Litecoin IS Bitcoin

[K210]

For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

[1713584577]

1713584577

[1713584577]

1713584577

[1713584577]

1713584577

[1713584577]

1713584577

[1713584577]

1713584577

[loveofmylife]

For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

A Chinese whale holds this address, and Chinese big miners have very large hashrate, I think ltc is unfair coin.

[spartak_t]

My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

[dballing]

For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

A Chinese whale holds this address, and Chinese big miners have very large hashrate, I think ltc is unfair coin.

It is fair. That particular wallet didn't start accumulating coins until March, 2016. Litecoin launched in October, 2011 which was 4 years after it officially launched and everyone was aware of it.

Also, I would rather they push it all into one wallet then split it up a hundred ways to give the false perception of a better distribution like BTC. How many wallets does Satoshi have? Nobody really knows and he's estimated to have closer to 1.5MM, but I wanted to be conservative.

How many coins does Karpeles have (he hacked gox, let's get real)? Roger Ver? Winklevoss? Vorhees? Bitfinex Hackers? Big Vern?

It's pretty damn centralized. My hope is that these whales would liquidate and reinvest in further infrastructure development for both BTC and LTC.

[K210]

It is possible that satoshi has lost the private keys to the early coins considering that bitcoin had no value back then. I would not be surprised if he didnt bother backing up his wallets as he himself considered bitcoin an experiment.

[Searing]

Thing is, is that Satoshi can't move his coins without the market collapsing completely.  People would argue other wise, but that's the problem with a coin (same with litecoin) having poor amount of fungibilty.  If anyone can see what goes in and out of Satoshi's wallet, then when he moves it somewhere else, they will automatically assume the worst and think he/she/they/it is going to completely dump everything and crash the price which causes uncertainty.

So in other words... no, even if that entity still exist on this planet and has the ability to sell off those coins, I don't think Satoshi would until Satoshi wants to "kill" bitcoin.  Because there isn't as big of a holder as a million litecoin (I don't think at least), there still remains a problem of fungibility.

So essentially you are dealing with 20mil bitcoins instead of 21mil

Well in 2020 Craig Wright who claims to be Satoshi also claims he will have access to the above BTC in a Trust that was set up. As pissed off as he is
at everyone in the crypto world..if true (odds are 1 in 1,000,000 he is Satoshi) we could be in for a rude awakening indeed in 2020.

Don't really believe the guy...but in a scary movie kind of way does give one the shivers

[SmirkinPepe]

Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.

[kelsey]

With that said, I feel that Satoshi does deserve the coins that he mined (as well as every cent they are worth).

completely disagree, and it almost entirely defeats the purpose of having a decentralised p2p currency. not point in having an alternative to the banker/gov controlled fiat if we just replace them with a new banker with an even bigger cut.

[YIz]

Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.

I assume the person who invented bitcoin knows how to handle his private keys.

[spartak_t]

With that said, I feel that Satoshi does deserve the coins that he mined (as well as every cent they are worth).

completely disagree, and it almost entirely defeats the purpose of having a decentralised p2p currency. not point in having an alternative to the banker/gov controlled fiat if we just replace them with a new banker with an even bigger cut.

Your sound like most of the people here who are constantly asking for news from developers, because they only care about their $5 profit. These are the people who are always "waiting something to happen", instead to try and help with something. Of course that the creator of Bitcoin deserves the money, he made 100s or maybe 1000s of people millionaires.

[YIz]

My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.

[spartak_t]

My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.

You think?

While he was alive, Kleiman kept a heavy-duty USB drive on his person at all times. Paige believes it might have been made by the brand Corsair — which boasts that its products are encased in “an anodized aircraft-grade aluminum housing.” If he really did possess a Satoshi Nakamoto-level fortune, it may have been sitting on that drive. According to Paige, that drive was passed to Kleiman’s brother Ira, who declined to speak on the record about whether he possessed it. But even if the bitcoins were there, recovering them wouldn’t be nearly as simple as pulling files from an ordinary USB drive. Kleiman, the consummate security buff, locked down everything he owned with encryption strong enough that even his tech-savvy partners doubt they’d be able to crack it. “If you told me there was a million dollars on Dave’s computer in this room, I wouldn’t even bother trying to look for it,” Paige said. “It would be a waste of time.”

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

[YIz]

My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.

You think?

While he was alive, Kleiman kept a heavy-duty USB drive on his person at all times. Paige believes it might have been made by the brand Corsair — which boasts that its products are encased in “an anodized aircraft-grade aluminum housing.” If he really did possess a Satoshi Nakamoto-level fortune, it may have been sitting on that drive. According to Paige, that drive was passed to Kleiman’s brother Ira, who declined to speak on the record about whether he possessed it. But even if the bitcoins were there, recovering them wouldn’t be nearly as simple as pulling files from an ordinary USB drive. Kleiman, the consummate security buff, locked down everything he owned with encryption strong enough that even his tech-savvy partners doubt they’d be able to crack it. “If you told me there was a million dollars on Dave’s computer in this room, I wouldn’t even bother trying to look for it,” Paige said. “It would be a waste of time.”

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

Even if they were encrypted, he handed him the drive for a reason. he surely gave him the encryption key for the drive.
Maybe he didn't spend them because he doesn't actually need any money, or maybe he dumped the drive an hour later, we'll never know, or maybe we will?

[losh11]

For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

At least not initially. Litecoin is probably one of the fairest coins upon launch.
Take a look at this keynote by Charlie Lee (coblee) about how this was done: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yi845h24aTQ. This meant that there was initially a larger number of miners who started mining.

The top 5 addresses are all held by big exchanges (cold wallets); if I remember correctly the top 1 address was held by Huobi. With Bitcoin, this might not be so obvious, but Coinbase claims to hold a larger number of BTC in cold storage. + same with Bitcoin too (Chinese exchanges)...

It makes sense that exchanges handle some of the largest amount of currency, since that's where trading occurs.

[dballing]

Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.

4th option seems most likely. It would take a person with autism to create such a master piece.
Don't forget the 5th option though! Which is also likely if you really knew how things worked around here

What if a think tank was commissioned by the (insert group name here) global banking cartel, masons, shadow governments, etc etc. But why?

This is what I would do... appear as though you're a grassroots decentralized peer to peer digital monetary system (money of the people) -> Acquire a controlling amount of the supply in the beginning, but claim it was fairly distributed because anyone "could" have mined it -> build the network effect to such a degree that it encompasses everyone's conciseness (everyone is well aware of it) -> then use the hegelian dialectic method (problem/reaction/solution) to slowly erode the current global monetary system through a painful hyper inflation forcing everyone into my digital web of control -> once the old system collapsed I'd issue a ban on all physical cash (1933 U.S. banned gold so these things do happen) making it impossible to leave this new digital monetary network -> once a firm dependence on Bitcoin and a handful of other coins were in place I would then build out an identification system (such as a Bitcoin wallet address service like a Yelp for people and or businesses) to be tied to all of these transparent transactions (similar to the internet of things, but a record of every transaction that will ever occur) -> put in place an automated taxation system -> finally a biometrics system would then be tied into all of this -> dissenters of our system or anyone that questions it would have their coins black listed and deemed a terrorist or whatever term you want to apply to them -> global humanity checkmated once again

That's the fun conspiratorial side of it. However, the US Department of Defense was largely responsible for the creation of the internet, so this isn't sooooo far fetched.

Buutttttt if something like that did occur I would assume people would simply create an anti-tyrannically coin and flock to that (with 100% privacy).

Annd no I'm not a subterranean reptilian overlord from Uranus...

[dinofelis]

Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

The addresses are definitely not multisig.

[spartak_t]

My opinion is that the best candidate (if it was 1 guy) to be Satoshi Nakamoto was David Kleiman, but he died like 3 years ago. As far as I know (because I did some researches on him) he was crazy about security and I believe that the "premine" is lost. I now googled him and saw the date he died - April 26, 2013. Bitcoin started to explode in November, 2013 and its peak ($1150) was at the end of the month. Probably that could be one of the explanations on why he didn't sold a single coin. 

Even if he's dead by now, he probably left a backup and told his relatives about it, he won't just throw away millions of dollars.

You think?

While he was alive, Kleiman kept a heavy-duty USB drive on his person at all times. Paige believes it might have been made by the brand Corsair — which boasts that its products are encased in “an anodized aircraft-grade aluminum housing.” If he really did possess a Satoshi Nakamoto-level fortune, it may have been sitting on that drive. According to Paige, that drive was passed to Kleiman’s brother Ira, who declined to speak on the record about whether he possessed it. But even if the bitcoins were there, recovering them wouldn’t be nearly as simple as pulling files from an ordinary USB drive. Kleiman, the consummate security buff, locked down everything he owned with encryption strong enough that even his tech-savvy partners doubt they’d be able to crack it. “If you told me there was a million dollars on Dave’s computer in this room, I wouldn’t even bother trying to look for it,” Paige said. “It would be a waste of time.”

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-strange-life-and-death-of-dave-kleiman-a-computer-1747092460

Even if they were encrypted, he handed him the drive for a reason. he surely gave him the encryption key for the drive.
Maybe he didn't spend them because he doesn't actually need any money, or maybe he dumped the drive an hour later, we'll never know, or maybe we will?

Maybe he handed him the encrypted drive with the beliefs that a quantum computers would exist in the future and the encryption could be easily broken? I don't think he gave him even a clues on how the drive could be encrypted. Dave Kleiman was on a wheelchair for like 15-20 years and I think he died broke. The price of Bitcoin at the time of his death was $100 - $120, giving him a net worth of over $100 million (some sources claim that he had/have 1.5 million BTC). I think that he could have sold like $100-$200k worth of bitcoins and make his life a bit easier.

[Searing]

I would like to see the Litecoin Devs do a 'coup' and storm the bitoin core devs and take over. They don't seem to be in it for the 'drama' etc



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Bitcoin core imho could use some boring stable devs....(hey I know it is funny but I'm 'kinda' serious)

[worldtreasurefinders]

Just apply some logic...

Not touching that stash of BTC would have only 4 feasible reasons:
-The owner lost his key.
-The owner died and took his key with him.
-It's locked behind a multi-sig and the owners had a fall out.
-The owner is not interested in money (extreme autism).

I listed them from most high to low likelihood. That is all there is to it. Price protection, "wanting bitcoin to succeed" and superhuman restraint have nothing to do with it.

Do you mean altruism?

Also, my bet is on #2, I think Satoshi is gone, RIP.

[shyliar]

For the record LTC distribution is actually worse than BTC. This address: https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/address/3J5KeQSVBUEs3v2vEEkZDBtPLWqLTuZPuD holds 10.95% of all litecoins.

All coins that were launched in the early days have bad distribution because there were very few miners back then. In any system you are going to have some centralisation of wealth simply due to the early adopter effect.

Disclaimer: I do not hate litecoin.

What you're looking at is likely the cold wallet address of a chinese exchange. The 10.95% represents the holdings of thousands of individuals.

If you look here:

http://etherscan.io/accounts

You can see that two exchanges have 17% of all ETH between them as well.

Also some exchanges and large holders of any coin can have additional addresses and control even a larger percentage than block explorers indicate. As such the proof you offer doesn't necessarily indicate one person owns 10.95%.

It might indicate that far to many individuals put their faith in exchanges for storage of wealth.