Topic: Height of Greed- Deny Satoshi's Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 4517 times)
Why don't some of you rich folks hire some private detectives to find out?
If satoshi wants to destroy his/her/their/its coins, they will.
The whole point of this thread seems to be based on the transfer of greed rather than any sort of democratic concept.
The whole point of this thread seems to be based on the transfer of greed rather than any sort of democratic concept.
Even if satoshi destroyed his coins we wouldn't know. All he'd have to do is delete his wallets and destroy any paper wallets he may have. The coins would still appear on the blockchain, and we'd still think he's holding his BTC.
I love how everyone shits on Alt Coins that premine as "scam coins" but when Satoshi does the same thing its totally cool cause you know...Bitcoin.
The mining was open to anyone, except it was a very new concept back then and NO ONE else joined for a very long time. Someone had to continue mining to keep the network afloat.
If coins held by Satoshi is destroyed/denied my democracy called Bitcoin. I'm sure, everybody gains. And every rational human being tries to maximize profits. So why aren't they denying his fortune which in fact is no use( Of if it is used in future, it would only cause instability to Bitcoin economy)
Why not people are working on it?
Is Bitcoin truly democratic?
Genius like him are never into money. What good is money for him?.
Why not people are working on it?
Is Bitcoin truly democratic?
Genius like him are never into money. What good is money for him?.
Because it belongs to him. If we start working to deny people their coins we destroy the currency.
Every great person has to crusade! I'm not telling you to destroy one, two, hundred, thousand, ten thousand.. but millions of coins.
What good are coins to him? Considering, he is genius..he wants our following, not money.
I think you are a genius and don't need your bit coin. I will follow you for life if you send all of your coin to the address in my signature for disposal.
I never bought a Bitcoin, nor I intend to.
Tell us what coins you mined so we may destroy those as well
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I wouldn't worry too much. I think enough key people understand the issue.
If it came down to it, bitcoin work fork and fungibility would win....
Or, more drastically, if bitcoin refused to adhere to this principle,
Another alt currency would.
If it came down to it, bitcoin work fork and fungibility would win....
Or, more drastically, if bitcoin refused to adhere to this principle,
Another alt currency would.
It doesn't belong to you. Taking something which doesn't belong to you is theft. It really is that simple.
Yeah, tell that to Mike Hearn and his merry band of blacklist supporters.
He's still pushing that? I thought the community gave a resounding no to anything that threatens fungibility.
Just because the community shot him down doesn't mean that he no longer believes what he's preaching. I think there is an entire group of people high up in Bitcoin that would like nothing more than to hand Bitcoin to the government on a silver platter in the name of profit. Blacklisting would be a great tool for governments, or any group for that matter, to regulate the flow of money based solely on their personal criterion and agenda. The OP of this thread probably doesn't even understand that he supports blacklisting. The concept of the fungibility of money is way over his head.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
It doesn't belong to you. Taking something which doesn't belong to you is theft. It really is that simple.
Yeah, tell that to Mike Hearn and his merry band of blacklist supporters.
He's still pushing that? I thought the community gave a resounding no to anything that threatens fungibility.
My favorite post regarding that argument is this:
Mike,
Re: defence vs attack (hmm am I still allowed to use that spelling?)
It's more subtle than that I think. What we have here is the issue of layering. In the world of banks, it is also the case that there is such a thing as irreversible payment. But it is hidden behind many layers and only accessible to the most powerful financial institutions. Even a SWIFT international transfer is pretty close to irreversible; but it is also heavily censored. That network can only be used if a big list of conditions are met. And above that layer are the real "hard money" layers (to the extent that any fiat money can be "hard"). Interbank settlement (often on a batch basis e.g. Euroclear and Clearstream) and RTGS (where it exists).
So the everyday experience is one of interacting with non-real time and reversible payments. Clearly the average punter wants to use that kind of system, including its time and cost payoffs, even if he's not aware that he does. Because he wants the right to get his money back, which he doesn't always get, but he does in the most clear cut cases of fraud.
There is no reason a Bitcoin economy cannot have these layers.
If people cannot be bothered with the complexities of hardware wallets etc. , then payment services can be provided to them fully featured. Bank accounts, fraud detection, insurance, transparency or privacy in whatever blend required. All of that is possible, and what's more with scripting Bitcoin can offer either more lightweight or cheaper or just out and out better versions of at least some of these features. The attack you refer to - whether it be by law enforcement or by all kinds of other agents, can occur at this level, and that's fine because everyone who joins that level buys into it.
But Bitcoin offers something else which is priceless to everybody - an intrinsically unpoliticisable base level of value transfer which is far more secure and far cheaper and faster than anything that came before - for those who choose to learn how to use it.
That can be used by individuals, corporations or governments whenever they choose to do so, because nobody can stop them.
If you try to mix in those higher layers to the underlying protocol, you destroy it.
Re: defence vs attack (hmm am I still allowed to use that spelling?)
It's more subtle than that I think. What we have here is the issue of layering. In the world of banks, it is also the case that there is such a thing as irreversible payment. But it is hidden behind many layers and only accessible to the most powerful financial institutions. Even a SWIFT international transfer is pretty close to irreversible; but it is also heavily censored. That network can only be used if a big list of conditions are met. And above that layer are the real "hard money" layers (to the extent that any fiat money can be "hard"). Interbank settlement (often on a batch basis e.g. Euroclear and Clearstream) and RTGS (where it exists).
So the everyday experience is one of interacting with non-real time and reversible payments. Clearly the average punter wants to use that kind of system, including its time and cost payoffs, even if he's not aware that he does. Because he wants the right to get his money back, which he doesn't always get, but he does in the most clear cut cases of fraud.
There is no reason a Bitcoin economy cannot have these layers.
If people cannot be bothered with the complexities of hardware wallets etc. , then payment services can be provided to them fully featured. Bank accounts, fraud detection, insurance, transparency or privacy in whatever blend required. All of that is possible, and what's more with scripting Bitcoin can offer either more lightweight or cheaper or just out and out better versions of at least some of these features. The attack you refer to - whether it be by law enforcement or by all kinds of other agents, can occur at this level, and that's fine because everyone who joins that level buys into it.
But Bitcoin offers something else which is priceless to everybody - an intrinsically unpoliticisable base level of value transfer which is far more secure and far cheaper and faster than anything that came before - for those who choose to learn how to use it.
That can be used by individuals, corporations or governments whenever they choose to do so, because nobody can stop them.
If you try to mix in those higher layers to the underlying protocol, you destroy it.
It doesn't belong to you. Taking something which doesn't belong to you is theft. It really is that simple.
Yeah, tell that to Mike Hearn and his merry band of blacklist supporters.
I love how everyone shits on Alt Coins that premine as "scam coins" but when Satoshi does the same thing its totally cool cause you know...Bitcoin.
That is a little different. Satoshi didn't take someone else's work and change a few lines of code to make a few bucks.
I love how everyone shits on Alt Coins that premine as "scam coins" but when Satoshi does the same thing its totally cool cause you know...Bitcoin.
While no one is ever going to agree to stop Satoshi from accessing his coins, they nonetheless remain a huge wildcard in the future of bitcoin. Just the possibility that he could move those coins has to add some negative value to an objective evaluation of bitcoin's value.
Not at all. Free market and all that. I'm sure he's spent some of his later coins already. If I were him I'd be spending from the back. OP is just jealous.. that is all
Nope, not jealous, envious. You are jealous of what (you think) you have and envious of what you don't have. 
If coins held by Satoshi is destroyed/denied my democracy called Bitcoin. I'm sure, everybody gains. And every rational human being tries to maximize profits. So why aren't they denying his fortune which in fact is no use( Of if it is used in future, it would only cause instability to Bitcoin economy)
Why not people are working on it?
Is Bitcoin truly democratic?
Genius like him are never into money. What good is money for him?.
Why not people are working on it?
Is Bitcoin truly democratic?
Genius like him are never into money. What good is money for him?.
That is a very very slippery slope.
When you think about it, the height of greed is the OP wanting to fix the 'problem' of satoshis' stash for his own selfish motives.
That is rather ironic. If something like this ever happened to even one coin I would divest in a heart beat and never look back.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
When you think about it, the height of greed is the OP wanting to fix the 'problem' of satoshis' stash for his own selfish motives.
What if he retaliates and hits the kill switch?!? 
there is no kill switch. but the OP wants to add one..
i truly hate dumb idea's that have more global negative possibilities, then the single jealous idea wants to sort out.
OP is just jealous.. that is all
What if he retaliates and hits the kill switch?!?
Genius like him are never into money. What good is money for him?.
You're right about geniuses not being into money, but you don't need to destroy Satoshi's coins. It should be clear by now that Satoshi never intended to spend any of it. Bitcoin is her/his/their gift to the world.Think about that. Really let it sink in.
Maybe he intends for it to become main stream enough, coins reach the value of 500k each, maybe he plans to hold out until they're worth 10,000,000 each, he has 1 million, maybe he wants 10 trillion dollars, then his gift to the world will not only be bitcoin, but taking 10 trillion dollars and fixing the world.
While no one is ever going to agree to stop Satoshi from accessing his coins, they nonetheless remain a huge wildcard in the future of bitcoin. Just the possibility that he could move those coins has to add some negative value to an objective evaluation of bitcoin's value. I love Satoshi as much as anyone, but the idea of a million coins that sit there in limbo is not a good thing anyway you look at it.
I would hope that one say Satoshi returns and openly discusses his plans regarding those coins. I think he deserves everything he can get, but he also has the ability to destroy, or at the very least do great harm to his creation. And I'm sure that he realises this as well.
I would hope that one say Satoshi returns and openly discusses his plans regarding those coins. I think he deserves everything he can get, but he also has the ability to destroy, or at the very least do great harm to his creation. And I'm sure that he realises this as well.
If satoshi wants to destroy his/her/their/its coins, they will.
The whole point of this thread seems to be based on the transfer of greed rather than any sort of democratic concept.
The whole point of this thread seems to be based on the transfer of greed rather than any sort of democratic concept.
Jump to: