Wouldn't the thief using a mixer insinuate that OP wouldn't have the destination wallet? He has that.

All of the conference participants had something of value to share.

Jack spoke a lot about Bitcoin and its open-source properties and how that will translate well across many industries.

Elon did not attempt to pump anything including doge. His greatest contributions to the conversation came when they were discussing renewables and how renewable energy could work its way into Bitcoin mining. While also identifying some of the major hurdles.

Cathie Wood expanded on various concepts discussed during the conference adding her angle to many controversial topics.

The moderator did a great job of keeping the conversation relevant and to the point.

Overall, the conference was very informative. Especially for people who needed the education. I will note that while many of the talking points have been discussed thoroughly elsewhere, it was nice to get the spin from some of these names.

Please add the Family Guy episode where they are strapped for cash and Peter casually mentions Bitcoin. Trying to find Seas/Epi

I hadn't even considered his ability to move the market. This is interesting.

We think Elon's impact is significant. Imagine Satoshi's.

If he were to pump the price, that would be great. However, that would likely lead it to being overvalued at some point.

They wouldn't even need to prosecute. Just spreading false info is enough to put doubt on anything or anyone.

The issue is institutions wouldn't need any proof. They own the media.

For the past decade or so, there have been people who have practically dedicated their lives to finding the creator of Bitcoin.  

Even over a decade later, there are still folks who are actively seeking to track down this ghost. All with the hope of finally knowing the truth. Who created one of, if not the most important invention of our generation?

Naturally, this would be something everyone would want to happen. We want to give credit where credit is due. We want to put a face to this now mythical pseudonym. Under all of this curiosity, however, lies a rather dubious double-edged sword. Especially when Bitcoin was in its infancy. (Arguably still is.)

Obviously, Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym. Meaning if we were to find this individual, their true name would likely have to surface. While we would ultimately have found Bitcoin's beloved creator and his real name, we would have opened ourselves to a whole new planet of FUD.  Not FUD towards Bitcoin itself, but its creator.

I want to be clear that the impact of finding Satoshi now would be very different than finding him 7+ years ago.

Governments and financial institutions would now have the identity of the individual that is attacking the very infrastructure upon which they made a fortune.   This is bad news.
While I am not insinuating they would have gone after Satoshi's life, I firmly believe they would have done everything in their massive amount of power to defame, discredit, and slander the founder of Bitcoin.

This includes:

    

• Fraud Allegations
• Terrorism Funding Allegations
• Allegations for Funding Criminal Enterprises

         Etc..

They could even make this man look like a pedo by "linking" him to certain organizations and saying that THIS was the sole purpose of Bitcoin. The problem is, they now have a face to attack. We know the media, they can say whatever they want.     With zero accountability.

Accusations like these would not be as effective as they would have been 7+ years ago like I had mentioned. These days, the Bitcoin community is more vast and immeasurably stronger than it was during these early times. Much of this would have been recognized as manipulation by big government and HODLers would remain headstrong. Even still, it would be ignorant to think there would not be some considerable problems in an event such as this.

However, in the earlier days of Bitcoin, FUD at these levels combined with a face to attach to it could have been fatal to our still fragile ecosystem. If Satoshi had chosen not to remain anonymous from the beginning, financial institutions/governments would have stopped the party well before it got out of hand. They could have exercised any of the aforementioned options and given themselves more than enough justification to make Bitcoin highly illegal globally. On a different timeline, something like this would have greatly hindered crypto development.

This is why it was inexpressibly important for Satoshi to remain anonymous. If you ask me, this is why he should stay anonymous.

I am in no way suggesting that people looking for this figure stop looking for this figure. If it is your mission, accomplish it. Just understand there are more serious implications at hand once he/she is identified.

I dont't think CBDC's will have that big of an impact on the development of cryptocurrencies. Especially bitcoin.

Of course CBDC's will have their uses, but they do not align with the ideals of bitcoin and will not hinder its progress. A CBDC is fundamentally different from bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies.

How would I be able to check something like this myself with my own node?

I am almost certain VET runs off the VeThor blockchain and isn't tied to BSC or ETH at this current time. They were on ETH yes, but they moved from that a while ago, and don't recall them going back.

Maybe I'm missing something though. Any sources?

The more that I read about Satoshi, the more I feel as though he/she was more than one individual.

My own problem with this presumption is that this relies on all of those individuals having perfect OPsec.

If it was one person, he likely had the most bizarre sleep schedule of all time. His posting hours were never consistent.

I have significant doubts that people will pick up and leave their native blockchain to have it ran on bitcoin's.

I don't find it very likely this would happen. To be clear, I am not saying it couldn't. I just find it highly unlikely.

Recently on this forum, this post was created: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5346148.0      Thank you, JohnBitCo.

The post discusses what would happen to your Bitcoin in the event that you pass away. We are all very well aware if no one knows your keys or the location of your keys, they will not be able to access your funds.

This means it is imperative to make sure our coins end up in the correct hands in the tragic event that something were to happen to us.

This brings me here...

I recently read an article about creating a Dead-Man's switch to ensure specific people will get specific information if you are not present for a specific amount of time. The idea is that if you were not to log in to a specific email account for a predetermined amount of time, a message (containing your keys) would then be sent to the trusted individuals that you selected.

The Google platform has this feature built into it.

You first need to navigate to 'Inactive Account Management': https://myaccount.google.com/inactive

Then you would need to formulate a plan for when your primary email account is inactive for X amount of time. This includes selecting the recipients and the message itself.

That's it! You may be able to rest easy knowing that if something happened to you, your funds would be secured in the right hands.

...

Notice I said may.

By inputting this information to Google's server, you are inherently trusting them with this information. If your Google account were to be compromised, that data could end up being compromised as well.

So it is important to use this information wisely.   Maybe get creative with it.

Do what you will with this information, but I am sure many of you will be able to put it to good use.

Is anyone familiar with any similar services from a more trusted provider?

I just got around to reading both of these proposals.

As I was reading the BIP 300 proposal, I felt it sounded insanely familiar. I realized Paul Sctorc did a presentation on this improvement proposal at the Miami Bitcoin Conference and I was already quite familiar with it.

This upgrade could bring a lot of creativity to the space. I'm hoping that it pans out the way he hopes.

There was a great thread on this forum talking about the proposal. It was met with some contention.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5344091.0

It's a Layer 2 on the Bitcoin main net that is governed with the ION token.

This L2 is similar to Lightning except that instead of a payment it uses Bitcoin’s blockchain to create digital IDs for authenticating identity online.

This is going to be sick!

Did you take the time to read the post?

It goes into detail explaining why Maximalism was key to the survival of bitcoin. Without Maximalists, we would not have the bitcoin we enjoy today.

Well said. We need to see proof of all of the claims that these different altcoins are making.

We hear all of the promises but rarely do we see action.

Maximalism: The opposite of minimalism; a tendency toward excess.

Bitcoin Maximalism has always been a contentious subject for many. Especially myself. The idea that one, and ONLY ONE cryptocurrency can succeed is something that has been met with both acceptance and complete disbelief.

Some believe that we will see an unimaginably complex crypto ecosystem that is built on a plethora of algorithmic protocols. All working together to build a more cohesive, efficient, and safe society. However, there is no place for something like bitcoin. These people tend to view bitcoin as "outdated technology", "slow", and will compare it to the likes of Windows '95 while other "faster" cryptocurrencies will make bitcoin obsolete.

Others believe that we will see a revolutionized financial system all built on Bitcoin's infrastructure. After all, bitcoin is perfect money. It solves all of the problems of today's ineffective financial policies.  We are all aware that the current financial system is broken on the fundamental level. There is no fixing it without a complete overhaul and the introduction of "sound money". (Which we did not have until BTC). In the minds of these folks, if Bitcoin were the only cryptocurrency, we would be perfectly fine. These are our Maximalists.

Furthermore, there are those that believe in a combination of these. They believe that we will see a revolutionized ecosystem all built on bitcoin, but differ in the belief that they see how other cryptocurrencies could complement bitcoin in a number of ways. They see that blockchain technology is something that is here to stay, and will disrupt many industries outside of the financial market. This includes music, health care, gaming, art, real estate, and legal industries alike. These people tend to think bitcoin will always be #1, but also think there are too many industries to disrupt that it would be impossible for all other cryptocurrencies to fail.

The only mindset that I personally have distaste for is the first one. To think bitcoin is "outdated" is a complete delusion.

Some condemn Bitcoin Maximalism, saying that such a mindset is "close-minded" and "dangerous to progress". These comments do not come without strong arguments.

What these folk do not realize is that Bitcoin Maximalists are why we are all here. They are why Bitcoin has been able to live through the never-ending FUD. They are one of the largest reasons bitcoin has survived so many vicious attacks.

This brings me to my point...

Let's first discuss the dangers of Bitcoin Maximalism. Being a Bitcoin Maximalist generally means you do not believe in any other cryptocurrency that describes itself as a store of value. If you are a hardcore Maximalist, you generally do not believe in any other crypto at all regardless of its use. Inherently, this is not good because this includes you shutting out new ideas that could be highly beneficial for our society. We have all seen companies and individuals fail because they were resistant to change. Maximalists will counter that its not "change" if it's produced by shitcoins. This is a good point. We are seeing many different cryptocurrencies all trying to solve the same problems. For example, smart contract/defi platforms are all trying to disrupt the same industries. They are also so young that we do not know which will come out on top, making many alts a gamble rather than an investment.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin Maximalism is inherently dangerous in the eyes of many because it denies the fact that there are other industries to disrupt that could not be disrupted by bitcoin. There are projects that use blockchain in ways that would twist your brain. There are also far too many practical applications for blockchain outside of the financial ecosystem that bitcoin would not be able to accommodate as efficiently as other protocols.

Regardless of these notions, these kinds of individuals almost always miss the major role that Bitcoin Maximalists have played. This is where we get into the blessings of our friendly-neighborhood Bitcoin Maximalists.

Maximalism is why bitcoin has been able to keep the integrity of its protocol. There have been a handful of "geniuses" and "influencers" that have tried to come in, tinker with the code, and attempt to "improve" it without considering the intrinsic values of bitcoin. They twist and contort the code until it is virtually unrecognizable. The Bitcoin Maximalists act almost like the white blood cells of the bitcoin ecosystem. (BTCM, 2021) They attack bad actors attempting to make bitcoin what it was not meant to be. They stick to bitcoins original values. Without them, bitcoin could very well be looking at 10MB block sizes and a planned POS transition. (I gagged typing that). Even that issue with Marathon producing "clean" blocks. Who fixed that? Maximalists. Look at the threads on here from when that was going on.

Maximalists are also a huge reason we have been able to survive through some of the most vicious FUD attacks. From bitcoin bans to bitcoin killers, Bitcoin Maximalists have calmed the waters on some VERY significant storms. Just this past year we have received some of the harshest FUD bitcoin has seen in quite some time. Maximalists to the rescue.

But who are these Maximalists? Are they Whales? Devs?    No. They're everyone.

We are the Maximalists. If you defend bitcoin and what bitcoin stands for, you're a Maximalist in my book.

Maximalism is bitcoins best defense system. Without it, bitcoin would not be the bitcoin we know today.

Next time you see your favorite Bitcoin Maximalist, give them your best regards.



Feel free to drop your 2cents.

I really, really hope you are right. Similar to Elon's bullsh*t, whales throwing their bit of weight around will have less of an impact as time goes on.

But like you said, if the fundamentals are strong.

I completely disagree. When I am talking about cookie-cutter business majors I am speaking primarily of clowns like Jack Mallers. Michael Saylor is certainly not one of those characters.

I think MS likes to hear himself talk sometimes but I do not think he is in any way, shape, or form trying to become the center of this movement.

If you bought bitcoin every time China opened their mouths, you likely did quite well. That is...if you held.

https://imgur.com/rsVY08f