Fork and Destroy Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin?

[cryptounicon]

I think that the precedent of such a fork would completely destroy the trust in Bitcoin itself. Such a suggestion goes against the very nature of bitcoin. It is a permanent ledger of all prior transactions. Even if those coins did eventually move, the market would absorb them and those coins are already counted in the circulating supply calculations regardless. He mined them and had a fair launch...you could have learned about Bitcoin at an earlier period of time and mined a huge amount of coins yourself if you had done your homework. Bitcoin is a global free market that is designed to be immune to any central interference.

Such a fork would mean Bitcoin is no longer decentralized.

[Kakmakr]

You know what a few years ago a whale created a Sell wall on one of the mayor exchanges and he/she dumped a large amount of coins onto an exchange. The Bitcoin users stood together and they chipped away at that wall, until it was gone in a few days.

When Satoshi's coins gets dumped, the price of bitcoins will go down and people would be buying low priced coins like crazy, then the market will recover slowly and we will continue as normal. The plus side of this is the 1 000 000 coins that would once again be available in the total supply of bitcoins. 

[Pursuer]

one of the main reasons why I (and many others) chose bitcoin was because it allows us to have full control over our money and it doesn't let anybody else touch it. your idea is taking that away and I would never follow that bitcoin.

Oh, and there is one fork, don't remember if it's bitcoin diamond/silver/platinum or whatever that claimed it will destroy every coin before block xxxxx, till satoshi's disappearance.

it was JGarzik's fork if I am not mistaken where he started the fork after the SegWit2x failed. and it was obviously an altcoin that nobody paid any attention to and died in its early days.

[r1s2g3]

Once the developer and community start deciding like this that person has so much amount of coin let burn it, then nobody is going to support any project.
You forget that early investor always get huge benefits if project become successful.

Anyway OP idea is against the Bitcoin idea that says "nobody else can control your money".

[hatshepsut93]

Fork what you like, just don't assume people will naturally want to follow your fork.  I suspect anyone who respects property rights will not be following a chain that advocates theft.  This topic has come and gone so many times now and yet some people still don't seem to understand the concept of ownership after all these years.

People like OP just want to get rich quick, this is why they are into Bitcoin, and this is why they are so worried about theoretical scenarios when someone crashes the market. I wonder if in the future we'll have more attack that will target this part of the community, something like SegWit2x and Bcash have tried - promising people high profits while saying that Bitcoin will fall because it will get abandoned.

[DooMAD]

I wonder if in the future we'll have more attack that will target this part of the community, something like SegWit2x and Bcash have tried - promising people high profits while saying that Bitcoin will fall because it will get abandoned.

I still feel that "attack" isn't the right word.  Do you feel that the OP is trying to attack Bitcoin, or is it just that their views might be a little misguided?  Same with the different fork proposals you mentioned.  Just because some users might have ideas that don't integrate well with your own beliefs, doesn't necessarily mean we have to presume hostility on their part.  People are allowed to have bad ideas every once in a while.  It's if/when they take things to excessive levels that we should start to think of it as an attack.

It would be fair to describe the actions of certain individuals in their chosen methods to promote certain fork coins as an attack, but that doesn't mean we can attribute the actions of these particular individuals to all users of those chains.  Nor does it mean the fork coin itself is an attack.

I understand the temptation for people to go with the "if you're not with me, then you're against me" mentality, but sometimes we take it too far.  One could argue there's enough toxic behaviour in the community already and that we don't need to contribute to that by treating every opposing idea as some sort of threat.

[kaya11]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

Is it possible to freeze someones withdrawal transaction without even affecting other transactions on the Bitcoin network? I thought we can freely send and receive our Bitcoin without any hindrance, so the development team is still in charge o our moneys flow if that is a yes.

[Malam90]

A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

How is withdrawing 1 million BTC an "attack" on bitcoin? It's Satoshi's money. Let him do whatever he wants with his money. He can spend it all on blackjack and hookers and hell do I care how he wants to spend it.

Right, let him sleep in peace. Don't disturb him to say 'freeze his/her 1 Millions Bitcoin until he is active', it is Satoshi's money and he will decide when he will withdraw his money from the market. The last 10 years he is holding from an unknown source.

[mk4]

There is nothing bad in satoshi holding a million of the total supply of bitcoin. That’s like 1% of the supply.

It's actually around 4.76%. Sorry. Couldn't help it. 

How is withdrawing 1 million BTC an "attack" on bitcoin? It's Satoshi's money. Let him do whatever he wants with his money. He can spend it all on blackjack and hookers and hell do I care how he wants to spend it.

Right, let him sleep in peace. Don't disturb him to say 'freeze his/her 1 Millions Bitcoin until he is active', it is Satoshi's money and he will decide when he will withdraw his money from the market. The last 10 years he is holding from an unknown source.

Pretty much. We don't even know if he's alive or dead. But regardless? Taking his funds just to increase the circulating supply is simply just wrong in a moral and ethical level.

[deisik]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin

Obviously, you won't get consensus on this

And if you decide to just fork off, so to speak, thereby creating another shitcoin, people will continue to use the original Bitcoin. Other than that, it has already been done in the past, so you may want to learn about Litecoin which has exactly that done and doesn't have 1M coins premined to Satoshi Nakamoto (or Charli Lee, for that matter). If I'm not mistaken, even Bitcoin Cash with its subsequent forks didn't destroy Satoshi's coins

[veleten]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

you are funny , lets fork and destroy your coins instead , would you like that?
and why withdrawing 1 mil coins is an attack on bitcoin? sounds like nonsense to me
even if withdrawing or transferring it or whatever he wishes to do with them is threatening anything
it is his coins and he can do with them what he pleases
besides I have a very strong feeling these coins are not going to move any time soon if at all

[ralle14]

it should have had to be freezing so there would be no large withdrawal, because with such a withdrawal it would disrupt the condition or stability of the market and would cause a decrease in crypto prices.

Dumping 1 million BTC could cause a crash but the chances for Satoshi to come back just to dump his wallet is so small and if he does the market can always recover.

If all of his BTC would be taken away there would be a hard fork and this isn't reasonable. Imagine if your BTC would be taken away because of the same reason.

[seoincorporation]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

That will not happen, because if he moves those bitcoins his anonymity will instant disappear... So he could become instant rich but not for much time because police would take him to jail before he could even touch that money.

But maybe frozen those btcs is a smart move.

[CryptoGamblingSites]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

Terrible Idea that nobody needed a thread on.

If the 1million bitcoin didn't move at all when it was worth $20 billion, it is quite likely that it never moves as Satoshi left the project years ago.

Nobody would have started bitcoin with an endgame of earning more than $1 billion, that would be insane.

[deisik]

it should have had to be freezing so there would be no large withdrawal, because with such a withdrawal it would disrupt the condition or stability of the market and would cause a decrease in crypto prices.

Dumping 1 million BTC could cause a crash but the chances for Satoshi to come back just to dump his wallet is so small and if he does the market can always recover

And most importantly, with a vengeance

As is often the case, the waiting for an event is more frustrating than its outcome itself, so when the market eventually recovers from such a shock, it should recover with a surplus as these coins will no longer be a potential pain in the ass of many big-time investors. It will just open doors to future unimpeded growth

Further, if Satoshi (or whoever controls the keys from his coins) decides to sell them, he can easily sell the best part of them off the market, i.e. trade them over-the-counter via private connections with deep pockets. In this case, his sell-off won't affect the market very much and we will still have the burden of his stash off our backs

[Herbert2020]

i think its a good things to bitcoin, but as we know that its not easy as that, its hard to fork bitcoin and destroy 1 Million Bitcoin on satoshi wallet. we dont know who is satoshi. and we dont know anything about the bitcoin system when we want to destroy satoshis bitcoin

there is absolutely nothing good about this!
first of all you don't know and you have no way of knowing which coins actually belong to Satoshi so you would be guessing and destroying any coin of anybody who mined bitcoin in early days!
secondly you are not allowed to touch other people's bitcoins! doing that would defeat the whole purpose of bitcoin and turn it into a shitcoin right away.

[joshy23]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

What?you damn no respect for the founder and creator of bitcoin?after you earn from what the man/woman gaved you this is what you will give in return?how dare you man.Satoshis privilege for having that amount (if the person really does) is tolerable because of what he did,and Satoshi is not that stupid to withdraw the said 1million bitcoin straight forward when she knows what will be the effect to the creation she made.

[CoinEraser]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

This is a very bad idea and would destroy the trust in Bitcoin. If you start forking coins out of the network, that would be the beginning of the end. Nobody has the right to decide at Bitcoin which coins are ok and which are not. Once the coins from Satoshi have been foked away, which coins will follow? Yours, mine or which ones? And who will decide that? As you can see, such a move would destroy the credibility of a decentralized currency. Even though Satoshi's coins seem like a threat, they're not.  

[severaldetails]

Bitcoin should be forked and Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin destroyed completely, if he really owns that much.
A sudden withdrawal of of 1 million (or large gradual withdrawals) should be regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Or it should be frozen for now until developers are sure no one is going to withdraw the whole thing and crash the market.

This is a very bad idea and would destroy the trust in Bitcoin. If you start forking coins out of the network, that would be the beginning of the end. Nobody has the right to decide at Bitcoin which coins are ok and which are not. Once the coins from Satoshi have been foked away, which coins will follow? Yours, mine or which ones? And who will decide that? As you can see, such a move would destroy the credibility of a decentralized currency. Even though Satoshi's coins seem like a threat, they're not.  

I see it the same way. Messing with the blockchain is the end of bitcoin. This is exactly what Satoshi wanted to prevent when he started bitcoin: a system where the flow of money is regulated. The only reason why forks should happen is to improve the programming, not to tell who can own what.

[DooMAD]

From a moral standpoint, I can't help but think some people are looking at this from the wrong angle.  I get why people want to defend satoshi because "they're the founder/creator", or "it's disrespectful" or "because of everything they've done for Bitcoin", etc, but the same should apply to absolutely anyone.  Theft is theft and that's what the OP is advocating.  Even if there was someone really terrible who tried to do bad things to Bitcoin, it would still be wrong to for anyone to say we should fork and destroy their coins.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty Ownership Rights, to purchase a little temporary Safety Market Stability, deserve neither Liberty Ownership Rights nor Safety Market Stability."