a liability, but a tolerable one, all things considered.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
I agree with what you said, but I fear the world might disagree at some point and limit the potential of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency in general though is likely here to stay(Bitcoin included of course!).
Wouldn't it be incredible if one day we saw a transaction moving all those coins to an unspendable output?
How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I have always viewed Satoshi holding such a large batch of funds, so that one day, if Bitcoin encounters a catastrophic event, those coins could be used to kickstart the economy again. And I have a gut feeling that this is what Satoshi was thinking when he retained a chunk of the economy for safekeeping. .... "If its needed one day".
-B-
I think it would be very possible for satashi to sell his bitcoin in a controlled fashion so that him selling would result in massive price declines. If he were to announce that he will sell no more then 1,800 BTC per day (after the block subsidies half again) then the net effect would be that the same number of coins would be coming onto the market as before the subsidies halved
Knew I should have put some disclaimers so someone wouldn't nitpick lol
I don't know which one, of ten million possible scenarios may play out, but it seems that holding a large batch of a limited economy, would address numerous possible future problems that could come up. A guy who invents Bitcoin isn't going to do something stupid to damage the economy like selling his coins to crash the price. Its far more likely there is an altruistic reason he's holding these coins. And I am sticking with my theory that its to one day help maintain the system in case of emergency.
-B-
I think they're a liability, but a tolerable one, all things considered.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
I agree with what you said, but I fear the world might disagree at some point and limit the potential of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency in general though is likely here to stay(Bitcoin included of course!).
I would love to have that liability. 
I think they're a liability, but a tolerable one, all things considered.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.
How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
Do you know how much money FED has printed and handed over to commercial banks to buy their MBS after financial crisis? 75% of total USD money supply.
And why didn't you see any significant inflation until now? Because those banks are very aware of the potential inflation those money might cause if they were put into circulation, so they saved all of those money back into FED and receive an interest and spend only those interest
Similarly, satoshi will also be aware of the consequence of his spending, and even if he dump all of his coins, the effect is limited
Another example is gold, world central banks hold more than 17% of the gold on the earth, but they will never dump those gold, that will push the gold price down dramatically
The funny thing about your example is that in this case(and it's a rare case that this will ever be true again), those world central banks are more 'decentralised'(and I use this term loosely and in the context of comparison only) than one anonymous individual. It's a good example that you posted though. But we also know that at least the intentions of a central bank are to provide stability.
Even though we may know that he'll act rationally. In a vacuum there's more risk of a single individual action irrationally than a group of individuals. Even if that group is a central bank. What we think we know, the world can not possibly know. Thus we'll eventually face some tough questions that will need to be answered.
How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
Do you know how much money FED has printed and handed over to commercial banks to buy their MBS after financial crisis? 75% of total USD money supply.
And why didn't you see any significant inflation until now? Because those banks are very aware of the potential inflation those money might cause if they were put into circulation, so they saved all of those money back into FED and receive an interest and spend only those interest
Similarly, satoshi will also be aware of the consequence of his spending, and even if he dump all of his coins, the effect is limited
Another example is gold, world central banks hold more than 17% of the gold on the earth, but they will never dump those gold, that will push the gold price down dramatically
How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I have always viewed Satoshi holding such a large batch of funds, so that one day, if Bitcoin encounters a catastrophic event, those coins could be used to kickstart the economy again. And I have a gut feeling that this is what Satoshi was thinking when he retained a chunk of the economy for safekeeping. .... "If its needed one day".
-B-
I think it would be very possible for satashi to sell his bitcoin in a controlled fashion so that him selling would result in massive price declines. If he were to announce that he will sell no more then 1,800 BTC per day (after the block subsidies half again) then the net effect would be that the same number of coins would be coming onto the market as before the subsidies halved
The earlier he starts selling the better. Much rather him start selling now than five years from now. I hope he sells some off, even if he doesn't believe in fiat, there's always precious metals, commodities, and stock that will likely maintain their value over the long run.
That would clear overhang of the coin.
How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?
I have always viewed Satoshi holding such a large batch of funds, so that one day, if Bitcoin encounters a catastrophic event, those coins could be used to kickstart the economy again. And I have a gut feeling that this is what Satoshi was thinking when he retained a chunk of the economy for safekeeping. .... "If its needed one day".
-B-
Every whale that drives the price down in the short term means that there are not large holders in the future.
Satoshi starts selling and it will be like the price going down over the past few weeks.
Then...it's all up from there.
Satoshi starts selling and it will be like the price going down over the past few weeks.
Then...it's all up from there.
The earlier he starts selling the better. Much rather him start selling now than five years from now. I hope he sells some off, even if he doesn't believe in fiat, there's always precious metals, commodities, and stock that will likely maintain their value over the long run.
What liability? its just a shit ton of coins.
I don't think it will happen. The holder dumps large number of bitcoin, which will cause the price fall dramatically and won't get benefit at all.
Jed McCaleb and his attack on the Ripple network invalidate this viewpoint. As a founder he (initially) had 9% of the 100,000,000,000 issued XRP, and publicly announced his intention to sell, while also (allegedly) having made private fire sale threats---all while planning for the launch of his rival network. XRP value was temporarily slaughtered, even before any major sell activity occurred. In the end, a deal was worked out and no full attack occurred, but it has led me to dismiss the notion outlined above.
Financial self-interest may be greatest off-network, the greatest motivations of any actor may not be financial, and we cannot assume rational actors.
Even if Satoshi has the best intentions, his wallets may at some point may be compromised (if that has not already occurred).
Every whale that drives the price down in the short term means that there are not large holders in the future.
Satoshi starts selling and it will be like the price going down over the past few weeks.
Then...it's all up from there.
Satoshi starts selling and it will be like the price going down over the past few weeks.
Then...it's all up from there.
what if the premining is actually a manipulation security feature and not a liability?
To be fair, this wasn't premining. This was all done fairly after the genesis block.
It could very well be coins that will never move again in the history of Bitcoin, but with out any knowledge either way, how can one discount the risk? Or explain the risk to people who might not believe you that Satoshi Nakamoto was unique in the sense that he truly was a benevolent creator? Even if we all believe so, and I do believe that to be extremely likely personally, if Bitcoin is to become what some envision it to be, how does the world come to grips with the risk of the million?
It's been analysed man. Satoshi was by far the biggest miner on the network until mid 2010.
You're way off on this. Even if it's not a million or more it's going to be within a couple of hundred thousand.
agreed, couple hundred thousand at most but, you might want to look into sirius back in 2009.. when considering the "biggest miner"
Also, I didn't mean a couple hundred thousand coins at most. I meant 1,000,000 +- 200,000. But the evidence strongly suggests that my my initial conservative estimate is clearly wrong since a single actor clearly mined 1148800 BTC and it's sitting untouched.
what if the premining is actually a manipulation security feature and not a liability?
Jump to: