Topic: Aren't Satoshi's coins a liability? - page 4. (Read 3213 times)
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. There are one type of trading called over the counter through which the holder can dump large number of bitcoin without causing any trouble.
When BTC implement anonymity function, he can spend it.
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?
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?
Let's assume he has 5% and sells over a span of one year. One-off 5% annual inflation is huge, are you sure??
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?
Jump to: