Topic: Who got first Bitcoins? (Read 1876 times)
satoshi the one who created bitcoin he got a mil bitcoin i think
I hope Satoshi made some money on Bitcoin. After all the work he put into building something truly unique, he should be rewarded!
What I read Satoshi does not exchange Bitcoins to fiat. He must have high confidence in Bitcoin future to not cash out something !
I hope Satoshi made some money on Bitcoin. After all the work he put into building something truly unique, he should be rewarded!
The founder has around 10%-15% of total coins in existence today.
He deserve the coins. Without his work, there would be no Bitcoin
but I sure he has too much we are thinking about 10-15% but he is more rich now
The founder has around 10%-15% of total coins in existence today.
He deserve the coins. Without his work, there would be no Bitcoin
The founder has around 10%-15% of total coins in existence today.
He deserve the coins. Without his work, there would be no Bitcoin
Whatever you call it the ultimate result is similar 
When many people believe it is a scam then it probably is.
I doubt many people believe that bitcoin is a scam. Maybe a 'bubble', but not a scam. When many people believe it is a scam then it probably is.For it to be able to be called a scam, Satoshi has to dump all his BTC someday and crash the market, and the market never recovers since then. But in my opinion, the fate of BTC now is out of anyone's control. Even Satoshi can only temporarily crash the market, by dumping all his BTC. I don't see there's any incentive for him to do something like this.
Moreover, I don't believe Satoshi could foresee BTC could reach $200 someday when he invented it. If it was a scam, he would've dumped a large part of his holding during the 2011 crash.
Whatever you call it the ultimate result is similar When many people believe it is a scam then it probably is.
When many people believe it is a scam then it probably is. 
The founder has around 10%-15% of total coins in existence today.
Maybe you are using 'Ponzi scheme' for all 'bubbles', but my understanding of 'Ponzi scheme' is same as the definition in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
In short, the owner of a 'Ponzi scheme' will pay the early investors regular dividends with the late investors' money, until there are no enough late investors to support the system.
For BTC, there's no owner and no any dividend, people are buying something and hope it can be sold with higher price later. pumping and dumping something far above its value causes a 'bubble', but not a 'Ponzi scheme'. A typical example is 'tulip mania'. No one will call it a 'Ponzi scheme'.
You can also check 'Similar schemes' section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme, where 'economic bubble' is compared with 'Ponzi scheme'.
In short, the owner of a 'Ponzi scheme' will pay the early investors regular dividends with the late investors' money, until there are no enough late investors to support the system.
For BTC, there's no owner and no any dividend, people are buying something and hope it can be sold with higher price later. pumping and dumping something far above its value causes a 'bubble', but not a 'Ponzi scheme'. A typical example is 'tulip mania'. No one will call it a 'Ponzi scheme'.
You can also check 'Similar schemes' section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme, where 'economic bubble' is compared with 'Ponzi scheme'.
To be a Ponzi scheme, someone should guarantee us some decent return regularly (e.g. 10% per month). No one tell us we will get something back after spending some fiat on BTC. It's ourselves who believe the price will be higher later. So you can call it 'bubble' at most, but definitely not Ponzi scheme.
This is a self-contradiction. "Ourselves" is a "someone". A Ponzi scheme can use current investors to bring in new investors. (And usually does, particularly when some of the current investors know, or strongly suspect, that it's a Ponzi scheme and still want to make a profit.)There is one and only one reason Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme -- there's a realistic chance of real value being created and the investors getting a profit from that real value, not just from the investments made by others.
Quote
And when I imagine that, I smile. 'Cos Satoshi's scam is enriching us *ALL*.
It is too early to say "ALL". We'll see what's gonna happen in the near future. Many people will lose their hard earned real money in just one day if the bubble burst. Just like it happens in most Ponzi schemes. Those who jumped in early and cashed out will be happy Again, brilliant idea. Whether it was created with the intention to scam people or with making a new model of monetary instrument.
To be a Ponzi scheme, someone should guarantee us some decent return regularly (e.g. 10% per month). No one tell us we will get something back after spending some fiat on BTC. It's ourselves who believe the price will be higher later. So you can call it 'bubble' at most, but definitely not Ponzi scheme.
Quote
And when I imagine that, I smile. 'Cos Satoshi's scam is enriching us *ALL*.
It is too early to say "ALL". We'll see what's gonna happen in the near future. Many people will lose their hard earned real money in just one day if the bubble burst. Just like it happens in most Ponzi schemes. Those who jumped in early and cashed out will be happy Again, brilliant idea. Whether it was created with the intention to scam people or with making a new model of monetary instrument.
It seems like Satoshi put a lot of work into this, so fair enough that he and early adopters get a fair share for believing in BTC. Without them we wouldn't be on this forum today.
Satoshi whoever he/she/they are is rich -- I mean, *REALLY* rich -- estimates are 1 million to 1.2 million Bitcoin, which is not bad for the estimated couple of years spent writing the code. And we sort of believe that with Bitcoin currently at $230 (on Gox) and headed higher, he, she, or they are getting richer by the day!
Was it a scam?
If so, it was a masterful one that deserves some praise, because it did that thing that very rarely happens with scams, creating something with a value even greater than what the scammer paid himself. Or herself. Or themselves.
I imagine Satoshi somewhere on a massive yacht in the Aegean sea, laughing at us all and romancing curvy Greek babes - or handsome Greek blokes, as the case may be - enjoying champagne and caviar and drinking wine from a lover's navel every night.
And when I imagine that, I smile. 'Cos Satoshi's scam is enriching us *ALL*.
Unlike this guy who looks so disgustingly pleased with himself that I'm surprised no one has lynched him yet.
Was it a scam?
If so, it was a masterful one that deserves some praise, because it did that thing that very rarely happens with scams, creating something with a value even greater than what the scammer paid himself. Or herself. Or themselves. I imagine Satoshi somewhere on a massive yacht in the Aegean sea, laughing at us all and romancing curvy Greek babes - or handsome Greek blokes, as the case may be - enjoying champagne and caviar and drinking wine from a lover's navel every night.
And when I imagine that, I smile. 'Cos Satoshi's scam is enriching us *ALL*.
Unlike this guy who looks so disgustingly pleased with himself that I'm surprised no one has lynched him yet.
Whoever comes first comes first. Whats unfair about that? Thats the same for any company founding. The first ones to buy a share of a company thats going to explode is always the one making the biggest fortune. Is that unfair also?
That is fair in the case of a real company. But remember, you have to invest your real money if you want to buy a share of a company. First participants of Bitcoin only invested the idea.Satoshi is like "hey guys, I have a great idea for a new model of digital currency, check it out, you'll love it, we'll take 10% of the whole pie for free, and say others to hurry up if they want to make some real $$$ in a couple of years without investing real money".
Whoever comes first comes first. Whats unfair about that? Thats the same for any company founding. The first ones to buy a share of a company thats going to explode is always the one making the biggest fortune. Is that unfair also?
Quote
Yes, you could get no return. Is this investment (being done in 2009) could make you a millionaire for spending a single buck? Yes! Is it fair to a new comer now? I can't see why it is not (Do you complain that nobody wants to sell you the shares of Apple or Microsoft at the prices just after their IPO?)
It would probably be fair in the case of a start-up company, but we are talking about electronic currency here.... that was established as an experiment. Satoshi did not say: "Hey, folks. I have a gold-backed stuff. Let's use it!" He said: "I have an idea of how the digital currency should be implemented. Let's check it". Later, the invention came to be perceived as a real currency by people other than the ones who started it.
It's a useless dispute. Like a dispute "Are bitcoins criminal or not as it is used by criminals?".
So, I quit.
Come on guys, he created this, he ought to have a share of at least 10%. People should thank him for this system that can bring down those slave driver institutions.
It was Satoshi and since there were no transactions to confirm, he was making money like crazy (I think 
)
) Jump to: