Chinese government IS backing Bitcoin?!?!

[rebuilder]

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Like this one? Technically, you can't prove the private key isn't known but realistically, no-one can brute force a string that long.

[David Rabahy]

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Like this one? Technically, you can't prove the private key isn't known but realistically, no-one can brute force a string that long.

What's the public key?

[rebuilder]

1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE is the public key. Apparently, you can send coins to any address as long as the checksum at the end of the address is valid for the address.

[David Rabahy]

Oh!  The address *is* the public key; who knew?

Per https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, that address is attributed with holgero  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27019;sa=showPosts.

Perfect.

Satoshi, please dump a significant portion of your original reward into it and take the latent concern out of the system.

Or, we could try to find volunteers willing to pay Satoshi and then they dump them.  I'm willing to donate 0.5 BTC to the cause.  How can I get the 0.5 BTC from Satoshi and guarantee I will dump it atomically?

[rebuilder]

Honestly, if we're talking about making Bitcoin acceptable to governments as a reserve currency, there are many more bumps in the road than just Satoshi's holdings. Apart from what I'd expect to be a general unpalatability for governments, there are other relatively large holders, too. I currently see government's embracing decentralized cryptocurrencies only slightly before they stop taxing people, but should the unthinkable occur, I still don't see why any government would elect not to roll their own alt.

[crazy_rabbit]

Oh!  The address *is* the public key; who knew?

Per https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, that address is attributed with holgero  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27019;sa=showPosts.

Perfect.

Satoshi, please dump a significant portion of your original reward into it and take the latent concern out of the system.

Or, we could try to find volunteers willing to pay Satoshi and then they dump them.  I'm willing to donate 0.5 BTC to the cause.  How can I get the 0.5 BTC from Satoshi and guarantee I will dump it atomically?

You're theory seems to be based on the fact that people don't want to reward Satoshi for the second coming of money. Why should people care if he dumps the coins? More for everyone else, no? It's not like Bitcoin stops working if he sells all his coins. Besides, it's not like he would move them onto MtGOX and do a market order. More likely he's sell to Citibank or something in a lump sum.

[David Rabahy]

This does not solve my previous question but the previous question made me think of it.  How does one construct a transaction like the following?;

Alice and Bob both send X BTC to an address atomically

We do this at restaurants all the time; put two VISA cards on the bill and ask the waitress to split it 50/50.

If such a transaction can be constructed then an alternative proposal would be to have Satoshi and other volunteers co-dump enough Bitcoins into an address without a known public key to reduce the latent concern in the system.

I'd be delighted to see Satoshi get every penny they've earned and more.  Satoshi may be trustable not to dump significant portions of their holdings but the temptation to coerce them will only increase as the value of Bitcoin increases.

*Any* Bitcoin holder with enough value ought to be of a concern.  If the Winklevoss's were publicly coerced into giving up their Bitcoins then we would see them move on the block chain and know the destination addresses were under the control of bad guys.  But if they are coerced privately then we wouldn't know.  The Winklevosses are public figures and it wouldn't take long to realize they had been coerced.  Satoshi is utterly private.  We would have no idea whether he/she/they were being coerced or not.  The movement of Bitcoins out of Satoshi holdings at an unexpected/unannounced time would be disruptive.

A significant off-market transaction will eventually be noticed and confidence will swing, perhaps wildly, on the news.

[darkmule]

If such a transaction can be constructed then an alternative proposal would be to have Satoshi and other volunteers co-dump enough Bitcoins into an address without a known public key to reduce the latent concern in the system.

I assume you mean a known PRIVATE key, since you couldn't transfer ANYTHING to an "unknown public key."

Also, why on earth would anyone throw away an enormous amount of money in return for nothing?

[greyhawk]

Satoshi, thank you very much; your contribution to the human race is beyond measure.  Please provide a definitive act to settle the position of your original reward.

Satoshi told me via PM that his stash is set aside as a reward for whoever invents time travel so he can save his fiancee from a fatal car crash. Details to be made public when the USD exchange rate hits $1000/XBT. You didn't hear it from me.

Will he have to go and do battle with Satans lieutenants to prevent an early eschaton?

[David Rabahy]

Yep, private.

Such a tremendous loss of Bitcoins would be to benefit the whole Bitcoin ecosystems by reducing the concern of the very large stash of old/stale coins suddenly being transacted back into action.

I could create a charitable organization such that donations to it can be deducted.  All donations would be used to match Satoshi dumps of vulnerable caches.  Win, win; Bitcoin goes up in value, contributors get an income tax deduction.

Satoshi could die unexpectedly/suddenly without having prepared to pass their fortune on to their beneficiaries.  This could happen without anyone knowing.  The reward coins would be unknowingly lost.  However, the fear/risk would remain.  If/when the news did get out then a worldwide treasure hunt for the scrap of paper (it matters not if they ever existed or not) with the private keys could create mayhem.  Even if the keys are passed on there's no guarantee the beneficiaries would be as benevolent as Satoshi has been so far.

After a long enough period of time no one will actively worry about such things; well it might make a nice plot element in some future novel.  This would just make the shock greater; concerns that a flaw in Bitcoin had been discovered as opposed to Satoshi just waking up to collect their well-deserved reward.

[darkmule]

So this is still puzzling me.  Suppose (a lowball estimate) Satoshi has 250K in BTC.  That would be, at current Gox value, about $37,500,000.

He's supposed to torch $37.5 million so you can subjectively feel better?

This plan seems to raise concerns of realistic, rational behavior.

[crazy_rabbit]

Yep, private.

Such a tremendous loss of Bitcoins would be to benefit the whole Bitcoin ecosystems by reducing the concern of the very large stash of old/stale coins suddenly being transacted back into action.

I could create a charitable organization such that donations to it can be deducted.  All donations would be used to match Satoshi dumps of vulnerable caches.  Win, win; Bitcoin goes up in value, contributors get an income tax deduction.

Satoshi could die unexpectedly/suddenly without having prepared to pass their fortune on to their beneficiaries.  This could happen without anyone knowing.  The reward coins would be unknowingly lost.  However, the fear/risk would remain.  If/when the news did get out then a worldwide treasure hunt for the scrap of paper (it matters not if they ever existed or not) with the private keys could create mayhem.  Even if the keys are passed on there's no guarantee the beneficiaries would be as benevolent as Satoshi has been so far.

After a long enough period of time no one will actively worry about such things; well it might make a nice plot element in some future novel.  This would just make the shock greater; concerns that a flaw in Bitcoin had been discovered as opposed to Satoshi just waking up to collect their well-deserved reward.

I don't understand why you're so nervous about some people having so much money. If they spend it, they will dilute their wealth, more coins for other people. It's fine, even if they have tons of it, it's still fine. Unless you have as many coins as Satoshi, Bitcoin is more important to him then it is to you. Think about it, you're worried they might not be benevolent, but they have more to worry about then you do. They are more heavily invested.

[Minor Miner]

If/when a single Satoshi now moves out of one of the original addresses then the reaction will be huge.

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  If so then a seriously stabilizing gesture would be to transfer a significant quantity of the original Bitcoins into it; whatever is not moved can then be assumed to be in play and the valuation/confidence in Bitcoin established correspondingly.  Such a gesture is much easier to recover from now rather than later.

I do not begrudge Satoshi his reward at all; he/she/they should make clear their intent soon rather than leaving the future of their reward in this unknown state.  If their security is ever compromised then they could be coerced at gun point to give up control.

Imagine the capitalization of Bitcoin jumps to $10 or even $100 billion USD and then a transaction comes in touching an original address.  The ensuing panic would be huge.  The exchange rate could drop to half or less in a very short period.

Satoshi, thank you very much; your contribution to the human race is beyond measure.  Please provide a definitive act to settle the position of your original reward.

What???

[David Rabahy]

So this is still puzzling me.  Suppose (a lowball estimate) Satoshi has 250K in BTC.  That would be, at current Gox value, about $37,500,000.

He's supposed to torch $37.5 million so you can subjectively feel better?

This plan seems to raise concerns of realistic, rational behavior.

Oh, I thought I read somewhere it was more like 40% of all Bitcoins were in Satoshi's hands.

If it is *only* more like 2% or something then I stand corrected.

Satoshi, you can keep your Bitcoins, it's ok; I feel better.

[hathmill]

A good morning read:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-14/chinas-state-press-calls-for-building-a-de-americanized-world

China's state press calls for building a "De-Americanized" world.

Get this though, part of China's proposal is:

Key among its proposals: the creation of a new international reserve currency to replace the present reliance on U.S. dollars, a necessary step to prevent American bumbling from further afflicting the world, the commentary suggests.

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

,


I think they want to see a basket of currencies where gold is one of the monies. There are SDRs but Imm not sure to what extent China could gain enough influence over that one since they are issued by IMF (if I remeber correctly) and IMF is owned by US. Actually what I think they want is to keep a strong dollarr, devalue against it and hedging it by allocation of hard money and assets and then when they could have a super strong currency and when imports has become expencieve they will let their own currency appreciate soso they can buy the world assets for cheap and borrow at loww rates. I think thats their long term plan and Bitcoin a blackswan. Nothing bad with Chineese people getting some Bitcoins and hard money though. Much better then if Chineese hoard dollars II dont think the gov want them to do that.

[hathmill]

If China built Bitcoin they would _never_ put a Japanese name on it. They are not like super good ol friends those two.

[darkmule]

Oh, I thought I read somewhere it was more like 40% of all Bitcoins were in Satoshi's hands.

I've seen estimates from around 150K BTC to over 1 million, but much more than that is pretty unlikely, considering the period of time when Satoshi was mining (under that name).  While presumably he (or they) could have been mining subsequent to that time under other names, by that time, there were enough other miners that any one of them monopolizing the supply was pretty much out of the question.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Just realized if DPR were forced to give up the password somehow, he could just activate a deadman's switch sending his entire cold wallet to the BitcoinEater address. It'd be like the end of the movie Independence Day.

[darkmule]

Just realized if DPR were forced to give up the password somehow, he could just activate a deadman's switch sending his entire cold wallet to the BitcoinEater address. It'd be like the end of the movie Independence Day.

Since giving up the password would probably be part of some kind of deal, unless DPR is a complete idiot, nuking the wallet with some trickery would pretty much break the deal and subject him to whatever consequences the feds threatened.

[thecomputerscientist]

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?