Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers

[fastandfurious]

As you can see on the fifth graph here http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ , for many months Bitcoin was very unknown to the public and because of that difficulty didn't change to the upside. If I have understood it correctly around 1,5 million Bitcoins were created from February 2009 until the end of same year. Also if I have understood it correctly very few people mined under this time period making the conclusion that Satoshi Nakamoto and a few more people have a considerable amount of Bitcoins (worth today around 16 million dollars). You could also suppose that a majority of this coins are in the hand of Satoshi Nakamoto. Today it has gone more than two years from the birth of Bitcoin, I am convinced that Nakamoto has big plans for Bitcoin and he/she/they have put considerable amount of time and effort in this interesting project.

I am talking for my self, but I think that my thoughts concern also others that are thinking alike. I want to invest a considerable amount of money and time into this project/currency/commodity/freedom. But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project. Because not getting any answers makes Bitcoin to become something uncertain and vague. If Bitcoin should become worth 100-10000+ times more than it is today, and be a serious threat to the establishment and the status quo of the financial world of today, we should demand for some sincere answers to this questions.



My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?




Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

[Gabi]

Mh...difficulty can't go below 1, but that doesn't mean a block every 10 min always was true.

Maybe back in 2009 hashrate was so low that even at difficulty 1 a block was created like every hour or so...

[ampirebus]

this is a very well thought out post with important questions,

because of this I feel it will never happen (serious inquiry) and most people will post garbage like "you have no right to know any of this"

[Trader Steve]

Bitcoin is what it is. In my humble opinion I believe your questions are irrelevant in that it doesn't matter what the answers are.

[PGPpfKkx]

My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

noone knows

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

should be a handfull imo

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

this is not a good question, you already know. if you want to ask something like "did they have any hidden agenta" is the right one. noone knows thats why btc is a speculative currency.

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

be the ultimate cyber currency is the obvious answer

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?

buy whoes in mexico? why is that important?


Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

[aq]

Bitcoin is what it is. In my humble opinion I believe your questions are irrelevant in that it doesn't matter what the answers are.

+1

Every day lots of members pops up in this forum, jealous that some other have more bitcoin. As being jealousy doesn't look that good, they invent some "we have to change bitcoins, so that I get more" thing. Of course it is always the fault of early adopters and satoshi. And of course, everyone know 2009/2010 that bitcoins will be explode in 2011. So of course, everyone would have mined in 2009.

Go all, mine xicoin, or whatever the scam of the day is called, we all know that it will explode in 2013!

[defxor]

I believe your questions are irrelevant

+1

[molecular]

Mh...difficulty can't go below 1, but that doesn't mean a block every 10 min always was true.

Maybe back in 2009 hashrate was so low that even at difficulty 1 a block was created like every hour or so...

OPs assumption was that about 1.5 million BTC where mined at end of 2009. That's about true:

+-----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
| block_num | block_height*50 | from_unixtime(block_nTime) |
+-----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
|     32485 |         1624250 | 2009-12-31 23:51:57        |
+-----------+-----------------+----------------------------+

Block 32485 was mined 2009-12-31 23:51:57. 1,624,250 BTC existed then.

[evoorhees]

On my list of concerns, my worry over the personal assets of Satoshi is just slightly more important than what I'm going to make for dinner this evening.

If it does concern you, like the other poster said, go mine XICoin, for Satoshi probably has none of them! In fact, why don't all the communists get together and create Communacoin, they can ensure nobody has more than X% above anyone else, that the supply of them increase indefinitely (making everyone richer forever), that purchases will only be for "socially beneficial purposes," and all the evil, unfair free-market jerks won't get to own any at all!

In all seriousness, it would make no sense at all for Satoshi to step forward and disclose anything about himself. It is obscenely smart for him to have disappeared and here's hoping he lives out his days in peace, wealth, and comfort, reflecting upon the incredible invention he has bestowed upon mankind.

[indicasteve]

I bet he lost his wallet.

[TTBit]

FWIW, I mined 10,000,000 ShitCoins before I took it public.

It never caught on

[echo2]

probally owns a supercomputer that puts out a few PetaFLOPs

[Rob Lister]

this is a very well thought out post with important questions,

because of this I feel it will never happen (serious inquiry) and most people will post garbage like "you have no right to know any of this"

well, he doesn't have any right to know any of that.  and what difference can it possible make?

perhaps if he could explain why he needs to know i would change my opinion that he's just fishing.

[matsh]

I fail to see the problem here. Bitcoin was visible in plain open sight since day 1. 99% of us was just too stupid to see it and become an early adopter. Stupidity has a price, and now we have to buy coins at a much higher price. But, what else is new? In which way is this different from, say, shares in startups? Some people get a brilliant idea, work day and night for several years, then let their company go public. Sure, the founders have shitloads of shares and get rich. Is that a problem? Would you demand Sergey Brin to disclose what he plans to do with his money earned from selling Google shares? If so, go play somewhere else!

[BitVapes]

I fail to see the problem here. Bitcoin was visible in plain open sight since day 1. 99% of us was just too stupid to see it and become an early adopter. Stupidity has a price, and now we have to buy coins at a much higher price.

agreed.   I first saw bitcoin in late 2009 or early 2010 when looking for exchangers of other digital currencies like pecunix and liberty reserve.   I came across bitcoin-otc and was very interested, but I didn't see that bitcoins could be used for much.  I didn't dig deep enough, and I had I might have gotten more interested and involved at the time.  I didn't start taking a hard look at it until after it broke $1 parity, and didn't get my business started until just after then $30 high.    But we are all still early adopters, imo.   2/3rd of all bitcoins are still yet to be mined and circulated, and the entire bitcoin economy market cap is still only a tiny fraction of the global economy.  

[Oldminer]

this is a very well thought out post with important questions,

because of this I feel it will never happen (serious inquiry) and most people will post garbage like "you have no right to know any of this"

+1

And

I predict this thtread will not end well

[riush]

FWIW, Satoshi did make a point of it that he didn't start mining before everyone else had the chance to - by including a newspaper headline in the genesis block.

We were just reading the wrong lists  

[molecular]

I did some more analysis on "2009 coins" using bitcoin-abe (thanks a lot, John Toby!):

I looked at mining profits 2009, using block_id <= 32485 (last block mined in 2009, at 2009-12-31 23:51:57) as condition. The overall mining profit was:

mysql> select sum(txout_value/1E8) from block_tx inner join block on block.block_id = block_tx.block_id inner join tx on block_tx.tx_id = tx.tx_id inner join txin on txin.tx_id=tx.tx_
id inner join txout on txout.tx_id = tx.tx_id left join txin txin2 on txin2.txout_id = txout.txout_id left join tx tx2 on tx2.tx_id=txin2.tx_id left join block_tx block_tx2 on block_tx2.tx_id=tx2.tx_id where txin.txout_id is null and block.block_id <= 32485;
+----------------------+
| sum(txout_value/1E8) |
+----------------------+
|           1624252.87 |
+----------------------+

1,624,252.87 BTC (2.87 BTC fees)

crosscheck: 1624250 BTC / 50 BTC/block = 32485 blocks, ok

Next I was interested in wether or not these mining profits where sold or not. This is too hard to determine from the data, so I resorted to determining wether they were moved to other addresses and if so, wether the respective transaction took place in 2009 or after 2009:

mysql> select case when txin2.txin_id is null then 'not moved' else case when block_tx2.block_id <= 32485 then 'moved i
n 2009' else 'moved after 2009' end end as move_status, sum(txout_value/1E8) from block_tx inner join block on block.bl
ock_id = block_tx.block_id inner join tx on block_tx.tx_id = tx.tx_id inner join txin on txin.tx_id=tx.tx_id inner join txout on txout.tx_id = tx.tx_id left join txin txin2 on txin2.txout_id = txout.txout_id left join tx tx2 on tx2.tx_id=txin2.tx_id left join block_tx block_tx2 on block_tx2.tx_id=tx2.tx_id where txin.txout_id is null and block.block_id <= 32485 group by move_status;
+------------------+----------------------+
| move_status      | sum(txout_value/1E8) |
+------------------+----------------------+
| moved after 2009 |            294800.15 |
| moved in 2009    |            137600.13 |
| not moved        |           1191852.59 |
+------------------+----------------------+

This likely means, that the majority of the coins mined in 2009 (73%, 1,191,852 BTC) are still in possession of the original miner (he might have given the coins to someone else by giving him the private keys. It's likely, though, that the recipient would've moved the coins to new addresses because otherwise he'd have to trust the sender to not use the keys).

Therefore I think we can safely assume that the people that mined the early coins in 2009 (likely "Satoshi Nakamoto and some friends") did not sell or otherwise give away the majority of these coins. The coins that were moved (27%) might also well be still in their possession. We can therefore state: Satoshi and friends have at miminum 1.2 Million BTC still at their disposal.

EDIT: this puts a lower bound to the answer of question 1: "How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?" (assuming "Nakamoto" means "Satoshi and friends"). Answer: at least 1.2 Million.

[gusti]

considering his genius design and superb execution, Satoshi deserves at least 3 million btc

[molecular]

probally owns a supercomputer that puts out a few PetaFLOPs

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. When you own >5% of any given currency, you don't need more. Also: Satoshi seems to be a sensible guy and one that knows when to retreat and let others take over. He's done his share well and got rewarded. Let's hope he changed the world with this.

[aq]

considering his genious design and superb execution, Satoshi deserves at least 3 million btc

if we assume that he owns the genesis block http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f and hence also owns the very address, we can all start donating, which apparently some people do already: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa
But it is still a long way to 3 million

[the joint]

In my opinion, anybody who thinks 'Satoshi' didn't create Bitcoin with the intention (at least, in part) of getting rich, I think you're fooling yourself.  It's clearly built into the structure.

At this point, it's in the hands of the community.  The OP's post is relevant because depending on how many BTC Satoshi owns, he can cash out at any time.  The stronger the community becomes, that gives Satoshi less incentive to cash out immediately.  If there are overwhelming signs of an absolute market crash, Satoshi is the one who can solidify it. 

[RodeoX]

Nice work Molecular!

Although, it is also possible Satoshi owns no bitcoins.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations


Any questions?

[molecular]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations


Any questions?

Yes: what does this have to do with the questions asked by OP?

[Trader Steve]

On my list of concerns, my worry over the personal assets of Satoshi is just slightly more important than what I'm going to make for dinner this evening.

If it does concern you, like the other poster said, go mine XICoin, for Satoshi probably has none of them! In fact, why don't all the communists get together and create Communacoin, they can ensure nobody has more than X% above anyone else, that the supply of them increase indefinitely (making everyone richer forever), that purchases will only be for "socially beneficial purposes," and all the evil, unfair free-market jerks won't get to own any at all!

In all seriousness, it would make no sense at all for Satoshi to step forward and disclose anything about himself. It is obscenely smart for him to have disappeared and here's hoping he lives out his days in peace, wealth, and comfort, reflecting upon the incredible invention he has bestowed upon mankind.

+1

[Trader Steve]

FWIW, I mined 10,000,000 ShitCoins before I took it public.

It never caught on

LOL

[Phinnaeus Gage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations


Any questions?

Yes: what does this have to do with the questions asked by OP?

In was in response to several comments to the OP addressing early adopters. My point being that every worthwhile endeavor has early adopters, all taking a risk, hoping it'll become profitable. You'll always have somebody wishing that they were on the ground floor before it went viral.

I stand behind my wiki posting.

[Ten98]

I'm amazed that something like Bitcoin can survive in the wild, totally open source without being hacked to peices. The guy is clearly an absolute genius in the field of cryptology and macro economics, I bet even he can't believe this shit actually worked though.

Much respect to him, and I'm sure he's far too clever to let Bitcoin die or do anything to negatively affect the value of the currency when he's holding over a million coins.

[Shortline]

I'm amazed that something like Bitcoin can survive in the wild, totally open source without being hacked to peices. The guy is clearly an absolute genius in the field of cryptology and macro economics, I bet even he can't believe this shit actually worked though.

Much respect to him, and I'm sure he's far too clever to let Bitcoin die or do anything to negatively affect the value of the currency when he's holding over a million coins.

Yeah, that bears remembering.

Kind of an aside here, but did any of you read the cryptography list discussions when he initially introduced the bitcoin protocol? Everyone was like "oh shit... neat... but how do you do X process?" and he was all like "just do it like this." Essentially he'd had the hard stuff done up, complete before he brought it to the public eye, which is very impressive. And his explanation? Something along the lines of "oh, it was just as easy to write the code to see if it would work than to prove it any other way..."

Anyway, who gives a fuck how much he/she/they own. I hate to be a downer here OP but this is newbie stuff that comes up over and over again. It's a bit boring.

[memvola]

In my opinion, anybody who thinks 'Satoshi' didn't create Bitcoin with the intention (at least, in part) of getting rich, I think you're fooling yourself.  It's clearly built into the structure. 

Yet we haven't witnessed an intense development effort for such novel systems before or since Bitcoin. There were many different plans for a distributed currency (e.g. a distributed anonymous version of ripple), but only by a handful of people. In my experience, you just can't and don't work on such stuff if you intend to get rich. He must have imagined gaining wealth as a consequence of his success, but the reason the structure is built this way is definitely about success of the currency. As a consequence, people who believed in it got to have more coins. Even so, there are many early adopters who (at least claim to) have very little coins left.

This is probably closer to reality:

I bet even he can't believe this shit actually worked though.

What surprised me about molecular's analysis though is the amount of coins that were never moved. I wonder if that is the usual trend, or it shows a different behavioral pattern for first comers. Has anybody made a "the number of coins that haven't moved since" graph?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm amazed that something like Bitcoin can survive in the wild, totally open source without being hacked to peices. The guy is clearly an absolute genius in the field of cryptology and macro economics, I bet even he can't believe this shit actually worked though.

Much respect to him, and I'm sure he's far too clever to let Bitcoin die or do anything to negatively affect the value of the currency when he's holding over a million coins.

Yeah, that bears remembering.

Kind of an aside here, but did any of you read the cryptography list discussions when he initially introduced the bitcoin protocol? Everyone was like "oh shit... neat... but how do you do X process?" and he was all like "just do it like this." Essentially he'd had the hard stuff done up, complete before he brought it to the public eye, which is very impressive. And his explanation? Something along the lines of "oh, it was just as easy to write the code to see if it would work than to prove it any other way..."

Anyway, who gives a fuck how much he/she/they own. I hate to be a downer here OP but this is newbie stuff that comes up over and over again. It's a bit boring.

I'm amazed that something like Bitcoin can survive in the wild, totally open source without being hacked to peices. The guy is clearly an absolute genius in the field of cryptology and macro economics, I bet even he can't believe this shit actually worked though.

Much respect to him, and I'm sure he's far too clever to let Bitcoin die or do anything to negatively affect the value of the currency when he's holding over a million coins.

+2 (for the post before the one I quoted)
+2 (for this post also) but like on Who's Line is it Anyway--The points don't matter.

I hate to be a downer here OP but this is newbie stuff that comes up over and over again. It's a bit boring.

If you visit the Newbie threads, you see a whole slew of them coming down the pike. A lot of them simply post, "Whitewash me! I have something very important to add to this or that conversation."

They can't wait to add their thoughts to the Bitcoin community.

[molecular]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations


Any questions?

Yes: what does this have to do with the questions asked by OP?

In was in response to several comments to the OP addressing early adopters. My point being that every worthwhile endeavor has early adopters, all taking a risk, hoping it'll become profitable. You'll always have somebody wishing that they were on the ground floor before it went viral.

I stand behind my wiki posting.

Thanks for clearing that up. And I have to agree with you.

[molecular]

Even so, there are many early adopters who (at least claim to) have very little coins left.

Hehe. For some early adopters, "very little" might still be in the thousands, though.

I can understand some of them cashed in too early, though. Imagine you're a little short on cash and the bitcoin value just shot up 400% to USD 0.80!! I'd be tempted to sell, myself. I've been having a hard time holding on to my little stash myself at times.

This just emphasizes the point that being an early adopter, an being it successfully (holding on to the bitcoins), is not so easy, and these people can be envied, but it's not unfair in any way. We all had the same chance. Of course some luck was involved, too, but that's almost always the case. So don't bash the early adopters, they're the ones that got the stone rolling in the first place. Like someone once elaborated on in a TED talk: it's not the leader/inventor that is the most crucial person to the success of something, it's the first follower (showing a video of a guy standing up and starting to dance pertty stupidly, then another one following, then more people successively, until everybody dances). He argues that without the first follower, there wouldn't have been a party, and the leader would've looked like an idiot. I think it's true.

[molecular]

Nice work Molecular!

Although, it is also possible Satoshi owns no bitcoins.

True. My finding was, that the very early adopters did not sell out.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Even so, there are many early adopters who (at least claim to) have very little coins left.

Hehe. For some early adopters, "very little" might still be in the thousands, though.

I can understand some of them cashed in too early, though. Imagine you're a little short on cash and the bitcoin value just shot up 400% to USD 0.80!! I'd be tempted to sell, myself. I've been having a hard time holding on to my little stash myself at times.

This just emphasizes the point that being an early adopter, an being it successfully (holding on to the bitcoins), is not so easy, and these people can be envied, but it's not unfair in any way. We all had the same chance. Of course some luck was involved, too, but that's almost always the case. So don't bash the early adopters, they're the ones that got the stone rolling in the first place. Like someone once elaborated on in a TED talk: it's not the leader/inventor that is the most crucial person to the success of something, it's the first follower (showing a video of a guy standing up and starting to dance pertty stupidly, then another one following, then more people successively, until everybody dances). He argues that without the first follower, there wouldn't have been a party, and the leader would've looked like an idiot. I think it's true.

+1,000

http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html    WATCH THIS VIDEO--ONLY 3 MINUTES LONG


I saw that video a couple months ago, so knew where to look.

Excellent post!


Here's what I propose. The next time another thread like this gets started, simply post the link to this video and kindly request to lock the thread, for the subject will be closed. If the OP of the new thread doesn't get it, he should receive 500 lashes with a wet noodle by (insert your favorite board member here).


http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html


Speaking of Ted.com, what are the chances of having Bitcoin's main spokesperson give a talk at TED about Bitcoin early next year? Seems to me to be a perfect fit.

[newminerr]

I'm amazed that something like Bitcoin can survive in the wild, totally open source without being hacked to peices. The guy is clearly an absolute genius in the field of cryptology and macro economics, I bet even he can't believe this shit actually worked though.

Much respect to him, and I'm sure he's far too clever to let Bitcoin die or do anything to negatively affect the value of the currency when he's holding over a million coins.

+1

considering his genius design and superb execution, Satoshi deserves at least 3 million btc

+1

True. My finding was, that the very early adopters did not sell out.

Why wouldn't they sell their BTC, when they had a good chance to do that? [$20 per BTC]

[Shortline]

Here's what I propose. The next time another thread like this gets started, simply post the link to this video and kindly request to lock the thread, for the subject will be closed. If the OP of the new thread doesn't get it, he should receive 500 lashes with a wet noodle by (insert your favorite board member here).

 You never know, some day new information might come up. There's totally some good stuff in this very thread. We can't just reject stuff out-of-hand like that.

[molecular]

+1,000

http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html    WATCH THIS VIDEO--ONLY 3 MINUTES LONG

Thank you so much for looking up the video!

Speaking of Ted.com, what are the chances of having Bitcoin's main spokesperson give a talk at TED about Bitcoin early next year? Seems to me to be a perfect fit.

Yeah, it's been suggested before that Gavin hold a TED talk. It was, if I remember correctly, concluded that it might still be too early. Maybe it's time now . It'd be quite a receptive audience, I think, that also tends to have some money (a big plus for us ^^)

Maybe Gavin (while I think he'd do a great job) is not the right guy for this one, though... there are a few other eloquent bitcoin people. Damn, if forum search was better I would try to find the post where someone made a list. Any suggestions?

[Zibbo]

I believe that vast numbers of Bitcoins were found and lost in the early days, because back then, people were mining just because Bitcoin was an interesting technology project. When they lost interest and quit mining, wallets were easily lost in OS reinstalls etc. because why would you bother backing up a bunch of funnymoney?

So I predict that a big portion of those early Bitcoins that have not been moved, will never ever be moved, because the wallets are just lost.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

+1,000

http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html    WATCH THIS VIDEO--ONLY 3 MINUTES LONG

Thank you so much for looking up the video!

Speaking of Ted.com, what are the chances of having Bitcoin's main spokesperson give a talk at TED about Bitcoin early next year? Seems to me to be a perfect fit.

Yeah, it's been suggested before that Gavin hold a TED talk. It was, if I remember correctly, concluded that it might still be too early. Maybe it's time now . It'd be quite a receptive audience, I think, that also tends to have some money (a big plus for us ^^)

Maybe Gavin (while I think he'd do a great job) is not the right guy for this one, though... there are a few other eloquent bitcoin people. Damn, if forum search was better I would try to find the post where someone made a list. Any suggestions?

I just tried looking for it for you, but I'm so tired, I'm not sure if this is the list or not.


Danny Casolaro
Frank Nugan
Fred Alvarez
Paul Morasca
Mary Quick
Larry Guerrin
Abbie Hoffman
Jonathan Moyle
Alan Standorf
Dennis Eisman
Anson Ng
Ian Spiro
Robert Maxwell
Paul Wilcher
Pete Sandvigen
Alan Michael May
Jonathan Myle
JohnCrawford
Vali Delahanty
Barry Kusnick

[molecular]

What surprised me about molecular's analysis though is the amount of coins that were never moved. I wonder if that is the usual trend, or it shows a different behavioral pattern for first comers. Has anybody made a "the number of coins that haven't moved since" graph?

Been thinking about that one or a similar analysis (coin age) and thanks to your post, finally came around

I did this by identifying the leaf nodes of the transaction chains and then determining the time of the block these were included in. That's the "last time these coins were moved".

CAVEAT: I know I'm making the mistake of including blocks from orphaned chains here. Still looking for an easy way to exclude these. The error should not be too huge, though.

select year(from_unixtime(block.block_nTime)) as year, month(from_unixtime(block.block_nTime)) as month, sum(txout_value)*1E-8 
from block_tx 
  inner join block on block.block_id = block_tx.block_id 
  inner join tx on block_tx.tx_id = tx.tx_id 
  inner join txout on txout.tx_id = tx.tx_id 
  left join txin txin2 on txin2.txout_id = txout.txout_id 
where txin2.txout_id is null 
group by year, month;

Made a pretty histogram of the result:

like it? even 0.01 BTC help continue cool queries: 1SQL2R5ijCn2ZiBG8aDYpCiecNPuxzMJJ

Note: 2009 summed up = 1,205,454 - all summed up: 7,087,766

Now, what conclusions can we draw from this?

[molecular]

True. My finding was, that the very early adopters did not sell out.

Why wouldn't they sell their BTC, when they had a good chance to do that? [$20 per BTC]

Because they are not greedy bastards but want bitcoin to succeed for other reasons.

[molecular]

I believe that vast numbers of Bitcoins were found and lost in the early days, because back then, people were mining just because Bitcoin was an interesting technology project. When they lost interest and quit mining, wallets were easily lost in OS reinstalls etc. because why would you bother backing up a bunch of funnymoney?

So I predict that a big portion of those early Bitcoins that have not been moved, will never ever be moved, because the wallets are just lost.

I tend to disagree. Who reinstall their OS without migrating his data? Also: the early early miners where probably "hoping like hell" it would succeed, why else go to the length of writing the code. A backup of wallet.dat is cheap enough. I don't think many of the old coins are lost, but that's speculation for now.

EDIT: also, I see what you did there. Your prediction might be very hard to falsify.

[newminerr]

Because they are not greedy bastards but want bitcoin to succeed for other reasons.

That's exactly what i think.

If satoshi [and "friends"] were greedy and started bitcoin and mined coins for the sole purpose of money, he had a pretty sweet chance to dump his whole BTC into the markets for half the price and become a millionaire.

[payb.tc]

True. My finding was, that the very early adopters did not sell out.

Why wouldn't they sell their BTC, when they had a good chance to do that? [$20 per BTC]

Because they are not greedy bastards but want bitcoin to succeed for other reasons.

or, they were greedy bastards that were holding out for $35 per BTC and just missed out.

(not that i think that's the case)

[nostrum]

Interesting graph. Looks like people started saving their bitcoins in 2011/3.
Any chance you could add the number of bitcoins in existence + market value in the same graph?

[molecular]

Interesting graph. Looks like people started saving their bitcoins in 2011/3.

That march spike is actually an even smaller spike in week 9 (beginning of march), as you can see in a weekly breakdown I did: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37422, where I speculate that this is the MysteryMiner keeping his coins.

Any chance you could add the number of bitcoins in existence + market value in the same graph?

I've thought about adding the amount of coins mined in each month. (Consider making a small donation if you want to increase my motivation: 1SQL2R5ijCn2ZiBG8aDYpCiecNPuxzMJJ)

I could also add the market value, if I had the data. Can anyone help me with that?

[Gabi]

Remember that back then coins were so worthless and abundant that probably some people just deleted their wallet.dat after a while and so on...

[Ten98]

Remember that back then coins were so worthless and abundant that probably some people just deleted their wallet.dat after a while and so on...

I feel a little bit sick when I think of all the people that must have done this. Deleting a fortune in the blink of an eye

[AssemblY]

As you can see on the fifth graph here http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ , for many months Bitcoin was very unknown to the public and because of that difficulty didn't change to the upside. If I have understood it correctly around 1,5 million Bitcoins were created from February 2009 until the end of same year. Also if I have understood it correctly very few people mined under this time period making the conclusion that Satoshi Nakamoto and a few more people have a considerable amount of Bitcoins (worth today around 16 million dollars). You could also suppose that a majority of this coins are in the hand of Satoshi Nakamoto. Today it has gone more than two years from the birth of Bitcoin, I am convinced that Nakamoto has big plans for Bitcoin and he/she/they have put considerable amount of time and effort in this interesting project.

I am talking for my self, but I think that my thoughts concern also others that are thinking alike. I want to invest a considerable amount of money and time into this project/currency/commodity/freedom. But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project. Because not getting any answers makes Bitcoin to become something uncertain and vague. If Bitcoin should become worth 100-10000+ times more than it is today, and be a serious threat to the establishment and the status quo of the financial world of today, we should demand for some sincere answers to this questions.



My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?




Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

Hence the 1 or 2 years new people will be asking the same questions, and you can be the person who took and made many bitcoins, or be the guy who just cried, and did nothing.
Stop asking questions and go mining, BTC is really what it is, dot.

[Piper67]

Heh... dude, you need answers... I need bitcoins!

[molecular]

Any chance you could add the number of bitcoins in existence + market value in the same graph?

I've thought about adding the amount of coins mined in each month. (Consider making a small donation if you want to increase my motivation: 1SQL2R5ijCn2ZiBG8aDYpCiecNPuxzMJJ)

Well, whoever it was, I got a donation which increased my motivation:

like this chart? consider donating: 1SQL2R5ijCn2ZiBG8aDYpCiecNPuxzMJJ

[stryker]

I dont think the op is a newb, this is a valid question, on my mind and I'd be anyone thinking about investing serious money in bitcoin... I dont suppose ny1 here doing the childish name calling does not have a stash?

[elggawf]

EDIT: this puts a lower bound to the answer of question 1: "How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?" (assuming "Nakamoto" means "Satoshi and friends"). Answer: at least 1.2 Million.

No it doesn't, because the fact that the coins haven't moved is not proof positive that someone is still in possession of them. We'll probably never have proof-positive they're not, because a) no one's going to admit to burning what's now worth a few million bucks and b) there's no way to prove you're not in control of them anyway.

Given how long Bitcoins went being almost completely worthless, I would hazard a guess that a not insignificant portion of those BTC will never move, ever.

[Karmicads]

In all seriousness, it would make no sense at all for Satoshi to step forward and disclose anything about himself. It is obscenely smart for him to have disappeared and here's hoping he lives out his days in peace, wealth, and comfort, reflecting upon the incredible invention he has bestowed upon mankind.

+1

[Raize]

So I predict that a big portion of those early Bitcoins that have not been moved, will never ever be moved, because the wallets are just lost.

I can attest to the fact that I started CPU mining in 2009 when I first found Bitcoin, and then when I found out they were worth nothing and there was no way to sell them, I removed the program. I didn't get back into it till the end of 2010 when they were actually worth something. My guess is that I didn't CPU mine for more than a day or two, but those coins I earned will never be used again.

[Trader Steve]

Greed is good. It is our desire to improve our lives. It is our desire to create and produce those things that others would voluntarily trade for. This process enriches both the lives of ourselves and of others. It is only when fraud, deceit, plunder and murder are used that greed becomes bad.

[becoin]

But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project.

Same here. So I've decided not to invest until I know who are people that labeled themselves 'Satoshi'.

[the joint]

In my opinion, anybody who thinks 'Satoshi' didn't create Bitcoin with the intention (at least, in part) of getting rich, I think you're fooling yourself.  It's clearly built into the structure.  

Yet we haven't witnessed an intense development effort for such novel systems before or since Bitcoin. There were many different plans for a distributed currency (e.g. a distributed anonymous version of ripple), but only by a handful of people. In my experience, you just can't and don't work on such stuff if you intend to get rich. He must have imagined gaining wealth as a consequence of his success, but the reason the structure is built this way is definitely about success of the currency. As a consequence, people who believed in it got to have more coins. Even so, there are many early adopters who (at least claim to) have very little coins left.

To me, this is a a weak argument.  Obviously, we haven't witnessed  an "intense development effort for such novel systems" since Bitcoin because that would be a period of what...2 years?  And, the Internet has only been around for a couple decades before Bitcoin.  The age of digital global information exchange is still in its infancy.  And, I would argue there have been novel attempts on a smaller systemic scale.  Linden dollars, for one.  Did Linden dollars make the 2nd life owners wealthy?   You betcha.  Now you got Facebook Credits.  Perhaps you could even go before digital communication and look at things like Baseball Cards, the popularity of which exploded in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  This could be thought of as a currency for kids (after all, there were price guides that pegged the value of a baseball card to a fiat currency).  Who got rich?  Baseball card manufacturers (the Satoshis)  and card shops (the exchanges).

Edit:  With the baseball card analogy, although they were also very popular back in the days when kids put them in the spokes of their bicycle wheels and milk men delivered them at your door, the explosion of popularity in the late 80's and early 90's was aided through digital communication.  Online price guides, auctions, etc.  helped to 'stabilize' the value of cards.

[molecular]

But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project.

Same here. So I've decided not to invest until I know who are people that labeled themselves 'Satoshi'.

I don't understand. What would it change if he/they came forward? You don't need to trust Satoshi, you need to trust math, mainly.

[ttk2]

But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project.

Same here. So I've decided not to invest until I know who are people that labeled themselves 'Satoshi'.

We know exactly what Bitcoin is, line for line you can see exactly what it is and what is does, we know its secure and we know there are no backdoors or methods of control available to anyone. Thats all that matters, could Santoishi have another purpose for Bitcoin, other than the obvious experiment in digital money? Hell yes, but that does not mean we can not use it in the mean time.  

[becoin]

But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project.

Same here. So I've decided not to invest until I know who are people that labeled themselves 'Satoshi'.

We know exactly what Bitcoin is, line for line you can see exactly what it is and what is does, we know its secure and we know there are no backdoors or methods of control available to anyone. Thats all that matters, could Santoishi have another purpose for Bitcoin, other than the obvious experiment in digital money? Hell yes, but that does not mean we can not use it in the mean time.  

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

[Zibbo]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

Why?

[the joint]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

Why?

Smack.

[becoin]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

Why?

Because I need to be sure the world will be a better place for my children to live in.

[Gabi]

You can still go back using dollars...

[GriphZero]

Just a quick look at Pident:
http://pident.artefact2.com/factoids

Made it easy to find one large stash of 424,242 BTC sitting right here:
http://pident.artefact2.com/tx/7a2a6f66e87ed4e72d85ba7a82eda1572605c3330c461e171f58d7ff2763ac63

[elggawf]

Made it easy to find one large stash of 424,242 BTC sitting right here:
http://pident.artefact2.com/tx/7a2a6f66e87ed4e72d85ba7a82eda1572605c3330c461e171f58d7ff2763ac63

That's not Satoshi, that's MtGox.

[ThomasV]

My questions:
How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

If this is a sincere question, I would like to know why you chose a title that suggests that Satoshi holds 1.5 million BTC.
Trying to spread FUD ?

[kokojie]

The largest "confirmed" holding by one person was 320k BTC a few months ago (the guy manages tens of thousands of company servers, and used CPU miner to mine when server is idle, he did this at an early stage of btc mining), and he already said he was liquidating his coins weekly. So I doubt any one person has more than 300k btc at this point.

[Cryptoman]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

Why?

Because I need to be sure the world will be a better place for my children to live in.

You can always stick with the existing monetary system and continue to enrich politicians and bankers at the expense of ordinary people.

[molecular]

EDIT: this puts a lower bound to the answer of question 1: "How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?" (assuming "Nakamoto" means "Satoshi and friends"). Answer: at least 1.2 Million.

No it doesn't, because the fact that the coins haven't moved is not proof positive that someone is still in possession of them.

True. I am wrong.

We'll probably never have proof-positive they're not, because a) no one's going to admit to burning what's now worth a few million bucks and b) there's no way to prove you're not in control of them anyway.

You're assuming he lost the keys.

Given how long Bitcoins went being almost completely worthless, I would hazard a guess that a not insignificant portion of those BTC will never move, ever.

I don't think he lost keys. He's just not that careless and he was fully aware bitcoin could work well.

Now let me ask another question: How many miners where there in 2009?

[memvola]

Yet we haven't witnessed an intense development effort for such novel systems before or since Bitcoin. There were many different plans for a distributed currency (e.g. a distributed anonymous version of ripple), but only by a handful of people. In my experience, you just can't and don't work on such stuff if you intend to get rich. He must have imagined gaining wealth as a consequence of his success, but the reason the structure is built this way is definitely about success of the currency. As a consequence, people who believed in it got to have more coins. Even so, there are many early adopters who (at least claim to) have very little coins left.

To me, this is a a weak argument.  Obviously, we haven't witnessed  an "intense development effort for such novel systems" since Bitcoin because that would be a period of what...2 years?  And, the Internet has only been around for a couple decades before Bitcoin.  The age of digital global information exchange is still in its infancy.  And, I would argue there have been novel attempts on a smaller systemic scale.  Linden dollars, for one.  Did Linden dollars make the 2nd life owners wealthy?   You betcha.  Now you got Facebook Credits.  Perhaps you could even go before digital communication and look at things like Baseball Cards, the popularity of which exploded in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  This could be thought of as a currency for kids (after all, there were price guides that pegged the value of a baseball card to a fiat currency).  Who got rich?  Baseball card manufacturers (the Satoshis)  and card shops (the exchanges).

Edit:  With the baseball card analogy, although they were also very popular back in the days when kids put them in the spokes of their bicycle wheels and milk men delivered them at your door, the explosion of popularity in the late 80's and early 90's was aided through digital communication.  Online price guides, auctions, etc.  helped to 'stabilize' the value of cards.

None of those are novel, technology-wise. It's like comparing building a coal plant and inventing a new type of plant that can generate electricity in your home for free. You don't just go and invent the latter, by yourself, to get rich quick with the free electricity. If there were such a possibility, you would see your investor types throwing immense amounts of manpower at it. Satoshi is a single guy who rowed against the current to prove something and won.

Baseball card manufacturers and Satoshi? Come On! Maybe it's more appropriate to compare the ixcoin guy with baseball card people. It's not about the similarities between the card economy and Bitcoin economy, really.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Looking back, it's hard to imagine the risk a guy like that is taking by investing his time and mind towards such a project. It seems obvious now. On the other hand, you have to know that a lot of brilliant people take the same risk but can't attain their goal. I don't see a lot of people competing with or queuing behind those people. We did come here because Bitcoin was already successful.

[Rodyland]

Go all, mine xicoin, or whatever the scam of the day is called, we all know that it will explode in 2013!

this

[nrd525]

If the founder(s) had most of their assets in bitcoins (which seems likely unless they were millionaires due to other ventures), it makes sense that they would have sold at least enough of them to still be rich if the price totally collapsed). 

Most people don't put all their money into a single asset - unless that asset has a historical record for stability.

An interesting parallel question: Would you invest in gold or silver if you knew a couple people, who refused to reveal their names, had cornered 20% of the market?

[the joint]

Yet we haven't witnessed an intense development effort for such novel systems before or since Bitcoin. There were many different plans for a distributed currency (e.g. a distributed anonymous version of ripple), but only by a handful of people. In my experience, you just can't and don't work on such stuff if you intend to get rich. He must have imagined gaining wealth as a consequence of his success, but the reason the structure is built this way is definitely about success of the currency. As a consequence, people who believed in it got to have more coins. Even so, there are many early adopters who (at least claim to) have very little coins left.

To me, this is a a weak argument.  Obviously, we haven't witnessed  an "intense development effort for such novel systems" since Bitcoin because that would be a period of what...2 years?  And, the Internet has only been around for a couple decades before Bitcoin.  The age of digital global information exchange is still in its infancy.  And, I would argue there have been novel attempts on a smaller systemic scale.  Linden dollars, for one.  Did Linden dollars make the 2nd life owners wealthy?   You betcha.  Now you got Facebook Credits.  Perhaps you could even go before digital communication and look at things like Baseball Cards, the popularity of which exploded in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  This could be thought of as a currency for kids (after all, there were price guides that pegged the value of a baseball card to a fiat currency).  Who got rich?  Baseball card manufacturers (the Satoshis)  and card shops (the exchanges).

Edit:  With the baseball card analogy, although they were also very popular back in the days when kids put them in the spokes of their bicycle wheels and milk men delivered them at your door, the explosion of popularity in the late 80's and early 90's was aided through digital communication.  Online price guides, auctions, etc.  helped to 'stabilize' the value of cards.

None of those are novel, technology-wise. It's like comparing building a coal plant and inventing a new type of plant that can generate electricity in your home for free. You don't just go and invent the latter, by yourself, to get rich quick with the free electricity. If there were such a possibility, you would see your investor types throwing immense amounts of manpower at it. Satoshi is a single guy who rowed against the current to prove something and won.

Baseball card manufacturers and Satoshi? Come On! Maybe it's more appropriate to compare the ixcoin guy with baseball card people. It's not about the similarities between the card economy and Bitcoin economy, really.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Looking back, it's hard to imagine the risk a guy like that is taking by investing his time and mind towards such a project. It seems obvious now. On the other hand, you have to know that a lot of brilliant people take the same risk but can't attain their goal. I don't see a lot of people competing with or queuing behind those people. We did come here because Bitcoin was already successful.

Being novel technology-wise has nothing to do with the plausibility of him wanting to get rich fast.  If you're a programmer, and you're that good at it, chances are you're not also a major league baseball player, or a CEO, or a stock broker, etc.  He utilized his talents to make money, and it's not hard to understand.  That's like saying a musician signed with a major record label but didn't want to be rich; he simply wanted to spread his music around for people to be happy.  How does the fact that it's technologically novel suggest that he didn't want to get rich?  If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.  By the way, the risk of developing the code (if he is that good) would be maybe a couple weeks/months time, if that.  The only hard part was the math (even the theoretical concept isn't that difficult -- just think about what you would want in a currency -- but the math is).  It would have taken the most time to simply find the right algorithmic balance.  Being 'novel' has something to do with it...'technologically' novel is irrelevant.

[elggawf]

You're assuming he lost the keys.

To clarify, no I'm not. I'm not saying that all the original miners lost their keys at all, I'm just saying that the potential for lost keys obliterates the "lower bounds" you guys' logic came up with earlier, and that the fact there's no way to prove the keys are lost or to compel someone to prove they still own any coins, there's no way to know for certain.

Now let me ask another question: How many miners where there in 2009?

I have absolutely no idea - I would imagine it's not a huge number of people, but still. I don't think any of this is a show-stopper for the project.

[memvola]

An interesting parallel question: Would you invest in gold or silver if you knew a couple people, who refused to reveal their names, had cornered 20% of the market?

Yes, it's an interesting question. But I don't get what would change if they revealed their names. You only get political when you are in the public eye, it doesn't help the validity of information flow. You can find cleaner information about what kind of people early adopters are from this forum's archives than you can ever find about publicly known wealthy people. Is it enough? Well of course it wouldn't be enough if I wanted to invest in them directly (MyBitcoin anyone?), but the currency has enough use value for me to not have to ponder about it. Investing in Bitcoin has lots of risks in it, and early adopters coming and crushing it down is a minuscule one. Do I care what they will do with the money otherwise? No, not really...

If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.

I have programming skills, arguably better than his, and I didn't do it. Neither did millions of other programmers. It's absurd to say that inventing an arbitrary thing successfully can be considered an ordinary purposeful undertaking. Let's invent fusion energy, shall we then? I know a few good physicists.

Being 'novel' has something to do with it...'technologically' novel is irrelevant.

Yes it is. I used that phrase to compare Bitcoin with Linden dollars. (EDIT: i.e. Linden dollars are novel as well, but there is not much innovation behind it technology-wise.)

[nighteyes]

Satoshi is really the devil...or some government's tool, take your pick Unless he is a space alien...ut oh....is he a space alien?

But seriously, I dont think its important. Bitcoin's market is pretty much capped and if he does have that many coins, that's fair payment for the innovation. The OP kinda assumes this bitcoin value is going to go through the roof...maybe, but I doubt it. My 2 cents would be to use the bitcoin for what it can provide now, instead of dreaming of it being worth $1 billion each.

[nighteyes]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

Besides yourself you mean....but we shouldnt worry about you, Im sure you are an upstanding citizen. Satoshi is a class act too, kind of looks like James Bond, but Japanese. He's not violent in the least bit, but you'll understand that he drives a sportscar and likes to take it for a spin on curvy mountain roads. Comes from a humble background, smart family....but never used his IQ to berate others...never. Got along with everyone, class president. He's just one of those engimas who comes along where you cant really describe him...like Bruce Lee.

[the joint]

An interesting parallel question: Would you invest in gold or silver if you knew a couple people, who refused to reveal their names, had cornered 20% of the market?

Yes, it's an interesting question. But I don't get what would change if they revealed their names. You only get political when you are in the public eye, it doesn't help the validity of information flow. You can find cleaner information about what kind of people early adopters are from this forum's archives than you can ever find about publicly known wealthy people. Is it enough? Well of course it wouldn't be enough if I wanted to invest in them directly (MyBitcoin anyone?), but the currency has enough use value for me to not have to ponder about it. Investing in Bitcoin has lots of risks in it, and early adopters coming and crushing it down is a minuscule one. Do I care what they will do with the money otherwise? No, not really...

If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.

I have programming skills, arguably better than his, and I didn't do it. Neither did millions of other programmers. It's absurd to say that inventing an arbitrary thing successfully can be considered an ordinary purposeful undertaking. Let's invent fusion energy, shall we then? I know a few good physicists.

Being 'novel' has something to do with it...'technologically' novel is irrelevant.

Yes it is. I used that phrase to compare Bitcoin with Linden dollars. (EDIT: i.e. Linden dollars are novel as well, but there is not much innovation behind it technology-wise.)

The true novelty of Bitcoin lies in the math, not in the programming (as the programming is a reflection and implementation of the math).  That's why the programmers (and you) didn't do it.

[memvola]

If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.

I have programming skills, arguably better than his, and I didn't do it. Neither did millions of other programmers.

The true novelty of Bitcoin lies in the math, not in the programming (as the programming is a reflection and implementation of the math).  That's why the programmers (and you) didn't do it.

This is getting ridiculous.

P.S. I have a maths degree. Damn, I must be an idiot.

[ThomasV]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

If you prefer to stick with dollars, you'll make bankers rich.

Does it sound similar? Oh wait, you'll make them rich continuously, not just once. This is because they keep creating money all the time; new loans are continuously created in order to replace old loans, and they receive the interest on those loans. (see the film "Money as Debt")

This is not the case with Bitcoin. You are an early adopter only once. If you want to use that wealth, you must give up your bitcoins.

[the joint]

If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.

I have programming skills, arguably better than his, and I didn't do it. Neither did millions of other programmers.

The true novelty of Bitcoin lies in the math, not in the programming (as the programming is a reflection and implementation of the math).  That's why the programmers (and you) didn't do it.

This is getting ridiculous.

P.S. I have a maths degree. Damn, I must be an idiot.

No, you could've done it if knew how to generate the algorithm from the theory, but you didn't; he did.  And, no one else did before him.  Thus, it's novel.

Going back to your previous posts, I still think he did it to get rich because there are a lot of class and other problems that Bitcoin does not fix and will arguably make worse.  It's far from a perfect currency as far as virtue is concerned.  But, as I am lucky enough to afford a capable graphics card, computer, and internet subscription, and to be educated enough to be able to understand how to operate the necessary software and navigate the forum and exchanges, not to mention have some additional funds to invest, I'm jumping all over Bitcoin.  I do like some other features it offers, however.

[Big Time Coin]

I fail to see the problem here. Bitcoin was visible in plain open sight since day 1. 99% of us was just too stupid to see it and become an early adopter. Stupidity has a price, and now we have to buy coins at a much higher price.

agreed.   I first saw bitcoin in late 2009 or early 2010 when looking for exchangers of other digital currencies like pecunix and liberty reserve.   I came across bitcoin-otc and was very interested, but I didn't see that bitcoins could be used for much.  I didn't dig deep enough, and I had I might have gotten more interested and involved at the time.  I didn't start taking a hard look at it until after it broke $1 parity, and didn't get my business started until just after then $30 high.    But we are all still early adopters, imo.   2/3rd of all bitcoins are still yet to be mined and circulated, and the entire bitcoin economy market cap is still only a tiny fraction of the global economy.  

This, same as me.  Read about it back when I could have mined a million bucks worth but only skimmed the info, didn't really absorb it until the market cap went into the millions.

[molecular]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

I don't care who those people are that are going to make me rich.

[molecular]

If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.

I have programming skills, arguably better than his, and I didn't do it. Neither did millions of other programmers.

The true novelty of Bitcoin lies in the math, not in the programming (as the programming is a reflection and implementation of the math).  That's why the programmers (and you) didn't do it.

This is getting ridiculous.

P.S. I have a maths degree. Damn, I must be an idiot.

No, you could've done it if knew how to generate the algorithm from the theory, but you didn't; he did.  And, no one else did before him.  Thus, it's novel.

The Egg of Columbus comes to mind. That's why nobody else did it and people that saw it early had all kinds of objections... "An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." A million bitcoins is the least he deserves. His "invention" is worth more than that if in the end, we have free money.

[coblee]

The Egg of Columbus comes to mind. That's why nobody else did it and people that saw it early had all kinds of objections... "An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." A million bitcoins is the least he deserves. His "invention" is worth more than that if in the end, we have free money.

+1

I totally agree. I hope he becomes the richest man on earth. What Satoshi was able to come up with on his own was truly remarkable.

[Big Time Coin]

1) We are all early adopters.  See the wiki linked above.  The adoption rate is still WELL below 2.5% of the US market alone.

2) Satoshi must maintain his anonymity.  If he reveals any info about himself, he will be easier to track down for robbery, capture, and interrogation.  It would be like announcing in the town newspaper "I have $16 million in a suitcase only I know the location of.  I live at X address", you'd just get robbed.

3) Diamonds market cornered by DeBeers, does that keep you from buying diamonds?  Gold market cornered by secret account holders - sure doesn't seem to slow down the gold market much this decade.  Do you know the names of the 600 princes of Saudi Arabia before you buy stock in Chevron? etc.

List goes on and on, OP started an interesting thread but Satoshi (one person or group of people) is wise to ignore his questions and continue sitting on his 1 mil bitcoins until it is worth 1 billion dollars or more.

and THANKS for the charts and research, MOLECULAR!

 MR. FSM! 

[the joint]

The Egg of Columbus comes to mind. That's why nobody else did it and people that saw it early had all kinds of objections... "An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." A million bitcoins is the least he deserves. His "invention" is worth more than that if in the end, we have free money.

+1

I totally agree. I hope he becomes the richest man on earth. What Satoshi was able to come up with on his own was truly remarkable.

In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

Edit:  Any idiot, no matter how dumb, can place their own value on a product they own and place their own value on a product they want.  Thus, any idiot can barter and know whether or not they are happy with the exchange.

[coblee]

The Egg of Columbus comes to mind. That's why nobody else did it and people that saw it early had all kinds of objections... "An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." A million bitcoins is the least he deserves. His "invention" is worth more than that if in the end, we have free money.

+1

I totally agree. I hope he becomes the richest man on earth. What Satoshi was able to come up with on his own was truly remarkable.

In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

Edit:  Any idiot, no matter how dumb, can place their own value on a product they own and place their own value on a product they want.  Thus, any idiot can barter and know whether or not they are happy with the exchange.

I disagree that Bitcoin is only for the computer literate. It's true that Today, if you were not computer literate, you may run into issues like losing wallets or mybitcoin fiasco. I believe in the near future, using bitcoins will be as easy as using cash and credit cards. Banks will come up with a safe and easy way for people to store bitcoins. And you will be able to use your smartphone to easily pay merchants and send money to people without needing to know how bitcoins work. For example, right now people use credit cards every day. How many of those understand how Visa charges merchants, how Visa confirms transactions, how chargeback works, or how fraud detection works. And we also use cash every day. How many understand why money is debt, how the Fed can just print money, or even that money can be created by writing a number on a computer without even printing out that money. So people will using bitcoins without having to understand block chains, elliptical cryptography, and hashing.

[the joint]

The Egg of Columbus comes to mind. That's why nobody else did it and people that saw it early had all kinds of objections... "An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." A million bitcoins is the least he deserves. His "invention" is worth more than that if in the end, we have free money.

+1

I totally agree. I hope he becomes the richest man on earth. What Satoshi was able to come up with on his own was truly remarkable.

In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

Edit:  Any idiot, no matter how dumb, can place their own value on a product they own and place their own value on a product they want.  Thus, any idiot can barter and know whether or not they are happy with the exchange.

I disagree that Bitcoin is only for the computer literate. It's true that Today, if you were not computer literate, you may run into issues like losing wallets or mybitcoin fiasco. I believe in the near future, using bitcoins will be as easy as using cash and credit cards. Banks will come up with a safe and easy way for people to store bitcoins. And you will be able to use your smartphone to easily pay merchants and send money to people without needing to know how bitcoins work. For example, right now people use credit cards every day. How many of those understand how Visa charges merchants, how Visa confirms transactions, how chargeback works, or how fraud detection works. And we also use cash every day. How many understand why money is debt, how the Fed can just print money, or even that money can be created by writing a number on a computer without even printing out that money. So people will using bitcoins without having to understand block chains, elliptical cryptography, and hashing.

That's exactly my point.  I think overall, it's a little better than what we have now.  It's novel, but it still leaves us with many of the larger problems we still have that are the result of any distributive currency.

[coblee]

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

I actually believe what Satoshi came up with IS brilliant. And that's why I think he may not be one person. It takes someone who is great at math, economics, and computer science to come up with this. And his solution is also very thorough. I'm really surprised to see such a complete solution in a version 1 product. Know what I mean? When someone comes up with something this novel, normally, the first attempt will crash and burn. So I give Satoshi a lot of credit. He deserves every single bitcoin he owns.

[molecular]

1) We are all early adopters.  See the wiki linked above.  The adoption rate is still WELL below 2.5% of the US market alone.

2) Satoshi must maintain his anonymity.  If he reveals any info about himself, he will be easier to track down for robbery, capture, and interrogation.  It would be like announcing in the town newspaper "I have $16 million in a suitcase only I know the location of.  I live at X address", you'd just get robbed.

3) Diamonds market cornered by DeBeers, does that keep you from buying diamonds?  Gold market cornered by secret account holders - sure doesn't seem to slow down the gold market much this decade.  Do you know the names of the 600 princes of Saudi Arabia before you buy stock in Chevron? etc.

List goes on and on, OP started an interesting thread but Satoshi (one person or group of people) is wise to ignore his questions and continue sitting on his 1 mil bitcoins until it is worth 1 billion dollars or more.

and THANKS for the charts and research, MOLECULAR!

 MR. FSM! 

I agree with you on point 1.) and 2.). Number 3.) I can't really judge, cause I've never invested much in anything, so I don't know how I would go about that.

Making the charts has been fun and the donations I received are greatly appreciated. I think moving around a little BTC, however few, amongst us bitcoiners is a very good thing. So I passed on part of the donations to John Tobey, who wrote bitcoin-abe. Kind of the gift-economy that's been talked about a lot since a decade ago, mainly in relation to the music world. Receiving a donation is really motivating and giving one is satisfying.

I have a feeling this culture of donating small amounts for contributions is in decline, which is sad. People have become more protective of their BTC and I can understand that... all the scamming and shit going on and the price being substantial compared to last year. But keep in mind, a bitcent is just a dime. I give a beggar on the street a lot more than that... So, lets keep the donations going, it's currently the closest thing we have to a "closed-loop bitcoin economy"

[memvola]

like this chart? consider donating: 1SQL2R5ijCn2ZiBG8aDYpCiecNPuxzMJJ

Thank you, just sent you a donation.

Looks to me like keeping the coins is the norm. 2011 is too recent to judge, but it doesn't seem like people who mined in 2010 broke the trend, even though profitability increased. So I think the fact that 2009 coins haven't been moved doesn't tell us that they belong to an individual or small group of people (we know it a-priori, since there were fewer miners). All miners seem to think of it as a long term investment.

Now, it would be nicer if everyone spent their coins more often for services, but I can't even persuade my close friends to do so. It's way too off-topic though.

[newminerr]

I want to know who are those people that I'm going to make rich? Very rich.

Besides yourself you mean....but we shouldnt worry about you, Im sure you are an upstanding citizen. Satoshi is a class act too, kind of looks like James Bond, but Japanese. He's not violent in the least bit, but you'll understand that he drives a sportscar and likes to take it for a spin on curvy mountain roads. Comes from a humble background, smart family....but never used his IQ to berate others...never. Got along with everyone, class president. He's just one of those engimas who comes along where you cant really describe him...like Bruce Lee.

Except he might not be Japanese ;]

[Xephan]

Now, it would be nicer if everyone spent their coins more often for services, but I can't even persuade my close friends to do so. It's way too off-topic though.

The root problem is always the size of the economy. There's nothing much to use Bitcoin for, so most miners will just keep it.

[nakowa]

Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

Wish you can stand for your proposal: do not buy or sell bitcoin until you got your answers. PLS!

[johnyj]

Come on, just 1.5m BTC, that is really dirt cheap if you consider those bankers

[Fiyasko]

I bet he lost his wallet.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If I had the programming skills, I'd do it.

I have programming skills, arguably better than his, and I didn't do it. Neither did millions of other programmers.

The true novelty of Bitcoin lies in the math, not in the programming (as the programming is a reflection and implementation of the math).  That's why the programmers (and you) didn't do it.

This is getting ridiculous.

P.S. I have a maths degree. Damn, I must be an idiot.

No, you could've done it if knew how to generate the algorithm from the theory, but you didn't; he did.  And, no one else did before him.  Thus, it's novel.

The Egg of Columbus comes to mind. That's why nobody else did it and people that saw it early had all kinds of objections... "An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." A million bitcoins is the least he deserves. His "invention" is worth more than that if in the end, we have free money.

What do you call a guy who has a propensity for posting images on forums: A Banksyneer.


Egg of Columbus

[sneak]

Hehe. For some early adopters, "very little" might still be in the thousands, though.

I can understand some of them cashed in too early, though. Imagine you're a little short on cash and the bitcoin value just shot up 400% to USD 0.80!! I'd be tempted to sell, myself. I've been having a hard time holding on to my little stash myself at times.

The investor that thinks that cashing out after a 400% increase is "too early", well, isn't.

If you want to whine about it, think about the story told to me last weekend - a dude who bought a pizza for 10,000 bitcoins.  Then go try to make traditional investments that yield triple-digit APYs.  Then come back and complain.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers  ~  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

[BitcoinStars.com]

Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers  ~  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers  ~  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

 

Glad you enjoyed it!

[becoin]

Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers  ~  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

'Or you pick up a weapon and stand opposed...'
And this is exactly what I'm gonna do. If I don't get answers I'll make a new, improved block chain that will be totally transparent from the very beginning.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers  ~  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

'Or you pick up a weapon and stand opposed...'
And this is exactly what I'm gonna do. If I don't get answers I'll make a new, improved block chain that will be totally transparent from the very beginning.

That's the spirit! I'm with you, and pretty sure the others who have expressed their feelings on this threatd are also. But before we make a full commitment, enlighten us on how you solved the sentiment in regards to the early adapters. We don't want any SOB's getting rich off the backs of the people who come after those early adapters of your new and improved block chain. We look forward to your answer, and  please keep us posted on your progress. I look forward to reading your thread upon roll out, so please PM me prior to you doing such. I just want to be one of the early readers.

[becoin]

enlighten us on how you solved the sentiment...

I didn't. Still working on it. Solving the problem of fair initial distribution of wealth is an epic task. Human understanding of what is fair and what is not tends to change over time and is slightly different in the different cultures and societies. I'm sure there will be many competing approaches.

[the joint]

enlighten us on how you solved the sentiment...

I didn't. Still working on it. Solving the problem of fair initial distribution of wealth is an epic task. Human understanding of what is fair and what is not tends to change over time and is slightly different in the different cultures and societies. I'm sure there will be many competing approaches.

In my opinion, you're facing a problem of literally universal proportions.

Universal syntax incorporates (at the very least) the roots of justice and fairness if not justice and fairness itself.  Since this syntax guides content (e.g. us acting within the universe) it creates the very problem you're trying to solve while simultaneously unfolding the solution.  This solution has been and continues to be since the 'beginning' (for lack of a better word) of time.  Good luck.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

enlighten us on how you solved the sentiment...

I didn't. Still working on it. Solving the problem of fair initial distribution of wealth is an epic task. Human understanding of what is fair and what is not tends to change over time and is slightly different in the different cultures and societies. I'm sure there will be many competing approaches.

In my opinion, you're facing a problem of literally universal proportions.

Universal syntax incorporates (at the very least) the roots of justice and fairness if not justice and fairness itself.  Since this syntax guides content (e.g. us acting within the universe) it creates the very problem you're trying to solve while simultaneously unfolding the solution.  This solution has been and continues to be since the 'beginning' (for lack of a better word) of time.  Good luck.

+1

&

+1

[Piper67]

enlighten us on how you solved the sentiment...

I didn't. Still working on it. Solving the problem of fair initial distribution of wealth is an epic task. Human understanding of what is fair and what is not tends to change over time and is slightly different in the different cultures and societies. I'm sure there will be many competing approaches.

In my opinion, you're facing a problem of literally universal proportions.

Universal syntax incorporates (at the very least) the roots of justice and fairness if not justice and fairness itself.  Since this syntax guides content (e.g. us acting within the universe) it creates the very problem you're trying to solve while simultaneously unfolding the solution.  This solution has been and continues to be since the 'beginning' (for lack of a better word) of time.  Good luck.

+1

&

+1

Agreed, +1 for the concept of the universality of the proposition and +1 for including time as a dimension.

[Jack of Diamonds]

If you do create a new fork, why not just make a mechanism which allows for the destruction of coins as well?

Then just mine & destroy the first few million easy coins in a way which can be publically proven & seen to have taken place.

After that, release it to the public.
Or start at a higher difficulty right away.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If you do create a new fork, why not just make a mechanism which allows for the destruction of coins as well?

Then just mine & destroy the first few million easy coins in a way which can be publically proven & seen to have taken place.

After that, release it to the public.
Or start at a higher difficulty right away.

Oh, MMFG! Does anybody else realized what could have been released here? Nothing would stop an individual from doing what Jack of Diamonds just divulged. Somewhere down the road there possibly could be an all out virtual currency war--one chain (rhymes with gang) taking out another chain, all in the name of increasing its worth.





This just in here at CNNNN&N! Although full details are not yet available, sources from the net confirm that users of BieberCoin have destroyed another million Bitcoin. Bitcoin, the granddaddy of virtual currency, is currently fighting a 17 front war. As you recall, yesterday we reported that it was way to quiet over at the Bieber camp, and that an attack seemed imminent. Today, our suspicion proved correct. We're joined now with Hash Newman, over at the AnonLulzCoin camp. Howdy, Hash. Nice outfit you're wearing. You seem to blend right in...

[Piper67]

If you do create a new fork, why not just make a mechanism which allows for the destruction of coins as well?

Then just mine & destroy the first few million easy coins in a way which can be publically proven & seen to have taken place.

After that, release it to the public.
Or start at a higher difficulty right away.

Oh, MMFG! Does anybody else realized what could have been released here? Nothing would stop an individual from doing what Jack of Diamonds just divulged. Somewhere down the road there possibly could be an all out virtual currency war--one chain (rhymes with gang) taking out another chain, all in the name of increasing its worth.





This just in here at CNNNN&N! Although full details are not yet available, sources from the net confirm that users of BieberCoin have destroyed another million Bitcoin. Bitcoin, the granddaddy of virtual currency, is currently fighting a 17 front war. As you recall, yesterday we reported that it was way to quiet over at the Bieber camp, and that an attack seemed imminent. Today, our suspicion proved correct. We're joined now with Hash Newman, over at the AnonLulzCoin camp. Howdy, Hash. Nice outfit you're wearing. You seem to blend right in...

Hmmm... except with each bitcoin destroyed, the value of all other bitcoins will just go up... it'd be like shooting yourself in the foot.

[Mageant]

So what?

Even if Satoshi holds all these Bitcoins, at current market prices he would only have $15 million.

Compare this to Bill Gates who also created a revolutionary type of software and who now owns something like $50 billion, that's 3000 times more.

[bitv]

So what?

Even if Satoshi holds all these Bitcoins, at current market prices he would only have $15 million.

Compare this to Bill Gates who also created a revolutionary type of software and who now owns something like $50 billion, that's 3000 times more.

Yet Satoshi could more permanent damage to Bitcoin than Gates could do to USD. That's the concern for most people.

[ttk2]

So what?

Even if Satoshi holds all these Bitcoins, at current market prices he would only have $15 million.

Compare this to Bill Gates who also created a revolutionary type of software and who now owns something like $50 billion, that's 3000 times more

Yet Satoshi could more permanent damage to Bitcoin than Gates could do to USD. That's the concern for most people.

And the fed can and is doing permanent damage to the dollar, people don't seem to care so much about that. The design of bitcoin is absolute genius,  santioshi deserves how ever many coins he has , simply because they would never have existed without him. The chain was public from day one, people just did not know it existed.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

If you do create a new fork, why not just make a mechanism which allows for the destruction of coins as well?

Then just mine & destroy the first few million easy coins in a way which can be publically proven & seen to have taken place.

After that, release it to the public.
Or start at a higher difficulty right away.

Oh, MMFG! Does anybody else realized what could have been released here? Nothing would stop an individual from doing what Jack of Diamonds just divulged. Somewhere down the road there possibly could be an all out virtual currency war--one chain (rhymes with gang) taking out another chain, all in the name of increasing its worth.





This just in here at CNNNN&N! Although full details are not yet available, sources from the net confirm that users of BieberCoin have destroyed another million Bitcoin. Bitcoin, the granddaddy of virtual currency, is currently fighting a 17 front war. As you recall, yesterday we reported that it was way to quiet over at the Bieber camp, and that an attack seemed imminent. Today, our suspicion proved correct. We're joined now with Hash Newman, over at the AnonLulzCoin camp. Howdy, Hash. Nice outfit you're wearing. You seem to blend right in...

Hmmm... except with each bitcoin destroyed, the value of all other bitcoins will just go up... it'd be like shooting yourself in the foot.

I had a nice little war ready to start here, until you brought logic into the equation.

[ctoon6]

this makes me think, maby we should start over.

later, some real issues could come along if an early adopter decided or simply gets compromised and the market gets flooded.

however this should not be done now, we should wait a few more months.

[phelix]

I remember someone saying on this forum Satoshi himself would not have that many coins.

there is information burried on this forum to break up that 1.5MBTC somewhat further:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=564.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24346.0

[DiamondPlus]

In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

-DiamondPlus

[molecular]

In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

that's copy-pasted from post above by "The Joint": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37333.msg462367#msg462367

why are you doing this?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

In my opinion, only simple bartering remains the solution to all currency issues.  It places importance primarily on the process of exchange, not on the products or a currency and thus facilitates healthy person-to-person communication.  I think civilization had it right to begin with and then currency came along and jacked the whole thing up (e.g. paper money is not important to me, but it's important to everyone else, so THEN it becomes important to me and displaces my values.  Bitcoin is no different).

And, it is also my opinion that the theory behind Bitcoin isn't that brilliant.  The brilliance came from putting the pieces together (i.e. taking the theory, creating a mathematical analogue of it, representing that analogue in a computer program, and marketing it) and having the motivation to actually do it without knowing if it would catch on.  I, along with many of you, also have many brilliant ideas but we simply don't try to fulfill them to their ends because we think they might fail.  If they fail, it's a waste of our damn time.  And I have objections to Bitcoin because I think it is weak in theory, but strong enough to 1.) Be better than traditional fiat currencies and 2.) Gain the respect of a significant number of people.  It's a currency for the at-least moderately wealthy and computer literate.  It is not a currency for the poor or the uneducated (I use uneducated in a very general sense here to represent those who will have trouble understanding it and would need to dedicate a very significant amount of time to do so).

that's copy-pasted from post above by "The Joint": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37333.msg462367#msg462367

why are you doing this?

Perhaps it was by chance that both posts are identical? Creationism and Pseudomathematics:     http://ncse.com/book/export/html/3010

[jdbtracker]

probally owns a supercomputer that puts out a few PetaFLOPs

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. When you own >5% of any given currency, you don't need more. Also: Satoshi seems to be a sensible guy and one that knows when to retreat and let others take over. He's done his share well and got rewarded. Let's hope he changed the world with this.

This step Satoshi took, i believe he did it for us. If you read the paper, it is clear satoshi looked for an answer that would share the wealth with everyone, Satoshi He or she wanted to change the world, and I bet my ass Satoshi would never have taken a single Bitcoin, Satoshi wanted it to go to the real Satoshi, You see Satoshi is everyone of us that believes in a better world, and is willing to prove it by learning, sharing, collaborating, creating, mining for the good of the collective.

Satoshi the founder stepped away when their brilliance was spent and only the combined insights/intelligence/knowledge/integrity and wisdom of the people could make Satoshis creation truly brilliant, Satoshi could not hold back the potential of what they had created... that is how dictatorships are made; Satoshi believed in p2p/distribution networks, why would he have become it's central authority?

[allthingsluxury]

I bet he lost his wallet.

+1

[Elwar]

Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

Got someone in your pocket?

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Necrothread.

[Malawi]

This may have come up. But as I have understood it, Satoshi left a lot of wallets with 50BTC in each. He/they probably don't even have the wallet.dat to go with them.

My take on this is that they might lie there as "bait", either to show vulnerability if there suddently is activity in that area of the blockchain, or to work as a faucet/mining blocks when BTC's have become more scarse and computer-power a lot better than today.

It would not suprise me too much if there is some message beeing sent out from some old university-computer some time in the future.

[jdbtracker]

This may have come up. But as I have understood it, Satoshi left a lot of wallets with 50BTC in each. He/they probably don't even have the wallet.dat to go with them.

My take on this is that they might lie there as "bait", either to show vulnerability if there suddently is activity in that area of the blockchain, or to work as a faucet/mining blocks when BTC's have become more scarse and computer-power a lot better than today.

It would not suprise me too much if there is some message beeing sent out from some old university-computer some time in the future.

so the original 50BTC in the genesis block are untouched then? This would be an excellent strategy, Old bitcoins could be brought back into the market when the block chain gets cut and stored, it will be easier to crack those codes secretly... creating a secret sepage of coins into the general market.
   but Your right I also think that if those coins got touched, the entire network would become aware of it within nanoseconds, it would tell the network that the SHA256 encryption has been broken. Those blocks will be easier to crack than modern ones.

lol! Necrothread.

[jdbtracker]

I bet he lost his wallet.

+1

Probably just sent it to his email, thought it be a neat trap to set; I mean would you touch it if you were Satoshi? Thats like a historical transaction a monumental moment.
and then forgot the password to his e-mail. lol.

[molecular]

I bet he lost his wallet.

+1

ridiculous

[jackjack]

I bet he lost his wallet.

+1

ridiculous

+1, brother

[candoo]

This thread is 1,5 years old.  !

[Logik]

[molecular]

This thread is 1,5 years old.  !

and yet we remember it... it's a miracle!

[molecular]

I bet he lost his wallet.

+1

ridiculous

+1, brother

he gave the keys to the flying spaghetti monster. The fsm says: "HOLD!"

[FTWbitcoinFTW]

Bitcoin is what it is. In my humble opinion I believe your questions are irrelevant in that it doesn't matter what the answers are.

+1
Go all, mine xicoin, or whatever the scam of the day is called, we all know that it will explode in 2013!

Nice read !

[Malawi]

Like using those cards are not resurrecting...

[GodfatherBond]

My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?




Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

No need to ask these questions - whatever answers are - no matter.

[BitcoinFX]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191362.0 

[hathmill]

Or we just buy litecoins instead

As you can see on the fifth graph here http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ , for many months Bitcoin was very unknown to the public and because of that difficulty didn't change to the upside. If I have understood it correctly around 1,5 million Bitcoins were created from February 2009 until the end of same year. Also if I have understood it correctly very few people mined under this time period making the conclusion that Satoshi Nakamoto and a few more people have a considerable amount of Bitcoins (worth today around 16 million dollars). You could also suppose that a majority of this coins are in the hand of Satoshi Nakamoto. Today it has gone more than two years from the birth of Bitcoin, I am convinced that Nakamoto has big plans for Bitcoin and he/she/they have put considerable amount of time and effort in this interesting project.

I am talking for my self, but I think that my thoughts concern also others that are thinking alike. I want to invest a considerable amount of money and time into this project/currency/commodity/freedom. But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project. Because not getting any answers makes Bitcoin to become something uncertain and vague. If Bitcoin should become worth 100-10000+ times more than it is today, and be a serious threat to the establishment and the status quo of the financial world of today, we should demand for some sincere answers to this questions.



My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?




Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

[CasinoBit]

The first impression I get when someone asks these questions is that you do not know the community that well, if you did it wouldn't even matter to you.

[Maciek]

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

If Satoshi contacts me I would send him 90% of my Bitcoins. He deserves it.

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

1 milion people and BTC at $1000 each.

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

Mankind set free
from the bonds of
debt-based currency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdrSP0V-KLg

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

To rule the world.

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?

He will just sit and watch the good he did for the world.

[Rampion]

If the first generated coins move at some point... There will be an interesting reaction. I'd foresee a crash - but who knows?

[crazy_rabbit]

If the first generated coins move at some point... There will be an interesting reaction. I'd foresee a crash - but who knows?

It would be an opportunity. 1.5 Million coins on the market would put more coins into circulation. Considering how constrained the money supply already is, it would only help.

[molecular]

If the first generated coins move at some point... There will be an interesting reaction. I'd foresee a crash - but who knows?

It would be an opportunity. 1.5 Million coins on the market would put more coins into circulation. Considering how constrained the money supply already is, it would only help.

That does not make any sense. We could run the world on 1 bitcoin.

I agree it would be an opportunity... for those around Nakamoto group.

[Rampion]

If the first generated coins move at some point... There will be an interesting reaction. I'd foresee a crash - but who knows?

It would be an opportunity. 1.5 Million coins on the market would put more coins into circulation. Considering how constrained the money supply already is, it would only help.

That does not make any sense. We could run the world on 1 bitcoin.

I agree it would be an opportunity... for those around Nakamoto group.

I think many see the fact that the first coins never moved as an incredible demonstration of faith in the future of BTC. If those coins move, that faith could be shaken (or not, just speculating)

I also like to entertain the idea that it could be a demonstration of insanity. Somebody that has not moved a SINGLE COIN from 2009 till today could also be very capable of dumping all the coins at once. He (or them) would be rich anyway, and nobody can wait to be rich forever.

I'm not saying I believe any of the above - just speculating for fun, anyhow I find incredibly intriguing the fact that those coins NEVER moved.

[Maciek]

And where we can check those coins?

[QuantPlus]

...it wouldn't even matter to you.

Cult members never question anything.

As for Nakamoto...
He is either has a good Accounting Firm and is paying taxes in his jurisdiction...
Or he will end up in jail sooner or later.

[Rampion]

And where we can check those coins?

On the blockchain? Need some BTC basics my friend?

You can also use the search in these forums and you will find plenty of analysis of which address are Satoshi's (many address which 50BTC each).

Now a freebie: this (https://blockchain.info/address/1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa) is the address that holds the first 50BTC ever generated.

[molecular]

And where we can check those coins?

you can see an example of how to analyse this using bitcoin-abe here in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37333.msg458441#msg458441

[Rampion]

Somebody just sent 1 Satoshi to Satoshi

Maybe it was inspired by this thread?

Here you have the transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/41288feefe53f60a9a250c1cfeb037b45b6d8931a63220cb9bc91511fe53f3d3

[kerogre256]

As you can see on the fifth graph here http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ , for many months Bitcoin was very unknown to the public and because of that difficulty didn't change to the upside. If I have understood it correctly around 1,5 million Bitcoins were created from February 2009 until the end of same year. Also if I have understood it correctly very few people mined under this time period making the conclusion that Satoshi Nakamoto and a few more people have a considerable amount of Bitcoins (worth today around 16 million dollars). You could also suppose that a majority of this coins are in the hand of Satoshi Nakamoto. Today it has gone more than two years from the birth of Bitcoin, I am convinced that Nakamoto has big plans for Bitcoin and he/she/they have put considerable amount of time and effort in this interesting project.

I am talking for my self, but I think that my thoughts concern also others that are thinking alike. I want to invest a considerable amount of money and time into this project/currency/commodity/freedom. But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project. Because not getting any answers makes Bitcoin to become something uncertain and vague. If Bitcoin should become worth 100-10000+ times more than it is today, and be a serious threat to the establishment and the status quo of the financial world of today, we should demand for some sincere answers to this questions.



My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?




Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

It's not your business how much bitcoin he have, and don't have to answer any of your questions, you don't have to use them if you don't like it...fuckin loser care about your wallet not other peoples wallets.

[franky1]

i think those that want answer about a satoshi pre mine are just mad they themselves were not around when bitcoins were less then a dollar, and are trying to vent their frustration some how. justifying that its not their fault for learning a couple years later but that satoshi got there first.

and for the fact that satoshi actually having the good idea known as bitcoin i personally think he deserves to be one of the wealthy elite because of it.

for everyone else that doesnt like being late to the party. there are other alt-coins.

[molecular]

for everyone else that doesnt like being late to the party. there are other alt-coins.

lol. and they'll be like: "but how should I know wether ppxvkzCoin will take off at all?". Same could've been asked back then for bitcoin. It's only clear in hindsight. There's risk involved.. duh!

[johnniewalker]

As you can see on the fifth graph here http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ , for many months Bitcoin was very unknown to the public and because of that difficulty didn't change to the upside. If I have understood it correctly around 1,5 million Bitcoins were created from February 2009 until the end of same year. Also if I have understood it correctly very few people mined under this time period making the conclusion that Satoshi Nakamoto and a few more people have a considerable amount of Bitcoins (worth today around 16 million dollars). You could also suppose that a majority of this coins are in the hand of Satoshi Nakamoto. Today it has gone more than two years from the birth of Bitcoin, I am convinced that Nakamoto has big plans for Bitcoin and he/she/they have put considerable amount of time and effort in this interesting project.

I am talking for my self, but I think that my thoughts concern also others that are thinking alike. I want to invest a considerable amount of money and time into this project/currency/commodity/freedom. But I think that until the person(s) behind Bitcoin doesn't come forward I think that the best I can do is to reconsider if I should invest time and money into this project. Because not getting any answers makes Bitcoin to become something uncertain and vague. If Bitcoin should become worth 100-10000+ times more than it is today, and be a serious threat to the establishment and the status quo of the financial world of today, we should demand for some sincere answers to this questions.



My questions:

How many Bitcoins in total does "Nakamoto" have?

What is "Nakamotos" estimation of how many early adopters there is that have more than 200 000 bitcoins, 100 000 bitcoins and 50 000 bitcoins?

What was the purpose of creating Bitcoin?

What is your plan for the future of Bitcoin as "Nakamoto" sees it today?

What are "Nakamoto" going to do with the wealth that has been created?




Until this questions are not answered, and I am pretty sure the person/group behind this project can read this, we should really reconsider buying in until we get some answers. If this is going to get big, this questions will always hunt us until they are answered.

Why do you think they owe you any explanation? They can keep their mouths shut forever and I'll still tip my hat to them. They quite literally made their own millions [billions?]. Anonimity is part of the nature of bitcoins. You can invest if you want, but why should it be on your terms instead of theirs?

[CasinoBit]

People will bitch and moan about the "elite" 1%, about the early adopters being unfairly rewarded, about how they somehow deserve some of the wealth without contributing anything but suggest to them to risk their ass and instead of buying the newest iPhone investing that money into a venture and/or investing into cryptocurrencies that are in their early stages currently and hear them moan "muh dollars", "muh iphone", "muh 40 inch plasma", "muh xbox".

[molecular]

People will bitch and moan about the "elite" 1%, about the early adopters being unfairly rewarded, about how they somehow deserve some of the wealth without contributing anything but suggest to them to risk their ass and instead of buying the newest iPhone investing that money into a venture and/or investing into cryptocurrencies that are in their early stages currently and hear them moan "muh dollars", "muh iphone", "muh 40 inch plasma", "muh xbox".

One of the best reactions to first mover envy.

[jackjack]

People looking for me?

[lcharles123]

The bitcoin is non fair as it looks.
The first clean drinking water.
:|
http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=285000

[molecular]

The bitcoin is non fair as it looks.

Money isn't fair. It's by design.

[RodeoX]

The bitcoin is non fair as it looks.

Money isn't fair. It's by design.

+1
You could also think of it as fair; like nature is... brutal, competitive, uncaring, and fair. Fair does not mean sitting on your ass should be rewarded with the same payoff as those who work hard.

[Darwerft]

I fail to see the problem here. Bitcoin was visible in plain open sight since day 1. 99% of us was just too stupid to see it and become an early adopter. Stupidity has a price, and now we have to buy coins at a much higher price. But, what else is new? In which way is this different from, say, shares in startups? Some people get a brilliant idea, work day and night for several years, then let their company go public. Sure, the founders have shitloads of shares and get rich. Is that a problem? Would you demand Sergey Brin to disclose what he plans to do with his money earned from selling Google shares? If so, go play somewhere else!

Visible yes, but in plainsight? No.

I am fairly convinced that had anyone EVER introduced me to this thing called bitcoin I would have been all over it.
Problem is there were no commercials there were people screeming "see this!"

Had I just been intriduced og seen an article or anything, but no satoshi and a few other people knew they had a goldmine so they werent in a hurry to tell people about it and I cant blame them, I would do the same.
As I see it they premined exactly to the point that we wouldnt mind too much.

The tought that satoshi could (If he wanted to) crash the price back to a few pennies per bitcoin makes me sick.
That to me dosnt sound like fair market.

I think if satoshi at this point wanted to strengthen the bitcoin community he should either destroy his million bitcoins or use them slowly for the good of bitcoin, but eitherway people will get very scared should his coins ever move.
It might just scare bitcoin to death.

I can trust the market to be fiar/Do-its-thing, but I cant trust a single man when I dont even know his real name.

[the joint]

I fail to see the problem here. Bitcoin was visible in plain open sight since day 1. 99% of us was just too stupid to see it and become an early adopter. Stupidity has a price, and now we have to buy coins at a much higher price. But, what else is new? In which way is this different from, say, shares in startups? Some people get a brilliant idea, work day and night for several years, then let their company go public. Sure, the founders have shitloads of shares and get rich. Is that a problem? Would you demand Sergey Brin to disclose what he plans to do with his money earned from selling Google shares? If so, go play somewhere else!

Visible yes, but in plainsight? No.

I am fairly convinced that had anyone EVER introduced me to this thing called bitcoin I would have been all over it.
Problem is there were no commercials there were people screeming "see this!"

Had I just been intriduced og seen an article or anything, but no satoshi and a few other people knew they had a goldmine so they werent in a hurry to tell people about it and I cant blame them, I would do the same.
As I see it they premined exactly to the point that we wouldnt mind too much.

The tought that satoshi could (If he wanted to) crash the price back to a few pennies per bitcoin makes me sick.
That to me dosnt sound like fair market.

I think if satoshi at this point wanted to strengthen the bitcoin community he should either destroy his million bitcoins or use them slowly for the good of bitcoin, but eitherway people will get very scared should his coins ever move.
It might just scare bitcoin to death.

I can trust the market to be fiar/Do-its-thing, but I cant trust a single man when I dont even know his real name.

This argument is ridiculous.  What did you expect?  A global advertisement campaign costing tens of millions of dollars before BTC ever had its first documented transaction and therefore no established value?  You have a weird concept of what "fair" is.

Given the 7+ billion people on this planet of which over half have no direct private Internet access, I'd love to hear what you would have done otherwise to, 1) ensure everyone knows about the idea and that everyone gets an equal opportunity to get in at the same time, 2) ensure that the tens of millions of dollars you spent marketing the idea can be recouped by the value you believe BTC is destined to reach, and 3) prevent Satoshi from reaping the rewards of his own invention, which would probably make recouping that advertising money impossible, anyway?   I mean, even typing this sounds ridiculous.

It was more like, "Hey, here's this cool idea I came up with.  I think it's novel.  Here's exactly how it works, and you can do whatever you want with it.  But, I'm going to start mining this thing, and you're welcome to join if you want to."  And you call that unfair?

[Oriannaa]

today i read on coindesk japan made another coin to improve bitcoin.

[ndnh]

today i read on coindesk japan made another coin to improve bitcoin.

So what? Nothing changes.

Bitcoin is still Bitcoin.

[molecular]

today i read on coindesk japan made another coin to improve bitcoin.

there's 600 or so altcoins. Almost all of them claim to be better than bitcoin.

[capa]

This whole thread is ridiculous   

Satoshi did a great thing, lets just enjoy it 

 

[Biitcoin]

There is a lot of Adresses in Blockchain with 50 BTC (From block reward) at the begining of BTC creation so it's probably Satoshi but ... but he never spent his Bitcoins , so It dosen't matter I guess and basically it's impossible to know how much he own for sure

[the joint]

This whole thread is ridiculous   

Satoshi did a great thing, lets just enjoy it 

 

The more time goes on without knowing who Satoshi is, the more I'm inclined to believe there is no single person who is Satoshi.

[capa]

I always thought it would be nice if it were DavidX.Li aka Li Xianglin

And that he did it as a big fu*k you to the bankers who misinterpreted and misused his paper "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach" (2000)

[Nusrath]

Where questions in the page

[TheRealSat0shiNakam0t0]

hello dear crypto friends. I no longer have the first bitcoin address and the associated forks. it is correct that i have mined almost 1 million btc but it is wrong that they belong to me they were mined for the security of the network to protect the network. I deliberately didn't write down any keys for the 1 million BTC. I only have the keys from the Genesis BTC address. This year I will move the 18:51 btc from the genesis address it was not planned. since faketoshi tries to patent my invention illegally, i will give up my anonymity and hold faketoshi accountable. I wish you all all the best your Satoshi Nakamoto