Aren't Satoshi's coins a liability?

[Beliathon]

How do you convince mainstream adopters of that when they don't know anything about Satoshi?

I don't convince anyone of anything. I don't care what others do with their money, I know everyone will come to Bitcoin in their own time and on their own terms. They have no choice in the matter, it will only be a question of how much wealth they're willing to sacrifice before they ditch their rapidly depreciating fiat.

Anyway, how exactly are you defining "mainstream adopter"? Bitcoin will be mainstream when it is mainstream, and it will be marginal until that time. Or were you just using "mainstream" as code for "wealthy white people"?  



The US dollar (and all national fiat scrip) is backed by two things: deception and violence.

Neither is going to perform as well in the information age as it did in the industrial age, when it was much easier to control the flow of information.
Remove the foundation of violence & deception, and what do you think will happen to the currency?

[1713865268]

1713865268

[franky1]

satoshi does not have 1million coins.... ill make it bigger so people can read

satoshi does not have 1million coins

now then think logically..
in the first 4 years 10.5million coins were mined, we all know that.. so in the first 2 years (when satoshi was involved) 5.25 bitcoins were being mined.

are you highly opinionated people thinking that only 5 people were playing around with bitcoin between january 2009 and december 2010. to have an equal share of 1mill each.

you do realise that there were thousands of people by the time it got to december 2010 right..
by the way, there was a guy named 'sirius_m' that was coding and mining with satoshi right from the start, and a few idea's were passed around on the forums/irc/email with many others. such as
cdcker
madhatter
smoketoomuch
theymos
rix
suggester
rogerrabbit
newlibertystandard
gavin andresen
laszloh
witchspace


the list goes on, as i said there were many many people involved

so dont think for one second that satoshi had 1million coins all to himself. not unless you can prove it.

[Este Nuno]

satoshi does not have 1million coins.... ill make it bigger so people can read

satoshi does not have 1million coins

now then think logically..
in the first 4 years 10.5million coins were mined, we all know that.. so in the first 2 years (when satoshi was involved) 5.25 bitcoins were being mined.

are you highly opinionated people thinking that only 5 people were playing around with bitcoin between january 2009 and december 2010. to have an equal share of 1mill each.

you do realise that there were thousands of people by the time it got to december 2010 right..
by the way, there was a guy named 'sirius_m' that was coding and mining with satoshi right from the start, and a few idea's were passed around on the forums/irc/email with many others. such as
madhatter
smoketoomuch
theymos
rix
suggester
rogerrabbit
newlibertystandard
gavin andresen
laszloh
witchspace


the list goes on, as i said there were many many people involved

so dont think for one second that satoshi had 1million coins all to himself. not unless you can prove it.

It's been analysed man. Satoshi was by far the biggest miner on the network until mid 2010.

You're way off on this. Even if it's not a million or more it's going to be within a couple of hundred thousand.

[franky1]

It's been analysed man. Satoshi was by far the biggest miner on the network until mid 2010.

You're way off on this. Even if it's not a million or more it's going to be within a couple of hundred thousand.

agreed, couple hundred thousand at most but, you might want to look into sirius back in 2009.. when considering the "biggest miner"

[Este Nuno]

It's still almost certainly over 1,000,000 according to data researched by respected researcher and cryptographer Sergio Demian Lerner:

"Note that from the 1814400 BTC awarded, 1148800 BTC has never been spent (63%). I suppose (but have not checked it yet) that these are exactly the segments that belong to the mystery entity,"

http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

Now, sirius being the second person in to Bitcoin behind Hal and after Satoshi could have been the one to mine these 1148800  BTC. But based on the evidence of Satoshi bootstrapping the network himself, the chances of the miner being sirius seem be slim. And even if it was sirius, the original point still stands, albeit with the exchange of 'Martti Malmi' where 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was written.

The million BTC problem is real, and unless they get sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, they will always be a guillotine hanging over the Bitcoin market. Future investors, banks, regular people who find out about the original mined coins will have a hard time coming to grips with the risk that such a large amount could potentially be liquidated at anytime, wiping out a massive amount of the Bitcoin market cap and potentially creating a mass panic resulting in a cascade of holders liquidating their own holdings.

[wilth1]

what if the premining is actually a manipulation security feature and not a liability?

[Este Nuno]

It's been analysed man. Satoshi was by far the biggest miner on the network until mid 2010.

You're way off on this. Even if it's not a million or more it's going to be within a couple of hundred thousand.

agreed, couple hundred thousand at most but, you might want to look into sirius back in 2009.. when considering the "biggest miner"

Also, I didn't mean a couple hundred thousand coins at most. I meant 1,000,000 +- 200,000. But the evidence strongly suggests that my my initial conservative estimate is clearly wrong since a single actor clearly mined 1148800 BTC and it's sitting untouched.

[Este Nuno]

what if the premining is actually a manipulation security feature and not a liability?

To be fair, this wasn't premining. This was all done fairly after the genesis block.

It could very well be coins that will never move again in the history of Bitcoin, but with out any knowledge either way, how can one discount the risk? Or explain the risk to people who might not believe you that Satoshi Nakamoto was unique in the sense that he truly was a benevolent creator? Even if we all believe so, and I do believe that to be extremely likely personally, if Bitcoin is to become what some envision it to be, how does the world come to grips with the risk of the million?

[Elwar]

Every whale that drives the price down in the short term means that there are not large holders in the future.

Satoshi starts selling and it will be like the price going down over the past few weeks.

Then...it's all up from there.

[hypostatization]

I don't think it will happen. The holder dumps large number of bitcoin, which will cause the price fall dramatically and won't get benefit at all.

Jed McCaleb and his attack on the Ripple network invalidate this viewpoint. As a founder he (initially) had 9% of the 100,000,000,000 issued XRP, and publicly announced his intention to sell, while also (allegedly) having made private fire sale threats---all while planning for the launch of his rival network. XRP value was temporarily slaughtered, even before any major sell activity occurred. In the end, a deal was worked out and no full attack occurred, but it has led me to dismiss the notion outlined above.

Financial self-interest may be greatest off-network, the greatest motivations of any actor may not be financial, and we cannot assume rational actors.

Even if Satoshi has the best intentions, his wallets may at some point may be compromised (if that has not already occurred).

[furlong]

What liability? its just a shit ton of coins.

[Este Nuno]

Every whale that drives the price down in the short term means that there are not large holders in the future.

Satoshi starts selling and it will be like the price going down over the past few weeks.

Then...it's all up from there.

The earlier he starts selling the better. Much rather him start selling now than five years from now. I hope he sells some off, even if he doesn't believe in fiat, there's always precious metals, commodities, and stock that will likely maintain their value over the long run.

[BittBurger]

How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?

I have always viewed Satoshi holding such a large batch of funds, so that one day, if Bitcoin encounters a catastrophic event, those coins could be used to kickstart the economy again.  And I have a gut feeling that this is what Satoshi was thinking when he retained a chunk of the economy for safekeeping.   .... "If its needed one day".

-B-

[Oscilson]

The earlier he starts selling the better. Much rather him start selling now than five years from now. I hope he sells some off, even if he doesn't believe in fiat, there's always precious metals, commodities, and stock that will likely maintain their value over the long run.

That would clear overhang of the coin.

[toleng]

How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?

I have always viewed Satoshi holding such a large batch of funds, so that one day, if Bitcoin encounters a catastrophic event, those coins could be used to kickstart the economy again.  And I have a gut feeling that this is what Satoshi was thinking when he retained a chunk of the economy for safekeeping.   .... "If its needed one day".

-B-

I am not sure how his bitcoin could "kickstart" the bitcoin economy. If something were to hypothetically happen that would cause bitcoin to have little/no value then additional coins in circulation would only make things worse.

I think it would be very possible for satashi to sell his bitcoin in a controlled fashion so that him selling would result in massive price declines. If he were to announce that he will sell no more then 1,800 BTC per day (after the block subsidies half again) then the net effect would be that the same number of coins would be coming onto the market as before the subsidies halved

[johnyj]

How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?

Do you know how much money FED has printed and handed over to commercial banks to buy their MBS after financial crisis? 75% of total USD money supply.

And why didn't you see any significant inflation until now? Because those banks are very aware of the potential inflation those money might cause if they were put into circulation, so they saved all of those money back into FED and receive an interest and spend only those interest

Similarly, satoshi will also be aware of the consequence of his spending, and even if he dump all of his coins, the effect is limited

Another example is gold, world central banks hold more than 17% of the gold on the earth, but they will never dump those gold, that will push the gold price down dramatically

[Este Nuno]

How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?

Do you know how much money FED has printed and handed over to commercial banks to buy their MBS after financial crisis? 75% of total USD money supply.

And why didn't you see any significant inflation until now? Because those banks are very aware of the potential inflation those money might cause if they were put into circulation, so they saved all of those money back into FED and receive an interest and spend only those interest

Similarly, satoshi will also be aware of the consequence of his spending, and even if he dump all of his coins, the effect is limited

Another example is gold, world central banks hold more than 17% of the gold on the earth, but they will never dump those gold, that will push the gold price down dramatically

The funny thing about your example is that in this case(and it's a rare case that this will ever be true again), those world central banks are more 'decentralised'(and I use this term loosely and in the context of comparison only) than one anonymous individual. It's a good example that you posted though. But we also know that at least the intentions of a central bank are to provide stability.

Even though we may know that he'll act rationally. In a vacuum there's more risk of a single individual action irrationally than a group of individuals. Even if that group is a central bank. What we think we know, the world can not possibly know. Thus we'll eventually face some tough questions that will need to be answered.

[Melbustus]

I think they're a liability, but a tolerable one, all things considered.

I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.

[vipgelsi]

I would love to have that liability.   

[Este Nuno]

I think they're a liability, but a tolerable one, all things considered.

I find it unlikely that they'll ever be spent. It's clear from Satoshi's writings that his motivation was primarily intellectual/political/principled, and further, his decision, from the start, to remain anonymous indicates an understanding that bitcoin shouldn't be about its origin or any individual. Coming back to bitcoin, either by letting his identity be known, or by moving coins, would be damaging to the entire effort (not fatal, but damaging) since it would re-associate bitcoin with him in the present.

I agree with what you said, but I fear the world might disagree at some point and limit the potential of Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency in general though is likely here to stay(Bitcoin included of course!).