Thank you Satoshi; we haven't heard from you in awhile so we thought we would take control of some bitcoins that might be yours; hope you don't mind; we will give them back if you return; honest.
Nope; bad idea.
Topic: Coins of Satoshi (Read 3901 times)
Outrageous. I think you dont understand bitcoin at sll
I'm hesitant to contribute nothing to an argument that's already been beaten to death. But if I remember rightly there was a Theymos thread about the possibility that, if the cryptography were ever broken and those coins were in danger, something would have to be done about it. It was controversial. I don't think a consensus was reached and I can't find the thread.
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
Get Satoshi’s coins in possession of a group of trusted community members (with an hard fork).
Multi signature required for actions from this pool of valuable internet money.
As per todays economical data this group would have access to more than 1 Billion USD in BTC.
Multi signature required for actions from this pool of valuable internet money.
As per todays economical data this group would have access to more than 1 Billion USD in BTC.
The problem with that is that you would make more money by not doing that. Bitcoin prices are going to go higher and higher, think 10,000+ USD or more at some point within next 10 years.
More people will use BTC and demand will be greater = wayyyy higher price. In the end it would be more worth it for miners to continue mining and not try to do any kind of hard fork to steal other peoples coins(which I am not even sure it is possible).
I'm hesitant to contribute nothing to an argument that's already been beaten to death. But if I remember rightly there was a Theymos thread about the possibility that, if the cryptography were ever broken and those coins were in danger, something would have to be done about it. It was controversial. I don't think a consensus was reached and I can't find the thread.
IF that coins is in danger ... pls rise DEF CON signal 1
ed; add 'signal'
I'm hesitant to contribute nothing to an argument that's already been beaten to death. But if I remember rightly there was a Theymos thread about the possibility that, if the cryptography were ever broken and those coins were in danger, something would have to be done about it. It was controversial. I don't think a consensus was reached and I can't find the thread.
What if he never comes back? We could agree on a date, about 80 years from now(?), on which we give certain parties access to the never touched coins.
What if he returns 150 years from now? Why do you think it is okay to steal?
What if he never comes back?
I have no problem with that. In fact this would be the best solution.
We could agree on a date, about 80 years from now(?), on which we give certain parties access to the never touched coins.
I will never agree to allow "certain parties" to steal BTC.
What if he never comes back? We could agree on a date, about 80 years from now(?), on which we give certain parties access to the never touched coins.
I do not agree ... but I respect your opinion
if he comes out send a view btc the btc world would go crasy, if he put all his bitcoins for sale prices will tumble you should see his coins as a fort knox of btcbut ya my opinion
Get Satoshi’s coins in possession of a group of trusted community members (with an hard fork).
Multi signature required for actions from this pool of valuable internet money.
As per todays economical data this group would have access to more than 1 Billion USD in BTC.
it would kill bitcoin, lots of people have faith in him, if he would start selling or you would fork him out i think people will lose their faith in btc and you would see penny price faster than you think. he is the central bank of btc or an authority with would come close to cantral banks with fiat moneyMulti signature required for actions from this pool of valuable internet money.
As per todays economical data this group would have access to more than 1 Billion USD in BTC.
i also think you should be thankfull to him for the rest of your life, he gave you the opportunity to make a fortune in bitcoin. instead you come up eith ideas like this
better just leave his coins alone.. he can do whatever he wants with them 
No one has any idea what coins are Satoshi's -- except for the coins paid the the block 0 address and those left over from block 9.
People speculate about a lot of things-- but most of these speculations are provably false or are at least completely unsupported.--- they just get spread around to justify the super massive and unethical premines in systems like Ethereum.
For all we know Satoshi might only own a small amount of Bitcoin.
Regardless, you're sure as hell not going to take anyone's Bitcoin's from them.
People speculate about a lot of things-- but most of these speculations are provably false or are at least completely unsupported.--- they just get spread around to justify the super massive and unethical premines in systems like Ethereum.
For all we know Satoshi might only own a small amount of Bitcoin.
Regardless, you're sure as hell not going to take anyone's Bitcoin's from them.
so let me speculate too while I write my sci-fi novel...
Satoshi kept some sort of mnemonic diceware-string for his first deterministic wallet ... He never took note of it because he though he would never forget that string... but then he had a stroke and he developed a severe memory loss ... since then he tried to recover his memory ...
Using your definition, every bounced check or reversed paypal or credit card transaction is a "double-spend"?
my english is too poorwhat is "double" and what is "spend"?
i thought that double-spend - is successful spending one amount of funds for two/three/etc victims
no matter how this exchange was performed - by centralized or decentralized system
So, double-spending (by your definition) does not exist in any transaction system.
Not in any usable transaction system. In centralized transaction systems, that is the purpose of the centralized entity (to be the "authority" on which is the "real" transaction so that double-spending doesn't happen). In a decentralized system, that is the purpose of the blockchain ((to be the "authority" on which is the "real" transaction so that double-spending doesn't happen).
The merchant must wait a billion years for "well-confirming" the money before sending the goods 
Each merchant can make their own decisions based on their own risk tolerance.
Using your definition, every bounced check or reversed paypal or credit card transaction is a "double-spend"?
Furthermore, if someone provides a product or service before the agreed transaction is well confirmed in the blockchain
So, double-spending (by your definition) does not exist in any transaction system.The merchant must wait a billion years for "well-confirming" the money before sending the goods
There has never been a successful double-spend in Bitcoin (where the same bitcoins,
or outputs, are spent in more than one transaction in the blockchain).
Your definition for "successful double-spend" is too poor.or outputs, are spent in more than one transaction in the blockchain).
Let us define double-spending as "buying two things by paying with one coin"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-successful-double-spend-us10000-against-okpay-this-morning-152348
Coins don't exist (and you know that). Only outputs with an associated value.
Therefore, nobody has every "payed with one coin" for anything.
Furthermore, if someone provides a product or service before the agreed transaction is well confirmed in the blockchain, then they are voluntarily taking a risk that the transaction will be invalid and that they won't receive control over that value. That's not a double spend, that's providing a product or service in exchange for a promise.
There has never been a successful double-spend in Bitcoin (where the same bitcoins,
or outputs, are spent in more than one transaction in the blockchain).
Your definition for "successful double-spend" is too poor.or outputs, are spent in more than one transaction in the blockchain).
Let us define double-spending as "buying two things by paying with one coin"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-successful-double-spend-us10000-against-okpay-this-morning-152348
With some research you can see which of the early mined coins are untouched. These were probably mined by team Satoshi.
Probably? PROBABLY??
You're just going to steal bitcoins without even knowing for certain who they belong to? Your lack of ethics and morals is astounding. Might be a good idea to lock you up before you destroy too many peoples lives.
Have you got any knowledge about how the difficulty functionality works? Seems you don't.
I do. You clearly don't. This is why I have suggested that you, "stop making completely ridiculous suggestions, and spend a few minutes learning how bitcoin actually works."
The starting difficulty was so low that it took seconds instead of 10 minutes to mine a block.
This is not true. Difficulty adjusts every 2016 bocks to keep the block interval at 10 minutes. If those 2016 blocks come too fast, then the difficulty is increased to slow down the blocks. If those 2016 blocks come too slow, then the difficulty is decreased to speed up the blocks.
I believe some double spending happened in the early days..
There has never been a successful double-spend in Bitcoin (where the same bitcoins, or outputs, are spent in more than one transaction in the blockchain).
There definitely are ways to get access to the coins we are speaking about.
Well, if you're so certain, then stop talking about it and go ahead and do it.
Good luck.
Have you got any knowledge about how the difficulty functionality works?
Seems you don't.
The starting difficulty was so low that it took seconds instead of 10 minutes to mine a block.
LOL. Have you got any knowledge about how the difficulty functionality works? Seems you don't.
The starting difficulty was so low that it took seconds instead of 10 minutes to mine a block.
Seems you don't.
The starting difficulty was low and it took 10 minutes to mine a block.
Jump to: