Are Satoshi's percentage of BTC a serious problem for government acceptance?

[CIYAM]

I am making this topic self-moderated to avoid nonsense posts but I won't delete any reasonable arguments on either side of this question (and yes it is my decision what is reasonable in this topic - if you don't like that then please create your own topic - it isn't that hard after all).

So - although we are seeing some governments accepting Bitcoin as having a role we are seeing others basically trying to ban it outright (Russia being the current example of this).

I wonder if part of the problem is the perception (however likely or not) that Satoshi is aligned with (or was the creation of) a government and therefore the Satoshi *stash* effectively belongs to that government (which is estimated at around 5-10% of all bitcoins).

To me it makes some sense that a country might fear that if Bitcoin were to be adopted as a "new gold" then if it turns out that one country already has 5-10% of the new gold standard then that would be a "hard pill to swallow".

I'm not advocating for "deleting Satoshi's stash" but simply raising the question that if we are wanting Bitcoin to be Gold 2.0 then perhaps this issue cannot just be disregarded.

(and no - this is not "Satoshi envy" from myself and also I think it is perhaps good to discuss something other than the block size)

[oldbute]

If I understand you're saying other governments are afraid some government created this? Not sure if you're saying US or specific country.   It's an interesting thought but my problem with it is it's too complicated.  Too many people would have to be involved, how was it funded? was the central bank of that country involved? 

A much simpler explanation is that some cypher punk or 2 or 3 put together ideas and technology in a way nobody thought of.

Now if you were to say a government captured Satoshi at some point after he released it and is now holding him and/or his private keys, seems more plausible.  Guess the question is if other governments think these theories are true why not say it?

[CIYAM]

An interesting point - I have always thought that Satoshi was not a single individual but instead a small group (probably only a few people though).

The fact that Satoshi disappeared around the time that Gavin visited the CIA may or may not have anything to do with anything - but I am mostly talking about "perceptions" rather than "realities" (as we may never know for sure).

Governments are typically rather coy when it comes to making accusations about other governments (that are not generally useful for local political consumption) as it tends to get in the way of things like "free trade agreements".

[bargainbin]

I am making this topic self-moderated to avoid nonsense posts but I won't delete any reasonable arguments on either side of this question (and yes it is my decision what is reasonable in this topic - if you don't like that then please create your own topic - it isn't that hard after all).

So - although we are seeing some governments accepting Bitcoin as having a role we are seeing others basically trying to ban it outright (Russia being the current example of this).

I wonder if part of the problem is the perception (however likely or not) that Satoshi is aligned with (or was the creation of) a government and therefore the Satoshi *stash* effectively belongs to that government (which is estimated at around 5-10% of all bitcoins).

To me it makes some sense that a country might fear that if Bitcoin were to be adopted as a "new gold" then if it turns out that one country already has 5-10% of the new gold standard then that would be a "hard pill to swallow".

I'm not advocating for "deleting Satoshi's stash" but simply raising the question that if we are wanting Bitcoin to be Gold 2.0 then perhaps this issue cannot just be disregarded.

(and no - this is not "Satoshi envy" from myself and also I think it is perhaps good to discuss something other than the block size)

Most Bitcoin enthusiasts are anti-government & anti-state. Many militantly so.
Governments can't control or issue BTC. Why in the world would governments be interested/supportive of Bitcoin? Seems pretty counterintuitive.

[CIYAM]

Most Bitcoin enthusiasts are anti-government & anti-state. Many militantly so.
Governments can't control or issue BTC. Why in the world would governments be interested/supportive of Bitcoin? Seems pretty counterintuitive.

Maybe so - but with the GFC (and the possible soon repeat of it as they fixed nothing after 2008) I think that governments (and maybe even more their citizens) are aware of the risk of fiat and are looking for better assets (a major reason why housing prices are still soaring in much of the world now).

[Kprawn]

OP, you have a very valid point and I think the uncertainty could create the perception that a single unknown "entity" could manipulate the currency and

also possibly sink it's value, if it dumps a million coins onto the market. The coins are enough to make a huge difference at a crucial time during it's

growth stages. The unknown "entity" could just be waiting for a much higher price and then suddenly dump all the coins to sabotage the technology.

It sounds highly unlikely, but if you take it's strong Libertarian / Anarchist history in consideration.. it might just be what they are waiting for. It is a

definite threat for these countries.    

[pereira4]

How much money satoshi owns I think it's irrelevant. In the long term, it's impossible that the governments are going to remain neutral or even "nice" towards Bitcoin. As soon as Bitcoin starts being relevant in the big picture (right now 6 billion dollars is nothing) they will attack, Bitcoin distribution being irrelevant. What they are not going to allow is to see how Bitcoin grows while fiat crashes. So let's get ready for the attack is all im saying, and best we can do to be ready is keep supporting Core devs, we need stability.

[CIYAM]

How much money satoshi owns I think it's irrelevant. In the long term, it's impossible that the governments are going to remain neutral or even "nice" towards Bitcoin. As soon as Bitcoin starts being relevant in the big picture (right now 6 billion dollars is nothing) they will attack, Bitcoin distribution being irrelevant. What they are not going to allow is to see how Bitcoin grows while fiat crashes. So let's get ready for the attack is all im saying, and best we can do to be ready is keep supporting Core devs, we need stability.

Let's not go there (you just invited in the trolls whose posts now I'm having to delete).

This is not a "core vs. others" topic - so those with silly agendas please butt out - stick to the topic and no excess rubbish.

[Blind Legs Parker]

How much money satoshi owns I think it's irrelevant.

Yes it is relevant. And not only for governments. This question concerns each and everyone of us. Satoshi is believed to own about 1 million BTC (or like OP said, about 5% of the total supply). Right now it's worth about $400 million, which is indeed a large amount of money but still rather insignificant when compared to several tycoons out there. But just imagine that bitcoin's market cap is multiplied by 100 (that's roughly $600 billion), Satoshi's stash will be worth $40 billion. Now that's half as much as Bill Gates. I don't know if I really want anyone whose identity they are keeping hidden to own that much money now. And we all know that bitcoin has the potential to reach such a market cap, and even more (I'm not talking about the near future here, just the future). This is not only the reason why governments might want to stop it, but it's also the reason why people, naturally, might turn their back on bitcoin, dismissing it as a threat to peace and order.

[franky1]

banks and governments do not care about the origins or the possible holdings of specific people... after all, although america had a gold standard in the 1900's, asia, europe and egypt had a large shash too.. infact knowing the world recognized gold, those that were not americans had some and wanted more, actually helped gold become something worth blood and sweat and slavery to mine. in short demand and usefulness is more helpful to validate its value and longevity. far more then auditing how much some may already have.(demand more important than supply)

[CIYAM]

(I'll accept that @franky1 - thanks for keeping it down to a single point)

That been said - then why do you think Russia is now trying to ban Bitcoin?
(again please try and keep your reply concise)

[CIYAM]

(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.

[franky1]

you first asked about russia..
so as you say ill answer that first

the american dollar works happily alongside the canadian dollar. the pound works happily alongside the euro and dollar. even though america does not see euro or pound as american legal tender, just like america doesnt treat bitcoin as legal tender, america is happy to trade in and out of euros and pounds as they view it as a useful currency. no matter what the exchange rate is there is still underlying usefulness and ultimately demand.

russia will do the same(we hope) because its not just hatred against bitcoin, they are also very tight on people independently moving the ruble into euro, yuan dollar etc. they are very controlling of their ruble.. and so, when they relax their controls of circulation of their fiat between other fiat, they too would be happy to work alongside bitcoin.

i would say russia wont be first second or third inline to be more happy to work alongside bitcoin and no one knows when russia will loosen its grasp on the ruble vs other currencies (russia has to make friends with america first ) but one day we could see russia being happy to work alongside bitcoin.

the government decisions to work along side bitcoin would not be decided, due to the satoshi stash.. but looking at bitcoin as a whole(usefulness) as thats more important to bitcoins viability and longevity as useful asset.

[CIYAM]

russia will do the same(we hope) because its not just hatred against bitcoin, they are also very tight on people independently moving the ruble into euro, yuan dollar etc. they are very controlling of their ruble.. and so, when they relax their controls of circulation of their fiat between other fiat, they too would be happy to work alongside bitcoin.

i would say russia wont be first second or third inline to be more happy to work alongside bitcoin and no one knows when russia will loosen its grasp on the ruble vs other currencies (russia has to make friends with america first ) but one day we could see russia being happy to work alongside bitcoin.

the government decisions to work along side bitcoin would not be decided, due to the satoshi stash.. but looking at bitcoin as a whole(usefulness) as thats more important to bitcoins viability and longevity as useful asset.

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).

[CIYAM]

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

[franky1]

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?)

that analysis was debunked when people like hal finney was there on day 1.. mining! yet the analysis treated hals blocks as satoshi blocks.. the analysis treated alot of peoples blocks as satoshi blocks. all because they were all using the same basecode and ultimately the same base nonce

[CIYAM]

that analysis was debunked when people like hal finney was there on day 1.. mining! yet the analysis treated hals blocks as satoshi blocks.. the analysis treated alot of peoples blocks as satoshi blocks. all because they were all using the same basecode and ultimately the same base nonce

Huh - base nonce?

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

[franky1]

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).

russia's bitcoin hatred is more about the russian people finding new ways to get out of ruble and into dollars.. ever since the whole VISA/Mastercard sanctions saga. places like BTC-E make it easy to convert ruble to dollar. definitely nothing to do with satoshi stash

[CIYAM]

russia's bitcoin hatred is more about the russian people finding new ways to get out of ruble and into dollars.. ever since the whole VISA/Mastercard sanctions saga. places like BTC-E make it easy to convert ruble to dollar. definitely nothing to do with satoshi stash

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)

[Blind Legs Parker]

those funds are most probably locked out forever and never going to be part of circulation.

That's what a lot of people say each time someone brings up Satoshi's stash but I'd like to know why this would be true against all the other scenarios. For instance, (1)Satoshi dumping it once the price is high enough, (2) Satoshi giving it away to everyone who claims to want a share, (3) Satoshi burning his stash little by little as he buys bitcoins at market price, or anything else.

Because, I mean, if this stash is not meant to be part of circulation anytime in the future, why isn't it properly burnt now?
As for me, I'm not saying that I believe that Satoshi is going to dump, give everything (or even bits) away or anything. I'm just listing the possibilities that they have to hand. Frankly I don't see them dumping away (because it would mean taking the risk of destroying their creation), or giving away, or anything else, but I can't really imagine that they're gonna lock their coins forever either, otherwise they should already have burnt the whole stash by now.