@franky1

It really makes little sense to launch a digital currency when you can use many means to send RMB digitally as it stands.

So I think the PBOC statement has either been poorly translated or is simply stupid (as why would they need to create something new?).

@jonald_fyookball

I have no idea what they are actually going to do but am worried that if they really did do "the right thing" then interest in Bitcoin in China might suddenly dry up (especially if they at the same time clamped down upon it again as they did back in 2013).

The whole "money is debt" thing as I've mentioned is not really what happens in China - so the same pressures that apply in the west do not apply in China.

Mostly what happens here is that corrupt officials try to grab as much RMB as they can and then move it overseas (along with themselves and their family) before they get caught.

This is how billions of RMB leaves China every year (and countries like Australia allow it by letting people buy multi-million dollar properties despite the fact that China doesn't let you send more than 50K USD overseas per year).

I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to "think outside of the box" instead of along the lines of whatever propaganda that they have been fed.

Try for a moment to consider the possibility that China actually creates a "digital gold" rather than a "digital fiat" (everyone is just assuming the latter).

When you consider the fact that they allow (and encourage you) to buy gold and silver from their banks (which you can't even do in Australia) I think you shouldn't just see things as being the way you have been taught to see them.

If by digital currency you just mean "internet banking" then I think every country has that (so a rather ridiculous point).

At this stage it isn't really clear exactly what the PBOC are going to be doing so I think we'll have to wait and see - but in this topic I am bringing up the possibility that they do make it like "digital gold" (rather than "digital fiat").

Also - as I stated the Chinese government encourages their citizens to buy gold and silver (you can do so at any major bank). Does that sound like the kind of thing that a government would do if it wants to have total control over its citizens money?

I am not sure what the Phoenix currency has to do with this but if we assume that the PBOC digital currency is that then its purpose would basically be for usage within China (the main thing that the central government cares about is stopping the flow of money out of China).

Westerners might actually be surprised that the Chinese government actually supports people buying gold or silver (you can do so at any major bank) so I don't see that they would be worried to create their own digital commodity.

The whole "money is debt" thinking is actually a western way of thinking (people rarely take out loans even for housing in China).

It appears that most of the (more vocal) forum members here don't think that "Satoshi's stash" is a big reason for governments to not want to use Bitcoin as a "Gold 2.0" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343072.0) and maybe that what is most important is the promise to keep the supply fixed at 21M.

But I think the announcement made by the PBOC that China is considering to soon release its own "nationalised" digital currency should be something of a wake-up call (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/chinas-central-bank-plans-to-launch-its-own-digital-currencies.html).

I had predicted such a thing might happen back in December of 2012 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129047.0) and now it looks as though this might be actually starting to happen (and no I am not working with the PBOC so don't blame me for anything other than that old topic).

I guess the question is whether or not they will fix the supply limit. If they don't then Bitcoin still has its advantage - but if they do then I think Bitcoin is going to have a big problem.

If you can buy a digital gold equivalent without any hassle (or much of a fee) from your local bank then are you going to be as motivated to want to buy into Bitcoin?

This problem will get worse if multiple countries decide to do the same thing (creating protection for their national savings from being moved offshore).

If there is little motivation to even have Bitcoin because there are local digital scarcities available that are government backed and supported then I think the arguments for being able to buy coffees for Bitcoin become simply irrelevant.

Am interested in relevant opinions but not ad sig rubbish posts or plain rubbish posts (will delete all of those).

Okay - so it would appear that in general at least most people here don't think that Satoshi's stash should be a significant reason for governments not to decide to adopt Bitcoin as "Gold 2.0".

I am going to continue this discussion with a new topic (so am locking this one for good now).

Hmm... I see - I think I got tricked by endian again (man I hate that Satoshi had to confuse everything with that).

Thanks - I will check my code again tomorrow to see if I can get it working properly.

Have you actually been able to issue a CLTV redeem using the block number 255 (using "-regest")?

My test for 127 worked perfectly but as I said when I tried 255 it failed (because of a negative value) so I then changed the 0xff to become 0x00ff (adding one to the length of the stack input of course) but it then gave me an error about the value not being minimal.

If you could show me a raw tx that works with block 255 CLTV I'd appreciate it (maybe I was making some other silly mistake when I was testing such as confusing endian).

Although for the purposes of the software I've written unix timestamps are fine I would like to work out how to also do block numbers correctly.

So if it is unlikely that governments are going to be worried about "Satoshi's stash" and assuming that they all can agree that the 21M limit can never be raised then we are starting to see that Bitcoin really does have the potential to become the new "gold standard".

This is why I am unconcerned with increasing block size as being something that is so important. I think it would be of far more importance for governments to decide to invest in Bitcoin (not just to make holders of BTC richer but to fix up the Fiat problem that is going to see us hit another financial crisis sooner rather than later).

Also - the issues of the electricity expense for Bitcoin start to become far less relevant if you consider the main blockchain as being the world's settlement network (rather than a new VISA system).

About this I think that the only concern for now is actually Bitcoin Classic (unless the quotes about 21M being "voteable" I've been reading today are rubbish).

In regards to gold - governments don't like it now (and it was America that led the push to abandon gold even though it likely still has the largest reserves of gold in the world).

IMO the "age of fiat" (in terms of the inflation cycle that eventually turns all such currencies into worthless pieces of paper) is coming to an end but a return to gold (as a standard) is not likely to happen so this leaves us with the possibility of a future economy based upon Bitcoin as the settlement "super currency" across the world.

This is perhaps only likely to happen if most major governments of the world decide that they are able to purchase enough % of BTC to make this happen (if they think that some unknown person or persons owns even 5% then that might be reason enough to decide not to go down this path).

I am of the opinion that if this is at all likely to happen then it will begin to happen this year (which would likely see the price of BTC skyrocket).

Okay - am awake now but probably will have to lock this again soon as unfortunately I have some IRL stuff to deal with today.

I read elsewhere about questioning how correct the analysis about Satoshi's stash is and of course it is going to always be open to a fair amount of uncertainty.

I think simply the fact that there are so many coins from 2009 that haven't moved is what tends to lead people to believe they were only mined by Satoshi (and many believe that Satoshi was not one person and that Hal Finney could well have been a part of the group).

Certainly I accept that this cannot be proven - so the point of this topic is to discuss whether or not this would be a likely concern for governments (not to try and answer the unanswerable question as to how big Satoshi's stash actually is or whether he/she/they still have control over those private keys).

Well - as I'm going to get some sleep now I am going to lock this topic until I wake up (otherwise I'm sure I'll just find pages of rubbish posts which I won't want to be bothered with).

If you are wanting to reply then you'll have to wait for around 8-10 hours (I don't use alarms - just wake up when I do - but I normally only sleep between 8 and 10 hours).

Yes - I think that is a fairly reasonable summary of the current situation in regards to the "Satoshi stash".

For sure it will keep Bitcoin's value unstable for the foreseeable future IMO as any "stock" that had 5-10% of its ownership unknown and able to be dumped at any time would do as well.

This is actually probably a blessing for "day-traders" but for those wanting Bitcoin to be "a real currency" it is not helpful at all.

Almost deleted that post but you did have this:


and I think this is relevant as we have recently read that apparently China is already considering the creation of a state-owned blockchain.

I have also read of work being done in Australia and other countries by banks with blockchain technology (but *not* with Bitcoin).

I accepted your Russia's concern is capital flight rather than Satoshi envy so that's fine - now let's get back to your "base nonce" stuff.

(you can't get away with posting nonsense by quoting an earlier point to deflect in my topic)

Huh - base nonce?

That is nonsense - what exactly is a "base nonce" even supposed to be (apart from something that you just made up)?

(I think I did say that "pointless posts" will be deleted - and most especially pointless posts from ad siggers)

So your opinion is that Russia is simply protecting its Ruble against all possible foreign threats *including Bitcoin* - that make sense - please continue (you have made a reasonable point that Russia's motivation might have nothing to do with Satoshi's stash at all).

(oic - so now your strategy is to divide your post into several parts - hmm... nope - not going to allow that...)

Well - how do you come up with only 1-5% vs. 5-10% for a start then?
(my figures came from the analysis that was done according to the nonces used - where does your 1-5% figure come from?)

Answer one point at a time *only*.
(all other posts you make will be deleted)

I am sick of you just hyper-posting and never actually answering a single question.