Topic: Fork and Destroy Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 14344 times)
What have you done for BTC ? i think nothing and just came here and say this ? lol Satoshi is one who made this thing we must be a billionaire make his life we havnt problem with this and it cant be any problem with withdrawing or anything we all must be grateful to him he the god of btc and crypto that is all i know.
I really don’t think anybody needs to worry about Satoshi’s bitcoin’s. He could be dead for all we know. The price hit near 20k USD & he sold nothing so even if he’s alive bitcoin is his work, his art, his masterpiece. I don’t think he would crash the price by selling.
Lols, If I was importuned to buying 1M bitcoin at it earliest stage, I would have kept them and probably sold some during the ATH season.
only if it was you but unfortunately its not . in the case of satoshi , he did hold 1m bitcoins but he didnt sold them at the 2017's peak . maybe he is waiting for much higher ath ? hmmm...
Oh yes! they are mine and there is nothing anyone can do about that, I determine when to spend it. This same situation is currently applicable to Satoshi's 1M bitcoin holding and he deserves even more than that.
yes he deserve more than that but there is no point of owning a bitcoin on his wallet because bitcoin is already his own invention and he offically owns all the 21m bitcoin .
I doubt he's really interested in selling off his bitcoin, if he chooses to, people will be happy to buy cheap, but he will not.
we will never know . maybe he will sell it in the future or not but lets hope he wont , because if that happens , i think this can cause an impact on the price of bitcoin . bitcoin can go down quickly but the price might also recover quickly because alot of people will use this oppurtunity to buy more coins .
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
I am against it. Would i want to see 1 million bitcoin dumping on exchanges, no! But i don't believe it will happen. Even i don't think satoshi will ever lay finger on that bitcoin. Still, it is his and he can do whatever he wants.
There's no fork that will get close to bitcoin let alone destroying it. We don't know for sure how much bitcoins that Satoshi has. He originated the technology and he has right to use, spend and withdraw as he likes. Fine, withdrawing the whole amount will be felt as bitcoin is not just any altcoin.
Lols, If I was importuned to buying 1M bitcoin at it earliest stage, I would have kept them and probably sold some during the ATH season. Oh yes! they are mine and there is nothing anyone can do about that, I determine when to spend it. This same situation is currently applicable to Satoshi's 1M bitcoin holding and he deserves even more than that. I doubt he's really interested in selling off his bitcoin, if he chooses to, people will be happy to buy cheap, but he will not.
You are kidding right! No one has the right to block someone of his own money even is the whole community agreed on this that would still be wrong and will for sure lid to the end of Bitcoin because no one will dare to hold big portion of Bitcoin ever again because simply he might wake up and see his money gone with a fork.
Took a vacation and coming back on this.
Took a vacation and coming back on this.
Every fork in disagreement will just create one more additional chain. Satoshi's Bitcoins are part of the mystery and history of Bitcoin.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
I don't think so, and every user is 'fully entitled' to treat their money in the bitcoin format. If you are weak with this opinion, meaning that the meaning of bitcoin decentralization can be declared lost. Decentralization is one of the principles of Satoshi Nakamoto, this factor has finally created trust in the user community and has been able to increase the value of bitcoin itself, but banks and governments do not remain silent whenever they often take reactionary actions in the community whose purpose's to limit the use of bitcoin broader.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
If they do this thing, then the loss of public trust and the decline in the number of users will certainly occur significantly, then what can we be proud of with the performance of bitcoin.
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
Even if its sold someone else will buy it. You shouldn't fear the free market, embrace it and learn to use it to your advantage. Cheap bitcoins? Buy while you can...
Or perhaps he lost his priv keys anyway. Can you track how much of the 17.5 million bitcoins are "moving"? Some will never move again from lost keys. Forking over something like this is unacceptable.
You have a socialist mind, and want "intervention", but there is no State or institution so you are appealing the Bitcoin developers AND the community that keep the nodes and mining. But they won't accept such a thing.
Transitioning from a culture where you are used to a State controlling, to one where there is no one who can manipulate the money no matter what, is part of the maturity. It isn't even Bitcoin's maturity, but the people that think they understand it.
Accept that there is that million out there, and that it could be moved at any moment, or never. Its part of bitcoin's value.
Oh; Satoshi sold his million. Good for him, he deserves it. Or let him hold them for another decade, when the price gains an extra zero or so...
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
Is Bitcoin decentralized or not? What you're talking about is hard-coding censorship into the protocol. That would destroy everything Bitcoin stands for today.
Free markets are free markets. Someday, those coins will probably be moved and sold because they're held on exposed public keys. If someone wants to dump 1 million coins on the market, it's a good thing in the long run. Distribution from one entity to many is healthy for the overall distribution of money supply. It may result in a painful few years for holders, but it's not worth engaging in hard-coded censorship over.
It's a good thing that nothing like this has happened yet, as it would set a dangerous precedent. I don't like the other concepts of "re-adding" the coins to the overall pool after a certain time limit, as that makes things like vaults useless, in some cases. Let the free market do its thing and don't try to adjust it based on what you want. If the market gets flooded, too bad. There's no justification for destroying anything in this community.
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
Is Bitcoin decentralized or not? What you're talking about is hard-coding censorship into the protocol. That would destroy everything Bitcoin stands for today.
Free markets are free markets. Someday, those coins will probably be moved and sold because they're held on exposed public keys. If someone wants to dump 1 million coins on the market, it's a good thing in the long run. Distribution from one entity to many is healthy for the overall distribution of money supply. It may result in a painful few years for holders, but it's not worth engaging in hard-coded censorship over.
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
Oh right, so you want to impose rules and regulations, terms and
conditions to owning bitcoin is it?
Ill bet you wouldnt mind storing millions of bitcoin and further
you would "withdraw" them at an oportune time that is beneficial
for your pocket.
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
This is a very bad idea and would destroy the trust in Bitcoin. If you start forking coins out of the network, that would be the beginning of the end. Nobody has the right to decide at Bitcoin which coins are ok and which are not. Once the coins from Satoshi have been foked away, which coins will follow? Yours, mine or which ones? And who will decide that? As you can see, such a move would destroy the credibility of a decentralized currency. Even though Satoshi's coins seem like a threat, they're not.
You bring it right to the point with your statement. Nobody should be allowed in a system like Bitcoin to determine which coins are ok and which are not. A fork to improve programming I will always support, but not a fork that takes any coins out of the system. Such a fork will never get my support
There are a legion of Bitcoin forks already (and counting)
But they are mostly of no interest to anyone. Thus, if someone wipes away Satoshi's satoshi (provided it hasn't been done already and not just once at that), are you going to lose sleep over it? As there can be only one true Bitcoin, there seems to be only one true Bitcoin fork and that is Bitcoin Cash so far (though the doors are open). It makes a good vehicle for speculation, just in case. In fact, people are heavily overestimating the impact of these forks
Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.
Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.
This is a very bad idea and would destroy the trust in Bitcoin. If you start forking coins out of the network, that would be the beginning of the end. Nobody has the right to decide at Bitcoin which coins are ok and which are not. Once the coins from Satoshi have been foked away, which coins will follow? Yours, mine or which ones? And who will decide that? As you can see, such a move would destroy the credibility of a decentralized currency. Even though Satoshi's coins seem like a threat, they're not.
You bring it right to the point with your statement. Nobody should be allowed in a system like Bitcoin to determine which coins are ok and which are not. A fork to improve programming I will always support, but not a fork that takes any coins out of the system. Such a fork will never get my support.
In the end no one can predict if Satoshi will use his coins at some point or not, but one way or another they belong to the 21 million Bitcoins that there will be at some point. So no one shouldn't be afraid of it.
Basically, you say that it is morally reprehensible in your eyes while still trying to make it look like it is a bad thing in general.
Theft is normally considered a bad thing in general, yes. I wasn't aware we were debating that. You can create a fork to deprive people of their coins if you want, but I'm going to take the personal view that you're a bad person if you do it. What part of that wasn't clear?
There's a catch, though
If forking is not a theft, then your train of reasoning fails instantly. If we accept that forking a coin is an inalienable and natural right of everyone (which looks a plausible assumption in my eyes), then you can't possibly claim that a fork is a theft as theft cannot be considered such a right, to begin with. On the other hand, if you disagree, then there is no other choice but to accept that a fork, and any fork for that matter, is a bad thing on its own (a theft in itself). That's the power of simple logic. So what is your pick?
Neither, because I fundamentally reject your entire premise. The act of forking only becomes an act of theft if the purpose or intent of your fork is to deprive someone of their property. Each fork should be judged on the effects of its code
But is it my premise in the first place?
Wasn't it in fact you who first mentioned a fork (a certain fork) as a means of depriving people of their property? But there's another catch, still. When you create a fork, is it legitimate to claim that the coins in that fork actually belong to their owners on the original blockchain? As I see it, this is not the case here, so your entire idea of "depriving people of their coins" via a fork seems highly dubious to me as there's technically nothing to deprive of
Apart from that, it also goes against the whole Bitcoin paradigm, i.e. removing value judgments from anything related to cryptocurrencies. But this is exactly what you are doing here. Really, your point ultimately boils down to saying that a fork should be morally judged on some abstract assumptions like the ones stated which some people may agree with while others not so much
Split Bitcoin as much as you like but it will not affect the value of the original Bitcoin . Bitcoin has been forked several times but its the new coin thatl struggles to be relevant. Forking can not destroy Satoshi's Bitcoin holdings but will make him richer for forks incentives Bitcoin holders with their new coins.
Bitcoin Cash gave for each bitcoin (BTC), an owner got 1 Bitcoin Cash (BCH).Bitcoin Gold gave for each BTC, an owner got 1 Bitcoin Gold (BTG). Bitcoin SV gave for each Bitcoin Cash (BCH), an owner got 1 Bitcoin SV (BSV).
Bitcoin Cash gave for each bitcoin (BTC), an owner got 1 Bitcoin Cash (BCH).Bitcoin Gold gave for each BTC, an owner got 1 Bitcoin Gold (BTG). Bitcoin SV gave for each Bitcoin Cash (BCH), an owner got 1 Bitcoin SV (BSV).
^^ calling it "theft" is just branding it with a false description if you ask me. and this has nothing to do with theft. this is all about the fact that nobody should be allowed to make decisions about other people's funds in bitcoin. if we allow that to happen, then it won't stop there. next thing you know people would start wanting their money back when they lost it in some scam, there will be roll back forks all around us and immutability of bitcoin is going to be a historical feature.
Basically, you say that it is morally reprehensible in your eyes while still trying to make it look like it is a bad thing in general.
Theft is normally considered a bad thing in general, yes. I wasn't aware we were debating that. You can create a fork to deprive people of their coins if you want, but I'm going to take the personal view that you're a bad person if you do it. What part of that wasn't clear?
There's a catch, though
If forking is not a theft, then your train of reasoning fails instantly. If we accept that forking a coin is an inalienable and natural right of everyone (which looks a plausible assumption in my eyes), then you can't possibly claim that a fork is a theft as theft cannot be considered such a right, to begin with. On the other hand, if you disagree, then there is no other choice but to accept that a fork, and any fork for that matter, is a bad thing on its own (a theft in itself). That's the power of simple logic. So what is your pick?
Neither, because I fundamentally reject your entire premise. The act of forking only becomes an act of theft if the purpose or intent of your fork is to deprive someone of their property. Each fork should be judged on the effects of its code.
If we take your stance to its logical extreme, if I were to create a fork that redirected every single transaction to an address where I controlled the private key, would you dare to claim I'm not trying to steal from people? Or are you now saying I don't have the right to create that fork where I can steal from people? Now what is your pick? Suddenly you realise the dilemma.
The only reasonable stance is that people can create forks like that, because:
a) no one can stop them from doing it
and
b) I personally wouldn't want to try to stop them if I could because it's not my place to do so
But what we can do is say it's morally wrong and then let people decide for themselves if they want to follow that fork or not.
Basically, you say that it is morally reprehensible in your eyes while still trying to make it look like it is a bad thing in general.
Theft is normally considered a bad thing in general, yes. I wasn't aware we were debating that. You can create a fork to deprive people of their coins if you want, but I'm going to take the personal view that you're a bad person if you do it. What part of that wasn't clear?
There's a catch, though
If forking is not a theft, then your train of reasoning fails instantly. If we accept that forking a coin is an inalienable and natural right of everyone (which looks a plausible assumption in my eyes), then you can't possibly claim that a fork is a theft as theft cannot be considered such a right, to begin with. On the other hand, if you disagree, then there is no other choice but to accept that a fork, and any fork for that matter, is a bad thing on its own (a theft in itself). That's the power of simple logic. So what is your pick?
Jump to: