Who can destroy Bitcoin?

[Abiky]

This makes sense. Satoshi couldn't possibly destroy something he had created so sophisticatedly and then destroy it himself. In fact, he created Bitcoin to counter the increasingly deteriorating fiat system at the time. With Bitcoin people can achieve financial freedom and it makes it easier to store assets to protect value.

Since Bitcoin inception, many have wanted to destroy it, but so far no one has succeeded. In fact, Bitcoin has continued to grow, and many want to adopt it. The wisdom of Bitcoin remaining anonymous to this day may be true, as you say. If Sotashi knew who he was his life would likely be in danger at any time. So, my conclusion is that no one can destroy Bitcoin because it has become a highly sought-after asset.

You're wrong about Bitcoin being anonymous. It's a misconception many had in the early days. Due to its transparent ledger, Bitcoin can be considered pseudonymous. We know that Satoshi has some BTC stashed by checking early public addresses. But what if he has more? Like in other addresses that were not previously disclosed? He might not be able to destroy Bitcoin, but he could crash market prices all the way to "rock bottom". Even if it's for a short-period of time.

Thanks to Bitcoin's open source and decentralized nature, the community has made sure it's resilient enough to withstand almost anything. Not even governments have been successful in taking it down. Hopefully, it stays that way forever.

[fuguebtc]

This makes sense. Satoshi couldn't possibly destroy something he had created so sophisticatedly and then destroy it himself. In fact, he created Bitcoin to counter the increasingly deteriorating fiat system at the time. With Bitcoin people can achieve financial freedom and it makes it easier to store assets to protect value.

Since Bitcoin inception, many have wanted to destroy it, but so far no one has succeeded. In fact, Bitcoin has continued to grow, and many want to adopt it. The wisdom of Bitcoin remaining anonymous to this day may be true, as you say. If Sotashi knew who he was his life would likely be in danger at any time. So, my conclusion is that no one can destroy Bitcoin because it has become a highly sought-after asset.

You're wrong about Bitcoin being anonymous. It's a misconception many had in the early days. Due to its transparent ledger, Bitcoin can be considered pseudonymous. We know that Satoshi has some BTC stashed by checking early public addresses. But what if he has more? Like in other addresses that were not previously disclosed? He might not be able to destroy Bitcoin, but he could crash market prices all the way to "rock bottom". Even if it's for a short-period of time.

Thanks to Bitcoin's open source and decentralized nature, the community has made sure it's resilient enough to withstand almost anything. Not even governments have been successful in taking it down. Hopefully, it stays that way forever.

Yes, bitcoin is not anonymous, it is pseudonymous.

Satoshi may own more bitcoin than we think. However, regardless of what percentage of the supply he owns, and even if he sells it all. This could cause panic in the market and push the market to rock bottom. But that also depends on the market liquidity at that time. If Wall Street poured hundreds of billions of dollars into buying Satoshi’s bitcoin, the market would even go up rather than fall.


Regarding whether Satoshi could destroy Bitcoin. If someone says he can do that, they really do not fully understand Bitcoin.

[Satofan44]

Almost twenty year Satoshi not any decision yet to destroy bitcoin exactly when bitcoin hitting new ATH price, I don't think the founder of bitcoin will destroy what they have build up and seeing the transaction bitcoin wallet from Satoshi keep inactive yet until right now. Now bitcoin hold by many people and not dominance by one person only its difficult to destroy bitcoin, learning how altcoin become scam by owning one person only with holding by developer more than 70% easily for developer to destroy altcoin but its can't happening for bitcoin have many holder right now and not dominance by single holder.

Read the previous posts of the thread before responding with nonsense. There is no proof that almost any wallet at all is or was owned by Satoshi, that is a hallucination from desperate humans that want to assign meaning and find patterns in randomness. Even if the Bitcoin from any of those wallets moves, that does not mean that Satoshi did anything. Furthermore, for the part relating to altcoins you are mixing up basic concepts -- holding a lot of the supply is not the same as holding control of the project in a non-POS environment. Both things are bad, but the centralized control is much worse and that is the issue with shitcoins besides supply concentration.

You're wrong about Bitcoin being anonymous. It's a misconception many had in the early days. Due to its transparent ledger, Bitcoin can be considered pseudonymous.

This thread is full of misconceptions and even you continued to spread some/

We know that Satoshi has some BTC stashed by checking early public addresses. But what if he has more? Like in other addresses that were not previously disclosed? He might not be able to destroy Bitcoin, but he could crash market prices all the way to "rock bottom". Even if it's for a short-period of time.

Unless an address is somehow tied to the genesis block, is an address posted by satoshi or otherwise verified to be his -- there is no proof about his "stash". "It had to be him" is not a valid argument or proof that some address is owned by Satoshi. Largely, about 99% of the coins that are estimated to be owned by Satoshi are not proven to be Satoshi's. It is a made up number by zealots that trust but do not verify, the exact opposite of what Bitcoin teaches.

Satoshi may own more bitcoin than we think.

He does not.

[Kryptonite788]

The only possible thing that can kill Bitcoin now is quantum computers, even Kevin o Larry said that this is why institutions won't risk more than 3% of their entire worth into Bitcoin, not until that phase is passed.

It seems the threat is real, at first I have always ruled it off but its now becoming more noticeable, the solution is likely a fork or an update.

Right now I don't see any other threat for bitcoin than this, and it will passed, gone are the early days where Bitcoin could still be stopped, now its too late.

I totally disagree with this statement and I believe the threat that quantum computers pose to bitcoin is highly exaggerated because bitcoin is heavily protected by SHA-256 hash function that is very strong and no design of quantum computers present in this generation can pose any permanent threat to bitcoin ,not to forget ,there have been several upgrades in bitcoin security protocols over the year since its inception and this has helped to strengthen it’s network and improve efficiency.

[Oluwa-btc]

I don't think Satoshi can completely destroy Bitcoin but it's possible that since he happens to be the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin,he may be capable of creating some temporary complications in its technical structure.Whereas,I strongly believe the idea that Satoshi can control or destroy Bitcoin is largely a myth,because the system was designed to operate and run independently.

[DanWalker]

I don't think Satoshi can completely destroy Bitcoin but it's possible that since he happens to be the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin,he may be capable of creating some temporary complications in its technical structure.Whereas,I strongly believe the idea that Satoshi can control or destroy Bitcoin is largely a myth,because the system was designed to operate and run independently.

No, he absolutely could not have caused any complications, even minor or temporary, to the technical structure of bitcoin. Because Bitcoin operate based on consensus. This mean that any changes to the network require the approval of a majority of participants in the ecosystem. Satoshi created Bitcoin, but his authority is the same as other developers in the ecosystem. He doesnt have any special privileges.

[Omj1014]

It’s interesting to see the focus on Satoshi’s stash as a potential kill switch. Even if a massive sell-off occurred, it wouldn't change the underlying protocol or the decentralized network of nodes. As one of the posters mentioned, market liquidity and institutional interest would likely absorb the shock eventually. Bitcoin's strength isn't in its price stability, but in its censorship resistance and the fact that no single entity even the creator can turn it off.

[henry_of_skalitz]

I don't think Satoshi can completely destroy Bitcoin but it's possible that since he happens to be the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin,he may be capable of creating some temporary complications in its technical structure.Whereas,I strongly believe the idea that Satoshi can control or destroy Bitcoin is largely a myth,because the system was designed to operate and run independently.

How he would imply these complications without the consensus of the rest of the network?

[free-bit.co.in]

It’s interesting to see the focus on Satoshi’s stash as a potential kill switch. Even if a massive sell-off occurred, it wouldn't change the underlying protocol or the decentralized network of nodes. As one of the posters mentioned, market liquidity and institutional interest would likely absorb the shock eventually. Bitcoin's strength isn't in its price stability, but in its censorship resistance and the fact that no single entity even the creator can turn it off.

The decentralized nature of Bitcoin lies in its network and protocol, and has nothing to do with the supply of Bitcoin. Therefore, if we want to destroy Bitcoin, we have to destroy the network and the protocol, not by dumping its price. But this is almost impossible because the network is globally distributed and with no off switch.

I was also quite surprised that people focused so much on Satoshi and the amount of bitcoin he held, and then suggested that he could harm bitcoin. By selling all of his Bitcoin or by assuming that his appearance would harm Bitcoin. If BTC could be easily harmed or destroyed by a single individual, it would not be called a decentralized asset.

[hd49728]

The decentralized nature of Bitcoin lies in its network and protocol, and has nothing to do with the supply of Bitcoin. Therefore, if we want to destroy Bitcoin, we have to destroy the network and the protocol, not by dumping its price. But this is almost impossible because the network is globally distributed and with no off switch.

Bitcoin blockchain has no circuit break like the stock market in the USA or smart contracts like altcoins to halt their blockchains. There is no 51% attack on Bitcoin blockchain so far and if people did not attack Bitcoin blockchain in the past with much smaller hashrate, now and in the future with higher hashrate and better adoption of Bitcoin, there will be less reasons to attack Bitcoin network 51%, and it's harder to succeed too.

I was also quite surprised that people focused so much on Satoshi and the amount of bitcoin he held, and then suggested that he could harm bitcoin. By selling all of his Bitcoin or by assuming that his appearance would harm Bitcoin. If BTC could be easily harmed or destroyed by a single individual, it would not be called a decentralized asset.

It's not people focus on these things but they notice to much on Bitcoin fuds and don't have enough knowledge and experience to realize that such news, reports, articles are created for fudding. When they have better knowledge, more experience, they will no longer be affected negatively and panic by such news.