I thought the following article by Ian Grigg was very interesting:

http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001593.html

He basically says that "Satoshi" was actually a team, and Craig Wright was a member.

It's more like 0.04% or 0.05%. Sometimes during a pump it can go up to 0.17%, but have never seen 1%

It has moved from about $200 to $400 now. I think people are holding waiting to see what happens when the halvening takes place. But will likely sell after July.

All that proves is that coins sent from MtGox to https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/1KzLMV6MaeAxykzFJdqvd1M6i6egaZmNAc finally moved on April 30 2016.

For Craig Wright to be Satoshi, you need to show that those coins originated in one of the early blocks...

CNBC has covered it too:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/05/ny-banking-regulator-approves-winklevoss-bid-to-trade-digital-currency-ether.html

yeah - but why is the domain registered to Safer Names Ltd and not "dr craig wright" - unless the person who owns that domain is not Dr Craig Wright?

Yup, especially has he has hidden ownership of that domain.

Think about it - if you were purchasing a domain with your name in the title, why would you register it using an anonymous registrant to hide your name?

Whois domain tools show that the owner is hidden:

http://whois.domaintools.com/drcraigwright.net

Whoever bought it is hiding under "safenames Ltd"

I hope he moves some coins anyway. Just to add to the drama!

I voted "give people some coins" - people love getting free money.

As to how this helps - if a lot of people have bitcoin, then businesses will automatically start accepting it, in order to part people from their coins (this is the nature of business). The reason that most businesses don't bother is because most people don't have coins.

For a while when businesses like Overstock announced they were accepting BTC, lots of other businesses followed suit because it was terrific publicity for them. They'd get voted to the top of the bitcoin subreddit just for saying they were taking bitcoin. What killed that movement was Overstock announcing a year later that not many people had used bitcoin to buy stuff from them. If the usage was high, everyone else would have piled in.

Moving those initial coins would have sparked a huge sell off even if he used mixers - and that would have hurt him as well as everyone else. Pretty much everyone knows he owns the coins in the early blocks. Bitcoin is pseudonymous not anonymous. If you can match an early address with a person, you can track everything they do with those coins through the blockchain.

Just place your loan in the loan offer box - the automated bots tend to accept these offers (and they rarely place demands in the demand box). Set your offer just slightly lower than the other offers.

Apply risk management - break down your loan into lots of small offers, so if any of them go bad, you will have just lost a tiny amount. And make the loan for the minimum term (2 days).

FWIW I haven't get lost any coins while lending on Poloniex.

He said he will move the coins but hasn't yet. I'm pretty sure that all this is to do with him wanting to sell the coins. Think about it if you were in his place - say you needed money, and were sitting on a fortune in coins. Would you a) say "it's my destiny to struggle in poverty and not touch the coins, so that others may get rich thanks to the reduced supply" or b) "why struggle when I can sell those coins to sort out my problems"?

He'll move them extremely slowly - remember he has capital gains tax to pay if and when he sells them, so it will be in tiny amounts. So I don't think the Bitcoin market will tank as a result.

The biggest threat to bitcoin is not this chap moving his coins. It's the increasingly toxic civil war they were having before he surfaced, and which is still going on.

I think in Australia you only pay tax on the capital gains if you sell your coins.

I think the scenario is more like the following: Imagine you create an amazing technological breakthrough, the breakthrough of the century. You are feeling very good and decide to walk away, leaving coins unsold, to do another project. At this point you are feeling invincible, so it's easy to leave the coins untouched, because *of course* you'll have other breakthroughs and make money. But none of your other projects work out. Meanwhile, there are the original coins from your original project, just sitting there. And you think, why am I being a saint over this? This is my invention, that is my fortune.

So you decide to come out and say who you are in preparation for selling your coins. Only the community is furious. Because they believe greed is good only when they are accumulating coins,  and they want BTC to go to the moon - but for that to happen they need Satoshi to stay poor and selflessly refuse to sell any coins for the greater good of making every one else filthy rich! Hence the scream of fury we hear...!

He wants to sell his coins. Imagine the panic if those coins started to move without notice and without people getting used to the idea that satoshi might need to cash out. It would be pandemonium.

Nailed it. What happens will depend on whether miners decide to do. Are the Chinese miners in awe of Satoshi? I don't think China came into play till 2013, long after Satoshi disappeared, so they never had anay contact with him. The blocksize thing will depend on whether the big blockers decide to start their own mining pools to mine Classic, instead of leaving it to the Chinese.

Most people won't mind as long as he doesn't sell his coins. If he tanked the price people would get upset very fast.

(A few hard core people mind, because they liked the idea that Satoshi was out of the picture when it came to decision making).

This forum has been hacked several times. I call that careless. What do you call it?

If you send him a private message, it should also generate an email to him with the message, on the email he signed up at bitcointalk with, so he will get your message without having to log in.