Topic: Burn Satoshis coins to end the threat of prices crashing - Paxful Founder - page 2. (Read 868 times)

This idea isn't bizzare,I think it's has been discussed over and over again for the last 6-7 years.
Satoshi Nakamoto's coins are his property and only he and his children(if he really has any children) have the right to own and sell those coins."Stealing" the coins of someone just for the sake of keeping the bitcoin price stable is simply wrong.What if there's a mechanism to "burn" all the coins owned by crypto whales,so they can't pump and dump the bitcoin price?Would the majority of people just run away from Bitcoin?

How does burning the genesis coins will end the threat of prices crashing?? even satoshi himself hasn't appeared for 8 years already and the scammer craig wright doesn't prove that he is satoshi by signing the bitcoin address used by satoshi himself and also, how will core devs will burn the coins if the addresses itself can't be accessed without the private keys?? anyways, i think the paxful owner is over exaggerating in that article to be honest lol.

His statement is a little bit quite confusing because I don’t know how it will be possible to burn what you don’t have access to, I know that binance do use this strategy to make the value of their coins to increase by buying tokens from investors that are willing to sell and then burn it to make price stable which I think has kept the value of bitcoin stable for a while now.

I understand what he is saying that if satoshi is still alive and then he sells all his coin, it would make the market crash, but satoshi has been so wise for not selling his coin now, because the moment satoshi starts to sell his coin, even if it is one drop, it could make the market go bad, because the moment they notice he is selling, people could panic and start selling their own coin also, and I believe that satoshi would not want a collapsed system for now.

even if satoshi started spending his bitcoins, the price would drop temporarily and then it would go up again, not a big deal

That's could be good but if only Satoshi is there and has access to that coins, it's his/her/their property and invention so no one should dictate how they should use it for them/him/her. But well, if we discover Satoshi, it's going fo be interesting haha.

Given how smart satoshi is why would he dump the coins on the market all at once? I think he should know better than that so. why is everybody assuming he would act like an idiot? What I mean is that even if he finally showed up I see no reason why he should do that considering that he doesn't seem to be in a hurry of moving those coins..

So, what happens after we destroy Satoshi Nakamoto's coins, do we burn all Roger Ver's coins next and then Mike Hearn's coins ..... Nope, the fact that you own coins and nobody can take it away from you are one of the fundamental building blocks of this technology.

Bitcoin is not a centralized technology where you can block people's access to their own tokens or their wealth for whatever reason. A lot of people will sell their coins, when that security feature is taken away.   

                                                                --<< Bitcoin is not a Bank >>--

I agree, that would be 100 % damaging to bitcoin. i didn't even know that was actually possible. these people saying these things are the worst and possibly have an IQ close to zero

You're right, that would make it easier - and more difficult to change back to the old protocol (because restoring the validity of Satoshi's coins then would need a hard fork as new blocks without the invalidation would be incompatible with clients enforcing it).  It would basically be the ETH/ETC scenario.

However, with enough consensus the change can always be reverted. There could even be a hybrid client solution, where users who disagree with the new restriction could simply not enforce the rule unless they're mining. That would make a change back to the old protocol easier: They could include a mechanism similar to a soft fork, but which simply creates a hard fork back to the old protocol if enough of the previous blocks (e.g. 90%) support a change back.

The protocol without Satoshi's coins could obviously continue to exist, resulting in two different chains, and the question then would be if "protocol purity" or "lower coins supply" would be more attractive.

(Edit:) A plausible scenario would be the following, in the case there's a soft fork invalidating Satoshi's coins:
- Satoshi announces that he will donate most of the coins to charities.
- He creates and broadcasts transactions to known addresses to the charities, with a large part of the outputs blocked by long timelocks, so the charities can't dump the coins at once.
- In parallel, he distributes the alternative client which would fork back to the old protocol and removes the "invalidation", like I wrote above.
- Users wouldn't have to fear a large dump anymore, so the main reason for the invalidation would not be true anymore. That would make it attractive to use the client with the restored protocol. Satoshi would not have even to come out of his anonymity, because the signed and broadcasted transactions from his accounts are enough for the users to believe him.
- This would result obviously in a communication war, but if Satoshi isn't too greedy I think he would have a big chance to succeed and that in the end the chain with the "backfork" to the old protocol would be the stronger one. If user support is strong enough, miners will also find it more attractive to support the "new old" chain.

(Another Edit:) Satoshi could obviosly also simply bribe miners with his coins, and/or combine both methods.

I'd actually quite like that idea, it would mean that we'd get closer to the prospect of seeing those lost coins back into circulation again.
There can never be more than 21 million anyway, so even if Satoshi's original coins trickle onto the market, it wouldn't have that big of an effect long-term I reckon.

Rest assured that there will be enough people buying up those coins.

The original chain will remain the strongest chain. If some groups can reproduce the privatekeys of 'shalecoins', coins with no owner https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-as-shalecoin-5134441, it's their reward. They are trying to build a computer in the near future, that wouldn't be built so fast without that incentive. That opportunity accelerates the technology. If there are still some BTC owners -incl. Satoshi- with old addresses and remove their coins now, they will be secure. So it's a fair game. And nobody can change that game: Bitcoin rewards the best technology.

The Bitcoin network is a pure competition network. Only the best technology will be successful here and make it secure. A Bitcoin fork without the old coins would be like another s**tcoin, because it would avoid real competition.

edited

Lol, I think it would still have the same effect as if we are on a volatile market. Satoshi's supply burned to the ground will just only be viewed negatively by the general public and it will trigger FUD immediately even the whales will be on board on offloading their position if this happened. I don't think the volatility or the market scare we are having now is that considerable because of the thought of Satoshi revealing himself in the world. I would rather stay in the current situation now than see Satoshi's own supply will go away.

Aye, this scenario would be a proper tricky one. That would add up to several million coins no matter what.

I really can't see there being any agreement regarding anything so the only hope would be white hats having those coins away before the darker ones because no matter what, someone's going to take them. It's not as if anyone is going to announce that they've broken it either. We'll know it when it starts to happen.

Millions of coins in new hands might be the least of BTC's problems at that point.

the optimal way to approach the issue is not to stop people from moving their coins, but instead, to make sure they move them---to quantum safe/one-time use addresses. move them or lose them is the idea.

for example, if we believe ECDSA will be broken in 10 years, the parameters for a fork could be that if coins haven't been moved to quantum safe addresses within 10 years, they be destroyed. in virtually any altcoin, this would be an acceptable parameter. but this approach doesn't work in bitcoin because bitcoin has a culture that is incredibly hostile to consensus change.

i'm amazed that people still believe a hard fork block size increase will ever happen in bitcoin. no way! every passing day that goes by, the consensus becomes more and more hardened and unchangeable. it's clear as day.

Agreed, but since no one knows how many coins are "lost", how can the market be functioning on the premise that x amount are gone? If 100,000 bitcoins get moved for the first time in 5 years, were they just being held long term, or were they "lost" coins which have suddenly been rediscovered? Did the market already price those in? We don't even know that Satoshi's coins are truly "lost". And if we know that someone is going to break ECDSA in the future, can't the market price that in in advance as well?

There are too many unknowns, but everyone should be operating on the premise that the current circulating supply of bitcoin is 17.9 million.

We don't. We won't know until after the fact, once ECDSA is broken and nothing is done. It'll be a roller coaster, that's all I know.


The amount of vulnerable bitcoins probably goes far beyond the "Satoshi coins" -- that's just the lowest base line to start our assumptions from.


That could be done with a soft fork. Miners have incentive to enforce it since it would prevent unpredictable inflation.

At any point, Satoshi's coins could move without warning and be recirculated in to the supply. As could any coin which is considered "lost". We have no way of knowing how many coins are truly "lost", and everyone (at least everyone who understands bitcoin even a little) should know and appreciate this. Having a sudden influx of a million coins, and therefore a ~5% inflation, would be less damaging to bitcoin than removing one of its core principles by allowing a small group of people to decide which coins are and are not allowed to be used in the future.

Still, if suddenly a million coins moved from early addresses, I suspect the price would dip more from weak hands panic selling than from these "lost" coins entering the market. An attacker with the knowledge and technology to break ECDSA isn't going to be stupid enough to dump a million coins on the market at once. If these coins do move, I'll be waiting to buy the dip.

Even a "hard fork" cannot enforce that reliably.

You can deploy a modified client with a rule that declares some coins invalid, as a part of a new protocol, which would result in a hard fork, correct. But the coins would stay at the addresses. That means that it is always possible to "hard-fork" them back if there is consensus to change the protocol again, because the transactions with the mined coins by Satoshi will stay in the block chain. You would have to "re-create" the whole chain if you wanted to delete these coins, and then all block hashes etc. would change.

So the only way to really "reliably" burn Satoshi's coins would be to create a new genesis block, as a "snapshot coin" like some small altcoins (I remember Bitcore) have done it. The snapshot would include all currently valid UTXOs minus the ones that were mined by Satoshi.

This would certainly not be Bitcoin anymore.

"Moving" the coins is completely impossible if not by "hacking" his addresses as others already wrote.

Youssef is an idiot, especially since he thinks we can conclusively identify Satoshi's coins to begin with. He's proposing this for the wrong reasons.

There are, however, good reasons to have a related discussion about this. In a post-quantum world, the "Satoshi coins" are probably the biggest lot of vulnerable (public key exposed) bitcoins we know about. But there could be several million lost bitcoins out there in addition to these early mined P2PK outputs, a sizeable subset of which are P2PK or in reused addresses.

These will all eventually be stolen and recirculated into the supply, possibly causing a huge divergence from users' perceptions about Bitcoin's "deflationary" monetary supply. There goes that whole idea about lost coins being a donation to other bitcoin holders! More like a donation to bitcoin shorters.

Who is anyone to tell anyone whether they can or can't sell or move their coins? The idea sets a toxic and fatal precedent.

Someone with a market moving amount of coins either bought them or put the work in to mine them. Just because they have more of them does not mean anyone else should have control over their intentions. The thought of that is plain bizarre.

Would there be an invisible threshold where you wake up to an empty wallet and an apologetic tweet? 'Sorry, dude. You have too much. Try not to try too hard next time.'