Paxmao just to clarify: the argument here is whether a Satoshiless Bitcoin would be better than the current distribution. Any unrelated / non sequitar arguments will be reported from now on although I do not know where they draw the exact line. I feel like I have asked enough for comprehensive reading before posting a reply. I am looking for an on-topic discussion. If this is not possible here, then it is probably also not worth having it here.
Kind greetings,
Auralea
Topic: Satoshiless Bitcoin (Read 201 times)
Dear paxmao,
Thanks for your reply. In case you missed it, I actually answered the exact things you replied to in the post you quoted to reply!
''Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.''
I really do appreaciate the willingness to reply, but please read carefully before you do so. What do you deduce from the previous statement if you think about it? The statement portays accute awareness of the value of an ecosystem and its foundation. It states clearly that a satoshiless coin would be worth nothing, unless people valued it at something comparatively to bitcoin because of it being satoshiless.
Thanks for reading and replying, but please try to read carefully if the point you are making adds to the discussion here or if it is just a repeat of an argument.
Kind greetings,
Auralea
Thanks for your reply. In case you missed it, I actually answered the exact things you replied to in the post you quoted to reply!
''Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.''
I really do appreaciate the willingness to reply, but please read carefully before you do so. What do you deduce from the previous statement if you think about it? The statement portays accute awareness of the value of an ecosystem and its foundation. It states clearly that a satoshiless coin would be worth nothing, unless people valued it at something comparatively to bitcoin because of it being satoshiless.
Thanks for reading and replying, but please try to read carefully if the point you are making adds to the discussion here or if it is just a repeat of an argument.
Kind greetings,
Auralea
I think you all have valuable points, yet you might miss some of the problems and solutions in my first post.
Firstly, it doesn't matter much if the software is decentralised if the wealth is centralised and controlled by institutions in the end. No matter if Satoshi had 1 billion $ or 100 billion $, the fact remains that Bitcoin could never be an actual alternative in the real world with one person owning so much of a monetary supply. Would you ever shift fiat based capital into such a thing if you knew one person/entity had so much of the wealth? The other option is that the powers that be would, because they created bitcoin or see it playing out in big capitals interest and so they buy up major slots of bitcoin. This would still leave us with a situation in which these powers that be would reign supreme once again, gobbling up more and more of the wealth in the bitcoin chain.
Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.
Lastly I just want to say, I never meant to imply in any way that the forks were minor or that the problems they solved were marginal. I understand how one would read this sentence as being disrespectful to the people working hard on these forks and the people behind them. All I meant to say was that back when I first learned of bitcoin, this seemed like the most obvious and least difficult problem to solve to me.
I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say that I do implore you to come up with different problems than ''you can't restart a blockchain'', this is not my intention or ''satoshi deserves it''. Say, purely from a theoretical standpoint, that Satoshi is an internationally powerful network of pedophiles. No one says pedo's can't be smart, or that they can't contribute to society. All I am saying is, is it wise or even tenable to establish a new ''currency'' with this much of the distribution taking place anonymously?
Thanks for reading and greetings,
Auralea
Firstly, it doesn't matter much if the software is decentralised if the wealth is centralised and controlled by institutions in the end. No matter if Satoshi had 1 billion $ or 100 billion $, the fact remains that Bitcoin could never be an actual alternative in the real world with one person owning so much of a monetary supply. Would you ever shift fiat based capital into such a thing if you knew one person/entity had so much of the wealth? The other option is that the powers that be would, because they created bitcoin or see it playing out in big capitals interest and so they buy up major slots of bitcoin. This would still leave us with a situation in which these powers that be would reign supreme once again, gobbling up more and more of the wealth in the bitcoin chain.
Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.
Lastly I just want to say, I never meant to imply in any way that the forks were minor or that the problems they solved were marginal. I understand how one would read this sentence as being disrespectful to the people working hard on these forks and the people behind them. All I meant to say was that back when I first learned of bitcoin, this seemed like the most obvious and least difficult problem to solve to me.
I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say that I do implore you to come up with different problems than ''you can't restart a blockchain'', this is not my intention or ''satoshi deserves it''. Say, purely from a theoretical standpoint, that Satoshi is an internationally powerful network of pedophiles. No one says pedo's can't be smart, or that they can't contribute to society. All I am saying is, is it wise or even tenable to establish a new ''currency'' with this much of the distribution taking place anonymously?
Thanks for reading and greetings,
Auralea
Again, you CAN restart a chain, but the value of a chain is on the ecosystem: developers, hodlers, traders, exchanges, shops that accept bitcoin,... That is what you "can´t restart", and it does not matter if the main owners where a sect of fetuses eaters or fans of Woody Allen.
I have no doubt he is a person and definitely a good person. He absolutely deserves his coins but not a million Bitcoin(except for Bitcoin development).
By the way there is no proof Satoshi own a million Bitcoin.
By the way there is no proof Satoshi own a million Bitcoin.
The way I see it, it could be pretty simple. We as a community made Andreas a millionaire because of one Roger Ver tweet. IF SN would be a genuine person/team of people, there would be no problem in convincing the community to give them millions, if not more bitcoin than SN has at this point. The difference then will be that we know who own this wealth and we can all judge for ourselves whether their intentions are good. Just one thread below me when I checked the replies on this thread is a question of whether the FBI could be SN. Do you know? Do I know? Does anyone, besides SN?
The whole idea of blockchain and bitcoin would be nearly perfect and decentralised had it not been for this initial distribution in my opinion. We can't just say ''he'll never move the coins'' or ''he probably deleted them''. Do you think trustless systems thrive by making these assumptions? I think not.
Greetings and thanks for the reads & replies
Auralea
The whole idea of blockchain and bitcoin would be nearly perfect and decentralised had it not been for this initial distribution in my opinion. We can't just say ''he'll never move the coins'' or ''he probably deleted them''. Do you think trustless systems thrive by making these assumptions? I think not.
Greetings and thanks for the reads & replies
Auralea
I think you all have valuable points, yet you might miss some of the problems and solutions in my first post.
Firstly, it doesn't matter much if the software is decentralised if the wealth is centralised and controlled by institutions in the end. No matter if Satoshi had 1 billion $ or 100 billion $, the fact remains that Bitcoin could never be an actual alternative in the real world with one person owning so much of a monetary supply. Would you ever shift fiat based capital into such a thing if you knew one person/entity had so much of the wealth? The other option is that the powers that be would, because they created bitcoin or see it playing out in big capitals interest and so they buy up major slots of bitcoin. This would still leave us with a situation in which these powers that be would reign supreme once again, gobbling up more and more of the wealth in the bitcoin chain.
Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.
Lastly I just want to say, I never meant to imply in any way that the forks were minor or that the problems they solved were marginal. I understand how one would read this sentence as being disrespectful to the people working hard on these forks and the people behind them. All I meant to say was that back when I first learned of bitcoin, this seemed like the most obvious and least difficult problem to solve to me.
I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say that I do implore you to come up with different problems than ''you can't restart a blockchain'', this is not my intention or ''satoshi deserves it''. Say, purely from a theoretical standpoint, that Satoshi is an internationally powerful network of pedophiles. No one says pedo's can't be smart, or that they can't contribute to society. All I am saying is, is it wise or even tenable to establish a new ''currency'' with this much of the distribution taking place anonymously?
Thanks for reading and greetings,
Auralea
Firstly, it doesn't matter much if the software is decentralised if the wealth is centralised and controlled by institutions in the end. No matter if Satoshi had 1 billion $ or 100 billion $, the fact remains that Bitcoin could never be an actual alternative in the real world with one person owning so much of a monetary supply. Would you ever shift fiat based capital into such a thing if you knew one person/entity had so much of the wealth? The other option is that the powers that be would, because they created bitcoin or see it playing out in big capitals interest and so they buy up major slots of bitcoin. This would still leave us with a situation in which these powers that be would reign supreme once again, gobbling up more and more of the wealth in the bitcoin chain.
Secondly, I never said we had to shut down the current bitcoin chains (obviously) so I don't see how my idea would impact assets people have on these chains in any way shape or form. That is, unless people validate my original point by investing massively into a satoshiless bitcoin alternative.
Lastly I just want to say, I never meant to imply in any way that the forks were minor or that the problems they solved were marginal. I understand how one would read this sentence as being disrespectful to the people working hard on these forks and the people behind them. All I meant to say was that back when I first learned of bitcoin, this seemed like the most obvious and least difficult problem to solve to me.
I really appreciate all of the comments, but I must say that I do implore you to come up with different problems than ''you can't restart a blockchain'', this is not my intention or ''satoshi deserves it''. Say, purely from a theoretical standpoint, that Satoshi is an internationally powerful network of pedophiles. No one says pedo's can't be smart, or that they can't contribute to society. All I am saying is, is it wise or even tenable to establish a new ''currency'' with this much of the distribution taking place anonymously?
Thanks for reading and greetings,
Auralea
Bitcoin is Satoshiless for years, he hasn't been around for years. nobody would ever trust Bitcoin if we could change everything so easily. social justice
Makes sense in something like a forum, if you say that we should reset DT list and discard abusers, it would actually make sense.
Asking to take people's money from them like this is not justice, it would be stealing their money just to give it to others. nobody has that power to make
It happen.
If he was alive.
Makes sense in something like a forum, if you say that we should reset DT list and discard abusers, it would actually make sense.
Asking to take people's money from them like this is not justice, it would be stealing their money just to give it to others. nobody has that power to make
It happen.
Satoshi only can manipulate it's price.
If he was alive.
Hello Auralea, you have a good points to talk about here, lets start.
*The bitcoin cash fork wasn't just trival software changes, moving from 1mb block to 8mb was a big step for the coin.
*Satoshi nakamoto is holding 1 million BTC, we all consider those coins lost and he leave us a good quote for it: Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.
*If he move the coins the he will be traceable, that's why it will not happen.
*The richest persons in the world get there with big business, this only proves how big bitcoin has become. This great idea called bitcoin is one of the biggest ideas in the human history and deserve to worth those millions.
But i'm agree with you,he could be multiple guys behind the idea, but at end we don't care at all about that because the white paper is clean and the core is open source. That's why we trust it.
*This idea is impossible, you can restart a coin. You can change the genesis block and start a new one.
*If you delete the blockchain, then no one will have btc and we will wait 9 years again to have the amount of btc we have on the market, will be like start from zero again.
*If you don't like how is bitcoin distributed, just take a look to other coins distribution, you will see they are x10 worst than this one
Dear fellow cryptopians,
I never got why all of the Bitcoin forks focus on such trivial software changes while there is one major problem in my opinion with Bitcoin: the % of Bitcoin held by Satoshi Nakamoto. I realise that whoever SN is, he deserves to be rich for the rest of his life if he truly contributed Blockchain and Bitcoin as an application to the world. However, let me explain why I think the crypto community cannot afford to let SN hold this wealth.
I never got why all of the Bitcoin forks focus on such trivial software changes while there is one major problem in my opinion with Bitcoin: the % of Bitcoin held by Satoshi Nakamoto. I realise that whoever SN is, he deserves to be rich for the rest of his life if he truly contributed Blockchain and Bitcoin as an application to the world. However, let me explain why I think the crypto community cannot afford to let SN hold this wealth.
*The bitcoin cash fork wasn't just trival software changes, moving from 1mb block to 8mb was a big step for the coin.
*Satoshi nakamoto is holding 1 million BTC, we all consider those coins lost and he leave us a good quote for it: Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.
*If he move the coins the he will be traceable, that's why it will not happen.
IF Bitcoin continues to rise in price, SN might become the richest person to have ever lived in history except it will not just be value in stocks, it will be in the equavalent of cold hard cash. Of course he couldn't spend it all for the same price due to slipage, but it would be more liquid than any such amount of money before since it is intended to be liquid. We also have to take into account the possibilities that:
1. SN is not a single person but a group, with complex and/or unknown motivations
2. SN is not a single person but an agency of some nationstate or representatives thereof
3. SN is a single person but he has complex/unknown motivations besides innovation
4. SN is a conglomerate of banks who plan to use Bitcoin as a covert way of controlling wealth through POS and owning a large %
1. SN is not a single person but a group, with complex and/or unknown motivations
2. SN is not a single person but an agency of some nationstate or representatives thereof
3. SN is a single person but he has complex/unknown motivations besides innovation
4. SN is a conglomerate of banks who plan to use Bitcoin as a covert way of controlling wealth through POS and owning a large %
*The richest persons in the world get there with big business, this only proves how big bitcoin has become. This great idea called bitcoin is one of the biggest ideas in the human history and deserve to worth those millions.
But i'm agree with you,he could be multiple guys behind the idea, but at end we don't care at all about that because the white paper is clean and the core is open source. That's why we trust it.
My proposed solution:
Fork Bitcoin AND Bitcoin Cash and fully restart their blockchains in a public event. This would include following all of the coding upgrades to these chains so as to keep the code 1:1 equal to the versions including SN's coins. This way, the currencies mining will be decentralised from day one, preventing anyone from grabbing as large a percentage as SN did. I do realise a lot of people WANT SN to have this money, or they feel like he deserves it. As I stated above, I think SN should be rich, but not at the expense of the rest of the network, the decentralisation and the trust we have in the foundation of this system. There can always be a donation system to SN, especially if he/she/they would show their face. I am convinced the crypto community would then make him/her/them instant millionaires, or even billionaires solving two problems in one (their anon status and their wealth).
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I appreciate all feedback and responses!
Greetings,
Auralea
Fork Bitcoin AND Bitcoin Cash and fully restart their blockchains in a public event. This would include following all of the coding upgrades to these chains so as to keep the code 1:1 equal to the versions including SN's coins. This way, the currencies mining will be decentralised from day one, preventing anyone from grabbing as large a percentage as SN did. I do realise a lot of people WANT SN to have this money, or they feel like he deserves it. As I stated above, I think SN should be rich, but not at the expense of the rest of the network, the decentralisation and the trust we have in the foundation of this system. There can always be a donation system to SN, especially if he/she/they would show their face. I am convinced the crypto community would then make him/her/them instant millionaires, or even billionaires solving two problems in one (their anon status and their wealth).
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I appreciate all feedback and responses!
Greetings,
Auralea
*This idea is impossible, you can restart a coin. You can change the genesis block and start a new one.
*If you delete the blockchain, then no one will have btc and we will wait 9 years again to have the amount of btc we have on the market, will be like start from zero again.
*If you don't like how is bitcoin distributed, just take a look to other coins distribution, you will see they are x10 worst than this one
Richest person in the world? Even the public figures that are supposedly the richest like gates and bezos are trumped by many other people. The rothschild basically own the money supply so they hold trillions. It's said putin has over 500 billion and its suspected some of those oil arabs have trillions as well.
Even if bitcoin hit 100k satoshi would still havce around 100 billion, so not even close to the richest person.
Even if bitcoin hit 100k satoshi would still havce around 100 billion, so not even close to the richest person.
Bitcoin restart it's blockchain? From Genesis Block? Obviously no one would agree due to technical/ethical difficulty such as that would mean void everyone's Bitcoin and that means Bitcoin mechanism has failed since people can reset it.
TBH, this is very bad idea. Also, even with lots of Bitcoin, Satoshi can't compromise Bitcoin's decentralization, Satoshi only can manipulate it's price.
TBH, this is very bad idea. Also, even with lots of Bitcoin, Satoshi can't compromise Bitcoin's decentralization, Satoshi only can manipulate it's price.
Yes resetting it is something you would not get people on board with, and as it is decentralized you then cant do it. One of the good things about Bitcoin
Or she just understood that the person who created bitcoin would face daily non-sense from a delusional community. It would suck to be known as Satoshi.
Yeah i think it was a very smart move to step down so he/she was not discovered. Being known as satoshi would be worse than being known as a lottery winner, and just that ruins peoples lifes.
Also if he/she wanted to sell, it would be possible to find out who he/she is after the transfer of funds to fiat. Not easy but doable.
Or she just understood that the person who created bitcoin would face daily non-sense from a delusional community. It would suck to be known as Satoshi.
You don't seem to understand where the value of Bitcoin comes from. You think that you'll fork and miraculously the new chain has intrinsic value. Even if all the theories that you propose are true, all the ecosystem that is the true value of any coin will stay where it is.
Dear fellow cryptopians,
I never got why all of the Bitcoin forks focus on such trivial software changes while there is one major problem in my opinion with Bitcoin: the % of Bitcoin held by Satoshi Nakamoto. I realise that whoever SN is, he deserves to be rich for the rest of his life if he truly contributed Blockchain and Bitcoin as an application to the world. However, let me explain why I think the crypto community cannot afford to let SN hold this wealth.
IF Bitcoin continues to rise in price, SN might become the richest person to have ever lived in history except it will not just be value in stocks, it will be in the equavalent of cold hard cash. Of course he couldn't spend it all for the same price due to slipage, but it would be more liquid than any such amount of money before since it is intended to be liquid. We also have to take into account the possibilities that:
1. SN is not a single person but a group, with complex and/or unknown motivations
2. SN is not a single person but an agency of some nationstate or representatives thereof
3. SN is a single person but he has complex/unknown motivations besides innovation
4. SN is a conglomerate of banks who plan to use Bitcoin as a covert way of controlling wealth through POS and owning a large %
My proposed solution:
Fork Bitcoin AND Bitcoin Cash and fully restart their blockchains in a public event. This would include following all of the coding upgrades to these chains so as to keep the code 1:1 equal to the versions including SN's coins. This way, the currencies mining will be decentralised from day one, preventing anyone from grabbing as large a percentage as SN did. I do realise a lot of people WANT SN to have this money, or they feel like he deserves it. As I stated above, I think SN should be rich, but not at the expense of the rest of the network, the decentralisation and the trust we have in the foundation of this system. There can always be a donation system to SN, especially if he/she/they would show their face. I am convinced the crypto community would then make him/her/them instant millionaires, or even billionaires solving two problems in one (their anon status and their wealth).
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I appreciate all feedback and responses!
Greetings,
Auralea
I never got why all of the Bitcoin forks focus on such trivial software changes while there is one major problem in my opinion with Bitcoin: the % of Bitcoin held by Satoshi Nakamoto. I realise that whoever SN is, he deserves to be rich for the rest of his life if he truly contributed Blockchain and Bitcoin as an application to the world. However, let me explain why I think the crypto community cannot afford to let SN hold this wealth.
IF Bitcoin continues to rise in price, SN might become the richest person to have ever lived in history except it will not just be value in stocks, it will be in the equavalent of cold hard cash. Of course he couldn't spend it all for the same price due to slipage, but it would be more liquid than any such amount of money before since it is intended to be liquid. We also have to take into account the possibilities that:
1. SN is not a single person but a group, with complex and/or unknown motivations
2. SN is not a single person but an agency of some nationstate or representatives thereof
3. SN is a single person but he has complex/unknown motivations besides innovation
4. SN is a conglomerate of banks who plan to use Bitcoin as a covert way of controlling wealth through POS and owning a large %
My proposed solution:
Fork Bitcoin AND Bitcoin Cash and fully restart their blockchains in a public event. This would include following all of the coding upgrades to these chains so as to keep the code 1:1 equal to the versions including SN's coins. This way, the currencies mining will be decentralised from day one, preventing anyone from grabbing as large a percentage as SN did. I do realise a lot of people WANT SN to have this money, or they feel like he deserves it. As I stated above, I think SN should be rich, but not at the expense of the rest of the network, the decentralisation and the trust we have in the foundation of this system. There can always be a donation system to SN, especially if he/she/they would show their face. I am convinced the crypto community would then make him/her/them instant millionaires, or even billionaires solving two problems in one (their anon status and their wealth).
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I appreciate all feedback and responses!
Greetings,
Auralea
Jump to: