There is a night/day difference between buying 10% and selling 10% of bitcoin. To sell, means the price would crash. To buy, means the price would shoot up. I am not sure how high the price would go up if somebody tried to buy 10%, even if somebody could, but it would be well over 100,000 USD per coin.
My point was: Once a person has finished buying 10% of all bitcoins, they'd be in the same position as satoshi is now. The attack by a dollar-Billionaire would involve buying today and crashing at some indeterminant future date.
If we're worried about satoshi for his savings, we should also be worried about the potential Hunt Brothers of Bitcoin; wealthy individuals that are considering an attempt to corner the bitcoin market anonymously. I don't see how satoshi could possibly have designed Bitcoin to prevent this scenario without sacrificing a lot of what makes Bitcoin great.
Also, we know Bill Gates and we know Warren Buffet. We know their history, we know their motives, and we can understand their mind and fairly accurately predict what they might do. Even if they tried to buy 1%, and I think it would be a huge deal, it would be well documented, and would be possible, but wouldn't go unnoticed. The Winklevii actually do own 1% and it cost them a lot and that was when bitcoin was a joke to the world and was dirt cheap. But it is okay that Winklevii own it, because we know very well who they are. And it would be okay if Buffet or Gates bought because we know them and can understand them.
We don't know Satoshi. We don't know his/her/they real long term plan. We don't know for sure why bitcoin was created. It would be very easy for Satoshi to cash out.
This is a fair point. The better we understand the intentions of the larger holders, the less risk there is to holding Bitcoin. In this sense, knowing who Satoshi is and what he intends to do would be beneficial. However, any cryptocurrency which indirectly
required all large holders to be well-studied public figures would be inferior to Bitcoin on a far more fundamental level.
Note: I'm not accusing you of such a claim. My primary criticism of jabo38's post was in the summary:
...he knows that him having 10% is a big problem. So why would a guy create a perfect money and then also have a flaw created in it.
I certainly agree that satoshi not having all this power would reduce risk for bitcoin holders. However, this is very much not a flaw in the
creation of Bitcoin. Indeed, the freedom to privately acquire and hold 10% of all bitcoins is a design feature*!
*At least: a simple and natural consequence of intentional design features.