It's still almost certainly over 1,000,000 according to data researched by respected researcher and cryptographer Sergio Demian Lerner:
"Note that from the 1814400 BTC awarded, 1148800 BTC has never been spent (63%). I suppose (but have not checked it yet) that these are exactly the segments that belong to the mystery entity,"
http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/
Now, sirius being the second person in to Bitcoin behind Hal and after Satoshi could have been the one to mine these 1148800 BTC. But based on the evidence of Satoshi bootstrapping the network himself, the chances of the miner being sirius seem be slim. And even if it was sirius, the original point still stands, albeit with the exchange of 'Martti Malmi' where 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was written.
The million BTC problem is real, and unless they get sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, they will always be a guillotine hanging over the Bitcoin market. Future investors, banks, regular people who find out about the original mined coins will have a hard time coming to grips with the risk that such a large amount could potentially be liquidated at anytime, wiping out a massive amount of the Bitcoin market cap and potentially creating a mass panic resulting in a cascade of holders liquidating their own holdings.
Topic: Aren't Satoshi's coins a liability? - page 3. (Read 3213 times)
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"
satoshi does not have 1million coins.... ill make it bigger so people can read
satoshi does not have 1million coins
now then think logically..
in the first 4 years 10.5million coins were mined, we all know that.. so in the first 2 years (when satoshi was involved) 5.25 bitcoins were being mined.
are you highly opinionated people thinking that only 5 people were playing around with bitcoin between january 2009 and december 2010. to have an equal share of 1mill each.
you do realise that there were thousands of people by the time it got to december 2010 right..
by the way, there was a guy named 'sirius_m' that was coding and mining with satoshi right from the start, and a few idea's were passed around on the forums/irc/email with many others. such as
madhatter
smoketoomuch
theymos
rix
suggester
rogerrabbit
newlibertystandard
gavin andresen
laszloh
witchspace
the list goes on, as i said there were many many people involved
so dont think for one second that satoshi had 1million coins all to himself. not unless you can prove it.
satoshi does not have 1million coins
now then think logically..
in the first 4 years 10.5million coins were mined, we all know that.. so in the first 2 years (when satoshi was involved) 5.25 bitcoins were being mined.
are you highly opinionated people thinking that only 5 people were playing around with bitcoin between january 2009 and december 2010. to have an equal share of 1mill each.
you do realise that there were thousands of people by the time it got to december 2010 right..
by the way, there was a guy named 'sirius_m' that was coding and mining with satoshi right from the start, and a few idea's were passed around on the forums/irc/email with many others. such as
madhatter
smoketoomuch
theymos
rix
suggester
rogerrabbit
newlibertystandard
gavin andresen
laszloh
witchspace
the list goes on, as i said there were many many people involved
so dont think for one second that satoshi had 1million coins all to himself. not unless you can prove it.
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.
satoshi does not have 1million coins.... ill make it bigger so people can read
satoshi does not have 1million coins
now then think logically..
in the first 4 years 10.5million coins were mined, we all know that.. so in the first 2 years (when satoshi was involved) 5.25 bitcoins were being mined.
are you highly opinionated people thinking that only 5 people were playing around with bitcoin between january 2009 and december 2010. to have an equal share of 1mill each.
you do realise that there were thousands of people by the time it got to december 2010 right..
by the way, there was a guy named 'sirius_m' that was coding and mining with satoshi right from the start, and a few idea's were passed around on the forums/irc/email with many others. such as
cdcker
madhatter
smoketoomuch
theymos
rix
suggester
rogerrabbit
newlibertystandard
gavin andresen
laszloh
witchspace
the list goes on, as i said there were many many people involved
so dont think for one second that satoshi had 1million coins all to himself. not unless you can prove it.
satoshi does not have 1million coins
now then think logically..
in the first 4 years 10.5million coins were mined, we all know that.. so in the first 2 years (when satoshi was involved) 5.25 bitcoins were being mined.
are you highly opinionated people thinking that only 5 people were playing around with bitcoin between january 2009 and december 2010. to have an equal share of 1mill each.
you do realise that there were thousands of people by the time it got to december 2010 right..
by the way, there was a guy named 'sirius_m' that was coding and mining with satoshi right from the start, and a few idea's were passed around on the forums/irc/email with many others. such as
cdcker
madhatter
smoketoomuch
theymos
rix
suggester
rogerrabbit
newlibertystandard
gavin andresen
laszloh
witchspace
the list goes on, as i said there were many many people involved
so dont think for one second that satoshi had 1million coins all to himself. not unless you can prove it.
How do you convince mainstream adopters of that when they don't know anything about Satoshi?
I don't convince anyone of anything. I don't care what others do with their money, I know everyone will come to Bitcoin in their own time and on their own terms. They have no choice in the matter, it will only be a question of how much wealth they're willing to sacrifice before they ditch their rapidly depreciating fiat.Anyway, how exactly are you defining "mainstream adopter"? Bitcoin will be mainstream when it is mainstream, and it will be marginal until that time. Or were you just using "mainstream" as code for "wealthy white people"?
The US dollar (and all national fiat scrip) is backed by two things: deception and violence.
Neither is going to perform as well in the information age as it did in the industrial age, when it was much easier to control the flow of information.
Remove the foundation of violence & deception, and what do you think will happen to the currency?
He has over 500 million in BTC. If he was going to sell, why wouldn't he have already started?
I don't think Satoshi will ever trade his BTC for fiat scrip. I think he - like many of us - believes in Bitcoin's power to make a better, more peaceful, more just world.
I don't think Satoshi will ever trade his BTC for fiat scrip. I think he - like many of us - believes in Bitcoin's power to make a better, more peaceful, more just world.
How do you convince mainstream adopters of that when they don't know anything about Satoshi? Only that he's anonymous.
He has over 500 million in BTC. If he was going to sell, why wouldn't he have already started?
I don't think Satoshi will ever trade his BTC for fiat scrip. I think he - like many of us - believes in Bitcoin's power to make a better, more peaceful, more just world.
I don't think Satoshi will ever trade his BTC for fiat scrip. I think he - like many of us - believes in Bitcoin's power to make a better, more peaceful, more just world.
Do we even know for sure how many coins are the "Satoshi's coins"?
From what I know, it has been estimated that he mined about 1 million coins himself, distributed some and the rest is spread over the multiple different wallets.
Do we even know which wallets are assumed to belong to Satoshi?
Cannot find any info.
I found this old article from WIRED:
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi_wallet/
From what I know, it has been estimated that he mined about 1 million coins himself, distributed some and the rest is spread over the multiple different wallets.
Do we even know which wallets are assumed to belong to Satoshi?
Cannot find any info.
I found this old article from WIRED:
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi_wallet/
Quote
Satoshi stores his wealth in a large number of bitcoin addresses, most of them holding just 50 bitcoins. It’s a bit of a logistical nightmare, but most savvy Bitcoin investors spread out their bitcoins across multiple wallets. That way if they lose the key to one of them or get hacked, all is not lost.
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?
Welcome to Bitcoin!
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?
The way bitcoin is designed, we can see where his coins came from. If/when he spends them, we can see the amount he spent and the amount he has left.
On the other hand...
With the government, we cannot see how many coins they have or where they came from, but they sure keep on spending!
Which would you trust?
This. Plus he will NOT sell.
Probably not, but how do you convince your mom, or your friend at the bar that the anonymous creator who holds potentially billions or trillions simply won't sell and crash the market? Even if one single satoshi was moved from any of those known addresses today the market would shit itself. People would be in hysterics.
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?
The way bitcoin is designed, we can see where his coins came from. If/when he spends them, we can see the amount he spent and the amount he has left.
On the other hand...
With the government, we cannot see how many coins they have or where they came from, but they sure keep on spending!
Which would you trust?
This. Plus he will NOT sell.
Satoshi's coins have been discussed ad nauseum. So has anonymity. My take is that Satoshi deserves to be a bazillionaire as much as anyone when you consider the drug lords, arms dealers, and Apple executives.
I think he is worth 10 Nobel Economic Prize.
Satoshi's coins have been discussed ad nauseum. So has anonymity. My take is that Satoshi deserves to be a bazillionaire as much as anyone when you consider the drug lords, arms dealers, and Apple executives.
He deserves to be a billionaire, but his coins are also a massive liability for Bitcoin in general. A publicly annouced liquidation plan over x amount of time would go a long way towards helping the future of Bitcoin I think.
Yes,of course, they are. 
Satoshi's coins have been discussed ad nauseum. So has anonymity. My take is that Satoshi deserves to be a bazillionaire as much as anyone when you consider the drug lords, arms dealers, and Apple executives.
This.Damn those Apple executives!
Satoshi's coins have been discussed ad nauseum. So has anonymity. My take is that Satoshi deserves to be a bazillionaire as much as anyone when you consider the drug lords, arms dealers, and Apple executives.
And the kylie jenners of the world.
Satoshi's coins have been discussed ad nauseum. So has anonymity. My take is that Satoshi deserves to be a bazillionaire as much as anyone when you consider the drug lords, arms dealers, and Apple executives.
When BTC implement anonymity function, he can spend it.
I don't think bitcoin should ever implement anonymity if it has plans of going mainstream.
This. If you want to hide from the public then use an alt-coin that allows you to, don't try to 'fix' Bitcoin if it's not broken.
Yes , your thinking is right
. Bitcoin is anonymous if you keep it anonymous , but if you post your address all the users know that address is your address so you will "lose" your anonimity . When BTC implement anonymity function, he can spend it.
I don't think bitcoin should ever implement anonymity if it has plans of going mainstream.
This. If you want to hide from the public then use an alt-coin that allows you to, don't try to 'fix' Bitcoin if it's not broken.
When BTC implement anonymity function, he can spend it.
I don't think bitcoin should ever implement anonymity if it has plans of going mainstream.
Jump to: