Bitcoin Forum

it is fair enough to assume whomever does isn't going to dump them at a high point or they would have at 1000$.

still that is a dangerous amount, if he decide to dump... but anyway i don't think he will ever dump his coins, if he truly believe in bitcoin, and he should because you know he is the one behind the idea of bitcoin...then he should wait until bitcoin is adopted and use it directly

even if he have only 100k, and by the look of those data he can not have less than that, since at 500k coins they were only in 9, and he was the first, so it's easy to assume that he own at least 100k

still that is a dangerous amount, if he decide to dump... but anyway i don't think he will ever dump his coins, if he truly believe in bitcoin, and he should because you know he is the one behind the idea of bitcoin...then he should wait until bitcoin is adopted and use it directly

There are quite a few people who seem or claim to have over 100,000 coins. Some of those guys are far more mercenary than Satoshi would ever be. I don't understand why we never panic about them.

https://i.imgur.com/ZNXx9g9.png

when looking at this analysis done a few years ago, some have presumed that all the tall slopes are satoshi..
or that satoshi was all the blue dots and only hal was the red dot.

but its not.

initial versions of bitcoin started at a base nonce('extranonce' if your going to be an anal knickpick) of 0 and incremented up..
even when solving a block they would continue increment the nonce until they restarted the client/computer. where the nonce began at 0 again.

some versions did eventually play around with the code and set it to reset after each block had been solved.
and some set it to reset after a certain number.
thats why you see that there is a difference between a bunch of people who's nonce never really goes above 250 some didnt go above 500.. and some went all the way up, and some were random

so most will say that satoshi must be all the long lines..
but then we get into the analysis of the angle of the slope.
where the angle reveals a different hash speed (cpu speed) so a slope at nearly 10degrees is a totally different and faster cpu compared to the one near 45 degree's

over the last few years many people have looked at angles, nonce resets and other factors and worked out in the first couple weeks of bitcoin (height 0-1000) there was 9 people or possibly 9 different systems mining bitcoin not just satoshi and not just satoshi and hal.. and even more miners by the time the blockheight got to 10,000

your free to use bitcointalks search to find the analysis.

I started mining around block 9000.

Maria.

dangerous?

mark kerpeles secret hoard of upto 600k-900k coins is more dangerous. and more chance of popping up one day.

but ultimately it wont kill bitcoin, it would just be a temporary bit of drama where the price tanks (temporarily).. blocks will still be mined people will still make transactions. yes there will be some losers. but on the flip side lots of winners, people will get the chance to buy some cheap coin. so its ultimately just price drama that doesnt hurt bitcoin as it ultimately doesnt hurt the 21m bitcoin cap..(think long term picture not the short term drama)

Here's a link to the thread that franky1 is talking about:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507458.0

Take a look at the entire thread and the discussions about which bitcoins Satoshi is likely to own and why.  Then make your own decision as to which assumptions are probably right, and which aren't.  Add up the coins from the decisions you agree with and you can have your own personal estimate of how many bitcoins Satoshi is likely yo have control over.

mark keples is in jail, he can not retrieve those, if those are not retrievable in any case, there is no proof that those coins are still at his disposal

Why don't you just email Nick Szabo and ask him how many bitcoins he has.

its not nick..
but i do love some of the theories and 'proofs'

the funniest one is using the letters of his name
someone said nicks middle name was thomas

NICK THOMAS SZABO

take the C and the B change them to numeric (c=3 b=2)
3x2=6
6= 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1
1=A and 1,1,1,1,1     (A and five 1's)
keep the A, we will use that later


1,1,1,1,1= 3 and 2
3x2=6
6=3 and 3
3x3=9

take the Z and change it to numeric (z=26)
26+9=35

dont take these out, just note that the missing letters are O=15 T=20   =35

so numerically we can see there is a conversion method for ZBC=AOT
now take out the CBZ and add in the AOT

NICK THOMAS SZABO
NIK THOMAS SAOAOT

now mix them letters up from:
NIK THOMAS SAOAOT

to:

S   (NIK THOMAS AOAOT)
SA   (NIK THOMAS OAOT)
SAT   (NIK HOMAS OAOT)
SATO   (NIK HMAS OAOT)
SATOS   (NIK HMA OAOT)
SATOSH   (NIK MA OAOT)
SATOSHI   (NK MA OAOT)
SATOSHI N  (K MA OAOT)
SATOSHI NA  (K M OAOT)
SATOSHI NAK  ( M OAOT)
SATOSHI NAKA  ( M OOT)
SATOSHI NAKAM  (  OOT)
SATOSHI NAKAMO  (  OT)
SATOSHI NAKAMOT  (  O)
SATOSHI NAKAMOTO

i know nick is not, but i just liked this bit of speculation and wordplay.. put a smile on my face

...
Think about it, why would "Satoshi" reference Hal Finney and Wei Dai but not the main key player out of the three people Hal Nick and Wei?
Why would he not reference arguably the most important out of those three people?
...

Because everyone knew back then what everyone knows now: of course $1000 is and will forever be the all-time high and all the people who bought at that price or during the dump are dumbasses because hey, $1000 is the absolute top and it shall never be exceeded whatsoever  ::).

I don't really think it really matters how much he has.
I doubt he will dump them all at a time as that would crash bitcoin

I don't really think it really matters how much he has.
I doubt he will dump them all at a time as that would crash bitcoin

Think about it, why would "Satoshi" reference Hal Finney and Wei Dai but not the main key player out of the three people Hal Nick and Wei?

Why would he not reference arguably the most important out of those three people?
...

Once again, can you please post the quote that you are referencing?

Here's a link to the thread that franky1 is talking about:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507458.0

Take a look at the entire thread and the discussions about which bitcoins Satoshi is likely to own and why.  Then make your own decision as to which assumptions are probably right, and which aren't.  Add up the coins from the decisions you agree with and you can have your own personal estimate of how many bitcoins Satoshi is likely yo have control over.

Interesting, I was thinking of code to analyze this, who knew miners would pop out like this when graphed! I also am pulling my own stats out with bitcointools, but at a block a second, it takes a while. My stats add nonce, time, a spent status, and # of transactions to the table of extranonces, but I don't thing I will bother with writing my own analysis code.

http://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/all10-5.jpg (image is wacky so just a link)

I see an interesting aspect, that the extranonce of the non-spending satoshi miner (if it is correct that red=spent and black=unspent) is increasing about four times as fast as others - it's steeper block finding slope indicates that it is significantly lower at block finding than it should be. Remember, computers are not competing against each other during this whole run, they are competing against the difficulty.

I believe this is because this miner is using different code than the released Bitcoin. It may have a getwork-style mining, where multiple CPUs are mining through it, and part of this increases the nonce faster than the block finding rate of the released Bitcoin. The nonce may increase faster if Satoshi was discarding fast block finds to make the block rate more regular (which they are statistically - pull out and analyse one series of increasing extranonces). Something that we see at about 1/10th, and again at 5/8ths of the chart, that the slope changes (along with a daily block rate change), I think that there was some change made in its code or the number of miners configured, maybe Satoshi added something that made the miner inefficient for few weeks and fixed it, or tweaked code to discard any blocks faster than a "heartbeat".

There is one scenario where I think this makes sense: Satoshi created a special "network-supporting" miner. This special always-on miner with it's own code base may have never created permanent keys or had a wallet - in that NOTHING appears spent from it's mining.

Without an always-on miner for people to try out the currency and keep confirmations rolling (and another node for them to connect to), the money would just plain not work. This miner runs different code than the release others are running, evidenced by the identical slopes of everyone else. This may be the "x" IRC username connecting over Tor - it would listen for IP addresses to connect to but normal bitcoins couldn't get it's IP address from IRC.


Another thing interesting is that you can see other black lines in the graph, other people mined for a while with release code and have never spent their generates. We know some people have early 50BTCs, but we can also surmise a few of these lines may be lost coins.

There is no evidence to support this. In fact this disagrees with your discovery that most mining was done by one rolling extranonce. It may have been Bitcoin #1 + xMiner, as referenced in my previous posting thread. Remember, Bitcoin 0.1.0 doesn't mine unless it has a node connected to it - it counts the nodes, and if the number is 0 or has changed to 0, mining is disabled.

The Satoshi super miner might not have started until Satoshi's normal Bitcoin or another regular Bitcoin user was also connected. Satoshi may have a wallet with his own coins, but never will use the backbone miner's coins. New miner at #64 may be Hal getting Bitcoin working.

Read the references on the bitcoin white paper.

Any evidence for this prediction or are you just talking outa your ass like alot of dickheads on this forum.....???