TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
I've already posted that I disagree with the suggestion that old coins be destroyed upthread. Additionally, you are suffering from a common misperception that one person owns all of the old coins. A number of people were mining since nearly the beginning. Of those, a percentage are known dead. Of the coins that haven't moved, there may very well be more owned by dead people than living people (whether or not satoshi is one of those people is irrelevant). While said dead people may have made plans while alive to provide access to said coins, in cases where they did not, those coins will either remain at those addresses forever (unlikely unless we wipe ourselves out since technology never stops improving) or be taken by bad actors (not the end of the world, but what Theymos is worrying about). Moreover, very early adopters have admitted to losing/selling/destroying storage media that had wallets with large numbers of bitcoin on them because they weren't valuable enough to worry about at the time. Those coins will also either remain at those addresses forever or be taken by bad actors. There is no way to truly fix this unless the encryption is so badly broken that the coins are already stolen, so either a bad actor gets the coins, or nobody does. I believe the original vision of bitcoin would most likely indicate that the bad actor gets the coins, however, you need to understand that they likely don't move until we're dead and that Satoshi and/or other dead people don't get them either way. Also, based on your partial quotes to both my and Lauda's most recent posts, it is pretty evident that you are either incompetent (can't read and comprehend the entire posts) or trolling. The latter seems more likely, so this will be my last response to you in this thread.
You clearly need some help with reading/English comprehension, so I've added some text effects to make it easier for you.
The detail you are missing is
it's irrelevant if Satoshi upgrades his node or not. What difference would it make if he does or he doesn't? He may hold most of the coins, but he doesn't hold most of the hashpower or even most of the nodes
Let me try a different tack:
Imagine yourself as a pastel-colored pony, living in Equestria, where Bit coins are used as money. Bear with me,
I'm just making you imagine this stuff to stress that the scenario is purely hypothetical (Bit coins
1 actually
are the currency of Equestria, but that's purely coincidental).
1. Be Princes Luna, hold the lion's share of Bit coins,
win a free vacation from the government, at Club Fed be sent to Moon by your sister, Celestia.
2. A Royal Edict is announced: Royal Guard will destroy all Bit coins minted prior to 2011-11-21, when Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5.0 was released, because those old coins "should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation." (yeah, Celestia does sound a bit like theymos, but again, pure coincidence).
3. You, Luna, wat do?
Clearly all your coins will be gone, clearly you are the one who will suffer most from this (because it's mostly YOUR coins that will be destroyed).
Clearly other ponies can only profit from this, because even Ponka knows that having fewer total Bit coins in Equestria means that her share will be worth more (that sort of simplistic "reduced supply increases demand" mentality is pretty common in Equestria, a stunted misapplication of some Ponyville school of economics ideas, but i digress...). So it's in Ponka's (and Rara's and every other pone's) rational self-interest to upgrade to
Friendship Core 0.13.
You're losing all your coins, Luna, now wat?
...
From the boldface text, it should be clear to you that
the scenario is hypothetical. I also do not care if it's only Satoshi or dozens of people who will lose their coins, because destroying people's coins, coins which are not your coins, and therefore not yours to destroy, is bad, m'kay?
I don't want you guessing whether those people are dead or not, you greedy pig. The coins are theirs to do with as they please, even if that happens to be nothing.
>There is no way to truly fix this unless the encryption is so badly broken that the coins are already stolen.
Then Bitcoin is already broken.
If we find out tomorrow that the encryption for all coins mined prior to 2016 is broken, will you destroy those coins too? If you want to be safe, fork Bitcoin to a safe chain, one which destroys the coins which you think will become "unsafe" in the future, when the quantum computer cometh, or the Son of God returns to h4xx0r your blogchain. Or cash out into USD.
Jeez
TL;DR: I do not want theymos confiscating or destroying people's money, even if it's for the common good. Because you know who does that?