Burn Satoshis coins to end the threat of prices crashing - Paxful Founder

[Juggy777]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

[1714136067]

1714136067

[1714136067]

1714136067

[1714136067]

1714136067

[1714136067]

1714136067

[AB de Royse777]

If Nakamoto does appear and decides to cash in the Satoshi stash—or threatens to—the bitcoin market would almost certainly collapse.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

I have no idea but I think Bitcoin is no more in control of anyones hand. May be we will see a sudden crash but then again people will start to buy and market will stable. Who would miss to buy something which is on sale?

For the last 10 years people were expecting all sorts of crash but Bitcoin survived. Bitcoin will survive till the end.

Burning Nakamoto’s coins is possible, if incredibly unlikely. If the whole network came together and agreed to move the coins into a different, inaccessible, account, then Nakamoto would be unable to access his/her/their fortune.

This will be a disaster. They are asking perform a 51% attack. This is stupid and dangerous idea in my opinion. Tomorrow you will ask to burn someone else's Bitcoin if you do not like them to have huge amount of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created to have peace in mind that no one can touch my money.

[javadsalehi]

How can the community burn Satoshi's bitcoins? They are Satoshi's own property. No one has access to Satoshi's bitcoin.
Shouldn't worry about Satoshi's bitcoin. Satoshi will never damage what he/she has created. I expect Satoshi has some bitcoins in some unknown addresses and he/she can sell them anonymously without any effect to the market.

[yoseph]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

I believe that he just wants to protect his investment that's all because in reality Satoshi selling his entire stock will totally cripple his creation and it will take a very long time to get it back to it's feet if it ever does. People are going to lose their entire investments and that will make Bitcoin unattractive to a lot of people.

[avikz]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

I absolutely don't support such bizarre idea of burning anyone else's property. Also is it technically possible to burn his coins when we are not controlling those coins?? I don't think it is possible!

Also remember, virgin bitcoins are selling with premiums attached to it and Satoshi owned bitcoins are all virgin bitcoins. Even if Satoshi really sells his bitcoins, there will be another group of buyer who will buy it so the impact will be very limited and temporary!

[pawanjain]

Who are we to decide what to do with Satoshi's coins
It's Satoshi because of which Bitcoin was created in the first place.
He should be the most eligible person to reap the benefits of his creation. Nobody has the rights what to do with his coins.
If you be a little optimistic and change your perspective then you must be happy because if Satoshi decides to sell all his coins then there will be more number of coins in the active supply of bitcoin meaning there will be more coins for us to use whereas the number of coins will be comparatively less if he doesn't sell it.

[stompix]

Not this again!!!!!  
Can we have one full month during which nobody has the bright idea of effectively stealing someone's else coins in order to "save" bitcoin?

I believe that he just wants to protect his investment that's all because in reality Satoshi selling his entire stock will totally cripple his creation and it will take a very long time to get it back to it's feet if it ever does. People are going to lose their entire investments and that will make Bitcoin unattractive to a lot of people.

Yeah, how about I go tonight and torch the building next door in order to make room for a park and raise the value of my property (investment) ?

How can the community burn Satoshi's bitcoins? They are Satoshi's own property. No one has access to Satoshi's bitcoin.

In theory, it can be done with a fork in which those coins are no longer valid.
Bitcoin united (another useless fork) has tried this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2580692.0

[dkbit98]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

This would only be possible in case of major Bitcoin hard fork update (maybe due to some security issue or improvement)
In theory, majority of users would update and Satoshi coins would (probably) stay on the old chain.
Some diehards would no doubt also stay on this old chain, and we could see forks again.

This would probably end once and for all production of new Faketoshis like Craig Wrong and Bilal Halid.

Is it likely to happen?
No, but everything is possible.

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

This is certainly an impossible idea without splitting up of the longest chain and destroying the consensus of bitcoin as a whole.

Coin burning or the reorg of chain can happen only when 51% of miners accept for the change and that even can never change the 10 year old mined blocks. The current miners need to mine faster from block 1 and should exceed the current main chain to become the longest chain. 

While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him.

Though Bitcoin might be his creation, but the decentralization has changed completely the way he can control. Presumably it's really not possible to really find out which of those initial coins belong to satoshi and it's multiple wallets which he used to mine during the initial days.

P.S theymos once proposed an idea to destroy lost bitcoins to prevent further misuse. Here is the post from reddit : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4isxjr/comment/d30we6f

[NeuroticFish]

This is certainly an impossible idea without splitting up of the longest chain and destroying the consensus of bitcoin as a whole.

And since Satoshi didn't consent in burning his coins, the ones using that new Bitcoin (if such a split would ever happen) will actually be thieves (!)

[gentlemand]

Hard forking or whatever to achieve this aside, the idea of Satoshi dutifully sending in a selfie with a hopeful smile holding up his driving licence to dump on Yobit is a fucking joke.

And this is indicative of the lack of interest and understanding of the core principles of BTC. It always seems to be corporate pricks who come up with these wonderful ideas that never manage to extend their thinking to any, like, consequences.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Burning coins to try to stop the price crashing is a complete non sequitur.

One of the core principle of bitcoin is it is decentralized and censorship resistance. There is no central authority which can exercise control over other people's money, burn coins, freeze address, reverse transactions, and so forth. There is no majority rule which can prevent someone else from doing anything they like with their coins, including dumping them on the market if they so choose.

If you burn Satoshi's coins, you have effectively destroyed a core principle of bitcoin. The number of people who would sell up and move their money elsewhere would crash the market harder than Satoshi's coins would.

There are plenty of centralized scam coins out there you can put your money in instead if you desire.

Burning Nakamoto’s coins is possible, if incredibly unlikely. If the whole network came together and agreed to move the coins into a different, inaccessible, account, then Nakamoto would be unable to access his/her/their fortune.

This will be a disaster. They are asking perform a 51% attack.

This wouldn't be a 51% attack, it would have to be a hard-fork. A 51% attack only allows an attacker to mine new blocks and therefore reverse transactions which have already been confirmed in older blocks. It doesn't allow them to create and confirm invalid transactions. Unless they had the private keys to Satoshi's addresses, no amount of hashpower would be able to move his coins.

[franky1]

1. people that try to say that a certain coinage should burn, should burn their own first.
2. prices are temporary, they move up and down. any price crash is just a discount day for people to get a good deal. so see the positives of such.
3. the real threat is code changes to bitcoin that ruin peoples utility of bitcoin. such as making legacy transactions 4x the cost of segwits gateway to LN transactions

[coin-investor]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

The threat is unfounded and there's still no hint on the possibility that it will ever be moved, remember Bitcoin's all-time high reaches $20 k if you have one million Bitcoin you'll be 20 billion richer or even more if you cash it out although the possibility to cash out is very hard.

I will not support it, let him have his shares as a form of royalty for what he has done to the world
Bitcoin's price will definitely crash but we are afraid of something that is still a speculation, we cannot establish if he still alive or he still own his private keys.

[dothebeats]

Burning these coins doesn't really solve the problem of price crashes at all. There are still whales which controls a huge amount of coins that can control the market at will even without satoshi's coins though, so it will be a totally worthless effort after all. Besides, even if the coins do exist, chances are there would be no one claiming them ever and will be left to rot in the void so what gives?

[AB de Royse777]

This wouldn't be a 51% attack, it would have to be a hard-fork.

Oh yes, I messed up a bit.

Anyway, I do not think we need a hardfork as well. Just leave the coins there for the one it belongs to. I do not understand all these buzz surrounding it. Leaving those coins there in fact increase the value of Bitcoin. Less supply more demand.

[kryptqnick]

Satoshi created Bitcoin, and this is how we pay this person? By destroying not only some of the Satoshi's creation but also the money of this person?
I am sure that the majority would never agree to manipulate the coins this way. It crosses out the whole freedom and decentralization thing. If you own Bitcoin, nobody can deprive you of them unless by hacking, and this is how it's supposed to be. The person decides to sell - well, it's the right every single one of us has. And abusing one's right of managing money independently cannot be justified.

[qubitasic]

Nobody can burn Bitcoins on the original blockchain. You can create a fork without the coins you don't want. But the original chain with all coins will remain the strongest chain.
They are already discussing such things: Fork and Destroy Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5131393.0

Only quantum computers can move these coins.
Did Satoshi think that quantum computers will exist? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5172573.0

[Saisher]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

He can now ease up there is a guy who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and posted on the article that he lose his private keys when he made the gross error of sending his broken laptop to a company and the company replace the HDD, the problem is we need to verify if the guy really is the real Nakamoto.
but I don't like that idea, you are afraid of something that is not there, and besides, he mines it and he creates it and you are just partaking on his creation so shut the fuck up.

[BrewMaster]

and then why stop there? i don't like other people who own bitcoin too, lets burn their coins also. heck while we are at it lets burn any coin that is transferred in blocks below 100k. and before anything we have to first burn any coins that this dude has.

the worst part is that he says we should do it out of the fear of a small crash while what he suggests would kill bitcoin. in other words this idiot says we should kill bitcoin just because he fears a small drop

[cr1776]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

An idiotic idea.  Once the principle that we can burn someone else's coins becomes enshrined in bitcoin, anyone's can be burned.

Anyway, anyone who did this would create an alt-coin and would be forked off the main chain because anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it would destroy bitcoin.

[figmentofmyass]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

it's a controversial idea, but he's certainly not the first person to propose it. 3 years ago, theymos proposed the same thing, knowing that ECDSA will eventually be broken and the satoshi coins stolen: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4isxjr/petition_to_protect_satoshis_coins/d30we6f/

hypothetically, i have no ethical problem with the idea of activating such a fork with eg 5 years notice---that's ample time for everyone to move their coins to quantum safe addresses. the problem is, this was never part of bitcoin's original consensus. establishing a new consensus that burns these coins is therefore highly controversial.

An idiotic idea.  Once the principle that we can burn someone else's coins becomes enshrined in bitcoin, anyone's can be burned.

i don't think we should be talking about burning someone's coins. this is about burning lost coins (whoever they belonged to) before ECDSA is broken and those coins start being stolen. this is what theymos said back then:

Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur.

[audaciousbeing]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

I don't understand the reason for even making the outburst in the first place because what he has done now is to successfully create additional publicity for the same coin that he does not want. He should have know long enough that in the crypto space, the opposite is like the reaction after an outburst like this and for someone who is hearing this kind of coin for the first time, he is pushed to research more about it. The crypto space does not have a central mouthpiece neither do we have a director appointed to speak on our behalf. What I would have expected him to do is to continually pursue his business by doing more publicity of bitcoin and let the market decides which route to take.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Ray Youssef don't have the authority to make that decision and he should STFU. Even Satoshi can't make that decision, since Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. At the most, he can appeal to the mining pools, to reverse the transactions through a 51% attack. But I don't think that the mining pools will approve such a request. Even if they approve it, I don't think that it can be implemented.

[Ucy]

It's probably better to freeze the coins until there is assurance nothing will be crashed deliberately . The threat to crash the price is a threat to thousands of people/investors.
It should be a community decision anyway. We can't do much if a big majority prefers the coins not to be frozen temporarily

[gentlemand]

It's probably better to freeze the coins until there is assurance nothing will be crashed deliberately . The threat to crash the price is a threat to thousands of people/investors.
It should be a community decision anyway. We can't do much if a big majority prefers the coins not to be frozen temporarily

Who is anyone to tell anyone whether they can or can't sell or move their coins? The idea sets a toxic and fatal precedent.

Someone with a market moving amount of coins either bought them or put the work in to mine them. Just because they have more of them does not mean anyone else should have control over their intentions. The thought of that is plain bizarre.

Would there be an invisible threshold where you wake up to an empty wallet and an apologetic tweet? 'Sorry, dude. You have too much. Try not to try too hard next time.'

[squatter]

Hard forking or whatever to achieve this aside, the idea of Satoshi dutifully sending in a selfie with a hopeful smile holding up his driving licence to dump on Yobit is a fucking joke.

Youssef is an idiot, especially since he thinks we can conclusively identify Satoshi's coins to begin with. He's proposing this for the wrong reasons.

There are, however, good reasons to have a related discussion about this. In a post-quantum world, the "Satoshi coins" are probably the biggest lot of vulnerable (public key exposed) bitcoins we know about. But there could be several million lost bitcoins out there in addition to these early mined P2PK outputs, a sizeable subset of which are P2PK or in reused addresses.

These will all eventually be stolen and recirculated into the supply, possibly causing a huge divergence from users' perceptions about Bitcoin's "deflationary" monetary supply. There goes that whole idea about lost coins being a donation to other bitcoin holders! More like a donation to bitcoin shorters.

[d5000]

Nobody can burn Bitcoins on the original blockchain. You can create a fork without the coins you don't want. But the original chain with all coins will remain the strongest chain.

Even a "hard fork" cannot enforce that reliably.

You can deploy a modified client with a rule that declares some coins invalid, as a part of a new protocol, which would result in a hard fork, correct. But the coins would stay at the addresses. That means that it is always possible to "hard-fork" them back if there is consensus to change the protocol again, because the transactions with the mined coins by Satoshi will stay in the block chain. You would have to "re-create" the whole chain if you wanted to delete these coins, and then all block hashes etc. would change.

So the only way to really "reliably" burn Satoshi's coins would be to create a new genesis block, as a "snapshot coin" like some small altcoins (I remember Bitcore) have done it. The snapshot would include all currently valid UTXOs minus the ones that were mined by Satoshi.

This would certainly not be Bitcoin anymore.

"Moving" the coins is completely impossible if not by "hacking" his addresses as others already wrote.

[o_e_l_e_o]

These will all eventually be stolen and recirculated into the supply, possibly causing a huge divergence from users' perceptions about Bitcoin's "deflationary" monetary supply.

At any point, Satoshi's coins could move without warning and be recirculated in to the supply. As could any coin which is considered "lost". We have no way of knowing how many coins are truly "lost", and everyone (at least everyone who understands bitcoin even a little) should know and appreciate this. Having a sudden influx of a million coins, and therefore a ~5% inflation, would be less damaging to bitcoin than removing one of its core principles by allowing a small group of people to decide which coins are and are not allowed to be used in the future.

Still, if suddenly a million coins moved from early addresses, I suspect the price would dip more from weak hands panic selling than from these "lost" coins entering the market. An attacker with the knowledge and technology to break ECDSA isn't going to be stupid enough to dump a million coins on the market at once. If these coins do move, I'll be waiting to buy the dip.

[squatter]

These will all eventually be stolen and recirculated into the supply, possibly causing a huge divergence from users' perceptions about Bitcoin's "deflationary" monetary supply.

At any point, Satoshi's coins could move without warning and be recirculated in to the supply. As could any coin which is considered "lost". We have no way of knowing how many coins are truly "lost", and everyone (at least everyone who understands bitcoin even a little) should know and appreciate this.

We don't. We won't know until after the fact, once ECDSA is broken and nothing is done. It'll be a roller coaster, that's all I know.

Having a sudden influx of a million coins, and therefore a ~5% inflation, would be less damaging to bitcoin than removing one of its core principles by allowing a small group of people to decide which coins are and are not allowed to be used in the future.

The amount of vulnerable bitcoins probably goes far beyond the "Satoshi coins" -- that's just the lowest base line to start our assumptions from.

You can deploy a modified client with a rule that declares some coins invalid, as a part of a new protocol, which would result in a hard fork, correct.

That could be done with a soft fork. Miners have incentive to enforce it since it would prevent unpredictable inflation.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The amount of vulnerable bitcoins probably goes far beyond the "Satoshi coins" -- that's just the lowest base line to start our assumptions from.

Agreed, but since no one knows how many coins are "lost", how can the market be functioning on the premise that x amount are gone? If 100,000 bitcoins get moved for the first time in 5 years, were they just being held long term, or were they "lost" coins which have suddenly been rediscovered? Did the market already price those in? We don't even know that Satoshi's coins are truly "lost". And if we know that someone is going to break ECDSA in the future, can't the market price that in in advance as well?

There are too many unknowns, but everyone should be operating on the premise that the current circulating supply of bitcoin is 17.9 million.

[figmentofmyass]

Who is anyone to tell anyone whether they can or can't sell or move their coins? The idea sets a toxic and fatal precedent.

the optimal way to approach the issue is not to stop people from moving their coins, but instead, to make sure they move them---to quantum safe/one-time use addresses. move them or lose them is the idea.

for example, if we believe ECDSA will be broken in 10 years, the parameters for a fork could be that if coins haven't been moved to quantum safe addresses within 10 years, they be destroyed. in virtually any altcoin, this would be an acceptable parameter. but this approach doesn't work in bitcoin because bitcoin has a culture that is incredibly hostile to consensus change.

i'm amazed that people still believe a hard fork block size increase will ever happen in bitcoin. no way! every passing day that goes by, the consensus becomes more and more hardened and unchangeable. it's clear as day.

[gentlemand]

the optimal way to approach the issue is not to stop people from moving their coins, but instead, to make sure they move them---to quantum safe/one-time use addresses. move them or lose them is the idea.

for example, if we believe ECDSA will be broken in 10 years, the parameters for a fork could be that if coins haven't been moved to quantum safe addresses within 10 years, they be destroyed. in virtually any altcoin, this would be an acceptable parameter. but this approach doesn't work in bitcoin because bitcoin has a culture that is incredibly hostile to consensus change.

Aye, this scenario would be a proper tricky one. That would add up to several million coins no matter what.

I really can't see there being any agreement regarding anything so the only hope would be white hats having those coins away before the darker ones because no matter what, someone's going to take them. It's not as if anyone is going to announce that they've broken it either. We'll know it when it starts to happen.

Millions of coins in new hands might be the least of BTC's problems at that point.

[Harlot]

Lol, I think it would still have the same effect as if we are on a volatile market. Satoshi's supply burned to the ground will just only be viewed negatively by the general public and it will trigger FUD immediately even the whales will be on board on offloading their position if this happened. I don't think the volatility or the market scare we are having now is that considerable because of the thought of Satoshi revealing himself in the world. I would rather stay in the current situation now than see Satoshi's own supply will go away.

[qubitasic]

Post quantum we will have lots of forks. But the quantum upgraded original chain with all the mined coins will be the strongest. Anyone who has the privatekey of an old address can now move their coins and they will be quantum secure. Otherwise they are 'shalecoins' and have no owner and will be 'fracked'. These coins are the reward of their 'frackers'. If some think that the 'shalecoins' should be locked/destroyed, they can use the fork with excluded 'shalecoins'. They are already discussing such things: Fork and Destroy Satoshi's 1 million Bitcoin? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5131393.0

No matter what, a decade is not such a long time. We should be discussing this stuff today.

Yes, squatter.
Quantum computers will surprise the Bitcoin community. The 'shalecoins' will be moved and will become active. Thereafter BTC owners will decide, which fork they want to use.

The original chain will remain the strongest chain. If some groups can reproduce the privatekeys of 'shalecoins', coins with no owner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134441.0, it's their reward. They are trying to build a computer in the near future, that wouldn't be built so fast without that incentive. That opportunity accelerates the technology. If there are still some BTC owners -incl. Satoshi- with old addresses and remove their coins now, they will be secure. So it's a fair game. And nobody can change that game: Bitcoin rewards the best technology.

The Bitcoin network is a pure competition network. Only the best technology will be successful here and make it secure. A Bitcoin fork without the old coins would be like another s**tcoin, because it would avoid real competition.

edited

[eternalgloom]

Still, if suddenly a million coins moved from early addresses, I suspect the price would dip more from weak hands panic selling than from these "lost" coins entering the market. An attacker with the knowledge and technology to break ECDSA isn't going to be stupid enough to dump a million coins on the market at once. If these coins do move, I'll be waiting to buy the dip.

I'd actually quite like that idea, it would mean that we'd get closer to the prospect of seeing those lost coins back into circulation again.
There can never be more than 21 million anyway, so even if Satoshi's original coins trickle onto the market, it wouldn't have that big of an effect long-term I reckon.

Rest assured that there will be enough people buying up those coins.

[d5000]

You can deploy a modified client with a rule that declares some coins invalid, as a part of a new protocol, which would result in a hard fork, correct.

That could be done with a soft fork. Miners have incentive to enforce it since it would prevent unpredictable inflation.

You're right, that would make it easier - and more difficult to change back to the old protocol (because restoring the validity of Satoshi's coins then would need a hard fork as new blocks without the invalidation would be incompatible with clients enforcing it).  It would basically be the ETH/ETC scenario.

However, with enough consensus the change can always be reverted. There could even be a hybrid client solution, where users who disagree with the new restriction could simply not enforce the rule unless they're mining. That would make a change back to the old protocol easier: They could include a mechanism similar to a soft fork, but which simply creates a hard fork back to the old protocol if enough of the previous blocks (e.g. 90%) support a change back.

The protocol without Satoshi's coins could obviously continue to exist, resulting in two different chains, and the question then would be if "protocol purity" or "lower coins supply" would be more attractive.

(Edit:) A plausible scenario would be the following, in the case there's a soft fork invalidating Satoshi's coins:
- Satoshi announces that he will donate most of the coins to charities.
- He creates and broadcasts transactions to known addresses to the charities, with a large part of the outputs blocked by long timelocks, so the charities can't dump the coins at once.
- In parallel, he distributes the alternative client which would fork back to the old protocol and removes the "invalidation", like I wrote above.
- Users wouldn't have to fear a large dump anymore, so the main reason for the invalidation would not be true anymore. That would make it attractive to use the client with the restored protocol. Satoshi would not have even to come out of his anonymity, because the signed and broadcasted transactions from his accounts are enough for the users to believe him.
- This would result obviously in a communication war, but if Satoshi isn't too greedy I think he would have a big chance to succeed and that in the end the chain with the "backfork" to the old protocol would be the stronger one. If user support is strong enough, miners will also find it more attractive to support the "new old" chain.

(Another Edit:) Satoshi could obviosly also simply bribe miners with his coins, and/or combine both methods.

[luca1073]

Burning coins to try to stop the price crashing is a complete non sequitur.

One of the core principle of bitcoin is it is decentralized and censorship resistance. There is no central authority which can exercise control over other people's money, burn coins, freeze address, reverse transactions, and so forth. There is no majority rule which can prevent someone else from doing anything they like with their coins, including dumping them on the market if they so choose.

If you burn Satoshi's coins, you have effectively destroyed a core principle of bitcoin. The number of people who would sell up and move their money elsewhere would crash the market harder than Satoshi's coins would.

There are plenty of centralized scam coins out there you can put your money in instead if you desire.

I agree, that would be 100 % damaging to bitcoin. i didn't even know that was actually possible. these people saying these things are the worst and possibly have an IQ close to zero

[Kakmakr]

So, what happens after we destroy Satoshi Nakamoto's coins, do we burn all Roger Ver's coins next and then Mike Hearn's coins ..... Nope, the fact that you own coins and nobody can take it away from you are one of the fundamental building blocks of this technology.

Bitcoin is not a centralized technology where you can block people's access to their own tokens or their wealth for whatever reason. A lot of people will sell their coins, when that security feature is taken away.   

                                                                --<< Bitcoin is not a Bank >>--

[larouda]

Given how smart satoshi is why would he dump the coins on the market all at once? I think he should know better than that so. why is everybody assuming he would act like an idiot? What I mean is that even if he finally showed up I see no reason why he should do that considering that he doesn't seem to be in a hurry of moving those coins..

[yesyes18]

That's could be good but if only Satoshi is there and has access to that coins, it's his/her/their property and invention so no one should dictate how they should use it for them/him/her. But well, if we discover Satoshi, it's going fo be interesting haha.

[luca1073]

even if satoshi started spending his bitcoins, the price would drop temporarily and then it would go up again, not a big deal

[lixer]

His statement is a little bit quite confusing because I don’t know how it will be possible to burn what you don’t have access to, I know that binance do use this strategy to make the value of their coins to increase by buying tokens from investors that are willing to sell and then burn it to make price stable which I think has kept the value of bitcoin stable for a while now.

I understand what he is saying that if satoshi is still alive and then he sells all his coin, it would make the market crash, but satoshi has been so wise for not selling his coin now, because the moment satoshi starts to sell his coin, even if it is one drop, it could make the market go bad, because the moment they notice he is selling, people could panic and start selling their own coin also, and I believe that satoshi would not want a collapsed system for now.

[lighpulsar07]

How does burning the genesis coins will end the threat of prices crashing?? even satoshi himself hasn't appeared for 8 years already and the scammer craig wright doesn't prove that he is satoshi by signing the bitcoin address used by satoshi himself and also, how will core devs will burn the coins if the addresses itself can't be accessed without the private keys?? anyways, i think the paxful owner is over exaggerating in that article to be honest lol.

[davis196]

Paxful founder Ray Youssef has tweeted a bizzare idea in which he wants the community to burn Satoshis coins, so the threat of prices crashing due to Satoshi revealing himself and selling his coins goes away. While I understand that if Satoshi were to sell his coins crypto prices indeed will crash, but in the end it’s his creation and his coins no one should decide for him. What are your thoughts on this should the community support this bizzare idea, or voice their opinion and keep Satoshis coins safe?.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/paxful-founder-makes-wild-proposal-161450915.html

This idea isn't bizzare,I think it's has been discussed over and over again for the last 6-7 years.
Satoshi Nakamoto's coins are his property and only he and his children(if he really has any children) have the right to own and sell those coins."Stealing" the coins of someone just for the sake of keeping the bitcoin price stable is simply wrong.What if there's a mechanism to "burn" all the coins owned by crypto whales,so they can't pump and dump the bitcoin price?Would the majority of people just run away from Bitcoin?

[Mulann2]

How can they effect that if they have no access to the private key ? i thought only the real original satoshi nakamoto has access to his keys, if they can burn satoshi btc without keys that means all that talk about satoshi signing message from his private key is irrelevant, but lets see them try to do because am quite curious.

[coolcoinz]

It's a very similar idea to a company founder being stripped of his rights by the board. I'm sure you know how corporations work when the owner is old and, in the eyes of the board incapable, of running the company alone. He gets a minority share and the board decides what will happen next. Usually the owner is later put on a retirement pension and spends his days playing golf. Are we the board in this case? Do we have the right to Strip Satoshi of his hard earned money because we have the majority vote? Fuck that!

[hulla]

How does burning the genesis coins will end the threat of prices crashing?? even satoshi himself hasn't appeared for 8 years already and the scammer craig wright doesn't prove that he is satoshi by signing the bitcoin address used by satoshi himself and also, how will core devs will burn the coins if the addresses itself can't be accessed without the private keys?? anyways, i think the paxful owner is over exaggerating in that article to be honest lol.

Firstly, you mean understand what the OP and Paxful founder said because what he said is that the genesis coin is a threat to bitcoin market and it should be burned and this was the exact almost all experience crypto enthusiast believed.
With that been said, every genuine crypto enthusiast knows Craig Wright was just an imposter and his coin follow are the newbie which just invest in coin base on hype.

[Ibizugbe1]

It's a stupid suggestion and it falls short of professional reasoning. How can a CEO reason so low like that? This is just a free market, where was he when bitcoin was worthless than $2, if he had been the creator of bitcoin, will he have suggested such? besides when is Paxful CEO going to unblock the accounts he illegally blocked without technical explanation?

[SirLancelot]

It's a stupid suggestion and it falls short of professional reasoning. How can a CEO reason so low like that? This is just a free market, where was he when bitcoin was worthless than $2, if he had been the creator of bitcoin, will he have suggested such? besides when is Paxful CEO going to unblock the accounts he illegally blocked without technical explanation?

They would have as well asked him to also empty his account to pay his shareholders also or whatever reason that would make his company move forward. It is really a dumped suggestion coming from such a public figure. A laborer is worthy of his wages, this is what satoshi worked for and he deserve to have it.

Does he know how many lives has been changed because of this, aside the scammer who has raised money through the scheme, there are so many genuine companies that has been established now, would there have been those companies within the top 200 in market cap, at least those companies has in one way contributed to the economy of their country.

This is why government cannot even cancel crypto because there has been so many companies that came into existence through it and they all pay their tax.

[Artemis3]

Burning coins to try to stop the price crashing is a complete non sequitur.

One of the core principle of bitcoin is it is decentralized and censorship resistance. There is no central authority which can exercise control over other people's money, burn coins, freeze address, reverse transactions, and so forth. There is no majority rule which can prevent someone else from doing anything they like with their coins, including dumping them on the market if they so choose.

If you burn Satoshi's coins, you have effectively destroyed a core principle of bitcoin. The number of people who would sell up and move their money elsewhere would crash the market harder than Satoshi's coins would.

There are plenty of centralized scam coins out there you can put your money in instead if you desire.

This basically. Bitcoin is not going to do things that occur beyond its realm. How much or how little fiat people are willing to trade for one bitcoin is completely irrelevant for Bitcoin (software). To Bitcoin it matters nothing what its price is in the market, there is zero reason for an idea like this to push forward. And if Satoshi comes and sells his/her coins, there will be cheap bitcoin for a little while, so what? This doesn't matter to Bitcoin, the system will keep working as designed, and that is all that matters.

The so called "worry" is a human external factor, if you are worried don't invest in it, simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to. What the Paxful founder wants to do is a form of "State" (or institutional) intervention, someone who detests the free market would suggest. Again comes the Austrian economy advise: The best thing you can do in the face of a problem, is do nothing. Let it solve it itself, the market adjusts.

Truly the answer is do nothing. There is no point in burning someone else's coins (artificially, beyond decade old established rules) for whatever reason, and you are welcome to sell yours if you want, Bitcoin doesn't care, only you might...

[hv_]

What about legal implications with this?

[boris2470]

lol To burn all the bitcoins of the person who created them, why? If you are afraid that the crypto market will collapse because Satoshi will create a collapse, then this looks like paranoia. The chance for this is negligible so in my opinion this is a stupid idea and most likely impossible

[o_e_l_e_o]

I don't give a damn but now that it's official that the one who claimed to be Satoshi is a hoax

I don't know which "claim" you are referring to, as there are always a couple going around at any given time, but you definitely don't need to wait on "official" confirmation (whatever that means - the courts? this forum?) to know that all these Satoshi claims are nonsense. Until someone can sign a message with either a Satoshi linked address or his PGP key, you can ignore all these scammers and their fake claims.

The chance for this is negligible

No one should be basing their investment on the chance of coins being irretrievably lost over time. Lost coins, including Satoshi's, could reactivate at any time. ECDSA could be broken in the future, and Satoshi's coins and lost coins in any reused address could then re-enter the market. Chances may be small, but they aren't negligible, and people should be aware of this.

[BITDV]

Not this again!!!!!  
Can we have one full month during which nobody has the bright idea of effectively stealing someone's else coins in order to "save" bitcoin?

I believe that he just wants to protect his investment that's all because in reality Satoshi selling his entire stock will totally cripple his creation and it will take a very long time to get it back to it's feet if it ever does. People are going to lose their entire investments and that will make Bitcoin unattractive to a lot of people.

Yeah, how about I go tonight and torch the building next door in order to make room for a park and raise the value of my property (investment) ?

How can the community burn Satoshi's bitcoins? They are Satoshi's own property. No one has access to Satoshi's bitcoin.

In theory, it can be done with a fork in which those coins are no longer valid.
Bitcoin united (another useless fork) has tried this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2580692.0

ah thank you, i guest it is not possible to burn address. Still don't know technically but i just imagine that we can do it by harcode, example : denied addres to send or receive coin. is this correct?

[Juggy777]

I don't give a damn but now that it's official that the one who claimed to be Satoshi is a hoax

I don't know which "claim" you are referring to, as there are always a couple going around at any given time, but you definitely don't need to wait on "official" confirmation (whatever that means - the courts? this forum?) to know that all these Satoshi claims are nonsense. Until someone can sign a message with either a Satoshi linked address or his PGP key, you can ignore all these scammers and their fake claims.

The chance for this is negligible

No one should be basing their investment on the chance of coins being irretrievably lost over time. Lost coins, including Satoshi's, could reactivate at any time. ECDSA could be broken in the future, and Satoshi's coins and lost coins in any reused address could then re-enter the market. Chances may be small, but they aren't negligible, and people should be aware of this.

@o_e_l_e_o I believe he may be referring to the new Satoshi who created a website recently, and declared himself to be Satoshi but when he was asked to prove it he failed. What you’re suggesting may not happen anytime soon maybe in the long run it’s possible, and when it happens I hope we’re around to see it’s impact. In your opinion will the markets crash if those coins came into circulation, or the market will remain neutral?.

[jake zyrus]

Who would've agreed to that? Burning Satoshi's coin to end the threat of crashing? If we were to burn Satoshi's coin, does it guarantee to end the price to crash if he decided to sell it? Though it's his own coins and it's his own decision so we can't decide what to do about it. It's not ours anyway.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In your opinion will the markets crash if those coins came into circulation, or the market will remain neutral?

I would expect a dip, and maybe even a big one, but not a full on ~90% crash.

If Satoshi's coins reactivated, then I think a lot of newbies would start panicking about an upcoming dump and sell their coins. It would become a self fulfilling prophecy. I think quite a lot of smart players might sell up too, but only because they could then buy back in cheaper. I think there would be too many people waiting to buy the dip or buy back in after selling to see a full on crash.

At the end of the day, it's not like a million new bitcoins suddenly materialized out of nothing and raised the circulating max to 22 million (assuming Satoshi has a million coins, he may have far less). These bitcoins were always included in the 21 million limit. There would be no inflation. The protocol and technology hasn't changed, the fundamentals remain the same. I for one would be buying the dip.

There's another interesting factor to consider - assuming Satoshi's coins were moved by Satoshi himself and not hacked, would the return of Satoshi cause a price rally?

[jostorres]

What about legal implications with this?

They don’t understand that the fact cryptocurrency has not yet ben regulated does not mean that legal action can still not be taking on some things that surround it. We see how many crypto thieve has been arrested for some fraudulent practices, o I think his own still with not be exceptional because burning satoshi coins will surely be illegal.

It could also be quite difficult because satoshi has been silent for a while, and in the event if they plan to do that illegal thing he talked about, will satoshi come out? Or maybe they are just using it to see if they care through that threat or means lure satoshi out of his anonymity because I really do not see the effect or reason for burning the token. They will burn the token and still not see any effect of it.

[leftgirly]

This is a bad call and I think the basis on which the statement is made  is too poor for it to be understood. I think bitcoin and Satoshi would  always go together, I don't see the need for stakeholders to do away with the Satoshi unit. We still need Satoshi in the crypto space.

[figmentofmyass]

What about legal implications with this?

there are none.

if it's implemented as a soft fork, miners are completely in accordance with the protocol. no rules are being broken. they would only be engaging in behavior the network deems valid.

if it's done as a hard fork, it's just an unrelated spinoff of free open source software. there are many such forgotten spinoffs of bitcoin. no damages there either.

this is all moot since it's pretty clear how the community feels about it......it's very unlikely to be attempted. therefore, get your popcorn ready for when QC breaks bitcoin signatures. then the satoshi coins will start moving again!

[BitcoinFX]

"...CRASHing..." ... Erm ...

- https://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/12/msg00218.html

" I thought of a new name today for digital cash: CRASH, taken from
CRypto cASH.  "How much crash have you got in your account?  Can we FTP
this GIF?"  "Not enough... Hey, can I borrow some crash?"  It has a nice
cyberpunk sound to it.  I don't know if we need a name for the units,
or if we could just get by without.

One of the lessons of the CP publicity is that having a sexy name is
a big plus.

(Apologies if I'm unknowingly regurgitating someone else's idea!)

Hal "

Always, way ahead ...  

[hv_]

What about legal implications with this?

there are none.

if it's implemented as a soft fork, miners are completely in accordance with the protocol. no rules are being broken. they would only be engaging in behavior the network deems valid.

if it's done as a hard fork, it's just an unrelated spinoff of free open source software. there are many such forgotten spinoffs of bitcoin. no damages there either.

this is all moot since it's pretty clear how the community feels about it......it's very unlikely to be attempted. therefore, get your popcorn ready for when QC breaks bitcoin signatures. then the satoshi coins will start moving again!

LoL - no clue ?

[figmentofmyass]

What about legal implications with this?

there are none.

LoL - no clue ?

only the BSV crowd is crazy enough to believe that FOSS and decentralized blockchains can be controlled by copyrights and tort lawsuits. FYI there's already a fork that steals the satoshi coins. what are you gonna do, sue the developers? for what?

[hv_]

What about legal implications with this?

there are none.

LoL - no clue ?

only the BSV crowd is crazy enough to believe that FOSS and decentralized blockchains can be controlled by copyrights and tort lawsuits. FYI there's already a fork that steals the satoshi coins. what are you gonna do, sue the developers? for what?

Central governance is not BitCoin, how long will such crap stay viable?

Devs (or any individuals) are really responsible for whatever they do in public. If someone does shit and robbery, suit cases are incoming mostly for sure. You would just stay silent i bet ...