Topic: Chinese government IS backing Bitcoin?!?! - page 2. (Read 6869 times)

It's not that simple. The market price for 1BTC may be $145 or whatever, but the market price for 500,000 BTC is far higher - because there just aren't that many offers on the world's order books. If you vacuum up the entire book, and then vacuum up all the offers that appear while you're doing that ... then the theoretical price is infinity since right now nobody is offering that much.

If they did indeed want to buy the entire Winklevoss stash, then the Winklevii could certainly reasonably demand a number far higher than the current market price.

This issue is called liquidity, and it's the reason why there aren't more very rich people piling into bitcoin yet (surely some of them see its potential).

The Chinese government is pretty crafty, they tend not to pay over 100x the market price for things.

Not big enough ??

Look at the hash power..  also there already billions maybe trillions of satoshi in circulation.

How this can not be big enough ?

Bitcoin is digital gold, remove the need of fiat currency and paper gold..

I dont know if it will be used by chinese govt, but imo, it's the best option availlable so far

If they didn't want people to know its them, they might, just so people would think what you just said.

I don't know, but thanks for reminding me that 20k USD/BTC is a "crappy price".

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?

Since giving up the password would probably be part of some kind of deal, unless DPR is a complete idiot, nuking the wallet with some trickery would pretty much break the deal and subject him to whatever consequences the feds threatened.

Just realized if DPR were forced to give up the password somehow, he could just activate a deadman's switch sending his entire cold wallet to the BitcoinEater address. It'd be like the end of the movie Independence Day.

I've seen estimates from around 150K BTC to over 1 million, but much more than that is pretty unlikely, considering the period of time when Satoshi was mining (under that name).  While presumably he (or they) could have been mining subsequent to that time under other names, by that time, there were enough other miners that any one of them monopolizing the supply was pretty much out of the question.

If China built Bitcoin they would _never_ put a Japanese name on it. They are not like super good ol friends those two.

,


I think they want to see a basket of currencies where gold is one of the monies. There are SDRs but Imm not sure to what extent China could gain enough influence over that one since they are issued by IMF (if I remeber correctly) and IMF is owned by US. Actually what I think they want is to keep a strong dollarr, devalue against it and hedging it by allocation of hard money and assets and then when they could have a super strong currency and when imports has become expencieve they will let their own currency appreciate soso they can buy the world assets for cheap and borrow at loww rates. I think thats their long term plan and Bitcoin a blackswan. Nothing bad with Chineese people getting some Bitcoins and hard money though. Much better then if Chineese hoard dollars II dont think the gov want them to do that.

Oh, I thought I read somewhere it was more like 40% of all Bitcoins were in Satoshi's hands.

If it is *only* more like 2% or something then I stand corrected.

Satoshi, you can keep your Bitcoins, it's ok; I feel better.

What???

I don't understand why you're so nervous about some people having so much money. If they spend it, they will dilute their wealth, more coins for other people. It's fine, even if they have tons of it, it's still fine. Unless you have as many coins as Satoshi, Bitcoin is more important to him then it is to you. Think about it, you're worried they might not be benevolent, but they have more to worry about then you do. They are more heavily invested.

So this is still puzzling me.  Suppose (a lowball estimate) Satoshi has 250K in BTC.  That would be, at current Gox value, about $37,500,000.

He's supposed to torch $37.5 million so you can subjectively feel better?

This plan seems to raise concerns of realistic, rational behavior.

Yep, private.

Such a tremendous loss of Bitcoins would be to benefit the whole Bitcoin ecosystems by reducing the concern of the very large stash of old/stale coins suddenly being transacted back into action.

I could create a charitable organization such that donations to it can be deducted.  All donations would be used to match Satoshi dumps of vulnerable caches.  Win, win; Bitcoin goes up in value, contributors get an income tax deduction.

Satoshi could die unexpectedly/suddenly without having prepared to pass their fortune on to their beneficiaries.  This could happen without anyone knowing.  The reward coins would be unknowingly lost.  However, the fear/risk would remain.  If/when the news did get out then a worldwide treasure hunt for the scrap of paper (it matters not if they ever existed or not) with the private keys could create mayhem.  Even if the keys are passed on there's no guarantee the beneficiaries would be as benevolent as Satoshi has been so far.

After a long enough period of time no one will actively worry about such things; well it might make a nice plot element in some future novel.  This would just make the shock greater; concerns that a flaw in Bitcoin had been discovered as opposed to Satoshi just waking up to collect their well-deserved reward.

Will he have to go and do battle with Satans lieutenants to prevent an early eschaton?

I assume you mean a known PRIVATE key, since you couldn't transfer ANYTHING to an "unknown public key."

Also, why on earth would anyone throw away an enormous amount of money in return for nothing?

This does not solve my previous question but the previous question made me think of it.  How does one construct a transaction like the following?;

Alice and Bob both send X BTC to an address atomically

We do this at restaurants all the time; put two VISA cards on the bill and ask the waitress to split it 50/50.

If such a transaction can be constructed then an alternative proposal would be to have Satoshi and other volunteers co-dump enough Bitcoins into an address without a known public key to reduce the latent concern in the system.

I'd be delighted to see Satoshi get every penny they've earned and more.  Satoshi may be trustable not to dump significant portions of their holdings but the temptation to coerce them will only increase as the value of Bitcoin increases.

*Any* Bitcoin holder with enough value ought to be of a concern.  If the Winklevoss's were publicly coerced into giving up their Bitcoins then we would see them move on the block chain and know the destination addresses were under the control of bad guys.  But if they are coerced privately then we wouldn't know.  The Winklevosses are public figures and it wouldn't take long to realize they had been coerced.  Satoshi is utterly private.  We would have no idea whether he/she/they were being coerced or not.  The movement of Bitcoins out of Satoshi holdings at an unexpected/unannounced time would be disruptive.

A significant off-market transaction will eventually be noticed and confidence will swing, perhaps wildly, on the news.

You're theory seems to be based on the fact that people don't want to reward Satoshi for the second coming of money. Why should people care if he dumps the coins? More for everyone else, no? It's not like Bitcoin stops working if he sells all his coins. Besides, it's not like he would move them onto MtGOX and do a market order. More likely he's sell to Citibank or something in a lump sum.