7 ms·

The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it? I get that you

by orra 3y ago

The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it? I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.

lisper 3y ago
If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.
- orra 3y ago
  Plausible, but I would have thought if it's gradual, there would be a recovery. But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?
  - dewey 3y ago
    Wouldn't every known early address be monitored quite heavily? The amount wouldn't matter as much as the fact that _something_ moved and being proof that someone still has access to the keys.
- drawkbox 3y ago
  Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin. Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties. Satoshi owns 5% of bitcoin. Other crypto coins are more concentrated and more problematic. This isn't like a large institutional investor in a public stock, this is a large percentage of all currency. The rug pull was set from the beginning.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin. Based on what? The search space is large enough that if you used the smallest amount of energy possible to check keys, all the energy in the known universe would still give you an astronomically small chance of success.
    - drawkbox 3y ago
      Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system. Easiest way is finding/stealing the keys but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure". There may even be ways to target earlier keys easier than later. It could take decades but it will happen. Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? 40-bit SSL certificates, Triple-DES encryption and MD5 + SHA-1 hashing would like a word. AES-256 could outlast the universe but that is based on our current knowledge, and sometimes encryption systems have doors, not only in the algorithm but the tooling that does the encrypting... the creators of bitcoin tools they used for keys may also be a weak link or even had doors they put in themselves as a failsafe, humans tend to do that due to game theory. Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far. Even if that holds, the chance that someone finds the keys or tracks them down, might be faster and most likely will happen as time goes on. The point being mainly that too much concentration in any financial system is a time bomb.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system This doesn't make sense. I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key. but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure". This is not true. You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past. Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? I don't think you understand what it means to need an entire universe of energy with the smallest unit of energy for computation and still have an astronomically small chance or brute forcing the keys. The fact that some of the first algorithms used for unrelated purposes were weak has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your logic is basically "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak." Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. The encryption and decryption speed is not a factor here. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far. This is completely wrong. You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever. This is like someone saying 'we moved on from 32 bits of RAM addresses so we will eventually move off of 64 bit and 128 bit to 256 bits'. Orders of magnitude don't work that way. 32 bits gives you 4 gigabytes, 64 bits gives you 18 exabytes and 128 bits is enough to give an address to every bit of data ever created. Your comment seems more like someone reading headlines and news articles instead of actually understanding what they are claiming.
- chollida1 3y ago
  This gets thrown around alot but I disagree. Mark Zuckerberg sells Meta shares, Bezoes sells Amazon shares, Gates sold a large portion of Microsoft. The BTC market is big enough to support satoshi selling his coins. Hell the ETF market alone could absorb all his coins. I have yet to see anyone show how satoshi selling a single coin would crash the market. He has about 2 days worth of liquidity in a relatively mature market. That's not much volume at all.
  - duped 3y ago
    Those guys you mention have to announce months/years ahead of time how much they intend to sell and when to avoid moving the market.
- jandrese 3y ago
  This is silly. It is like saying nobody would invest in Amazon if Jeff Bezos sold even one share of his stock. Nonsense.
  - sowbug 3y ago
    The prevailing belief is that the coins that Satoshi mined are impossible to transfer because Satoshi either never had the private keys, discarded them, or is dead without disclosing them to anyone. A transfer of any amount would invalidate that belief. That's quite unlike a large shareholder of a company who could sell shares but chooses not to, and whose assets would be passed to someone else upon death.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      But the immediate assumption is that he would want to burn the whole thing to the ground if he moved a single mBTC? Where does that come from?
- ssd532 3y ago
  Satoshi has not moved any BTC is one of the reasons it is considered as commodity. There is no owner of this thing. If he/she moves the BTC it means the creator has every intent to spend it and thus owns a large portion of it.
olalonde 3y ago
That's why many people he is either dead, in prison, or has lost his private keys.
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  Lost in a boating accident, such a shame...
ProllyInfamous 3y ago
The Satoshi-mining entity (from early days) has approximately one million bitcoin, verifiable on blockchain explorers of all kinds. There are multiple monitors (human and programmed) awaiting even a single Satoshi transaction from these addresses [1 "satoshi" == 1E-8 BTC]
tim333 3y ago
Maybe he has spent some of the money. There are a bunch of bitcoin considered Satoshi's that have never moved but who's to say he didn't mine some more on the side under another account? He seems a smart guy after all and that would be kind of an obvious thing to do. I'm wondering if as the guy gets old if he'll set up a charitable foundation with the main lot.

by orra 3y ago

lisper 3y ago

If Satoshi cashed out even a single satoshi the market would crash because now the odds of him cashing out the rest will have just risen dramatically.

orra 3y ago
Plausible, but I would have thought if it's gradual, there would be a recovery. But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?
- dewey 3y ago
  Wouldn't every known early address be monitored quite heavily? The amount wouldn't matter as much as the fact that _something_ moved and being proof that someone still has access to the keys.
drawkbox 3y ago
Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin. Bitcoin, and other crypto in general even more with higher concentration of early owners, will always be precarious because of this concentration. Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties. Satoshi owns 5% of bitcoin. Other crypto coins are more concentrated and more problematic. This isn't like a large institutional investor in a public stock, this is a large percentage of all currency. The rug pull was set from the beginning.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin. Based on what? The search space is large enough that if you used the smallest amount of energy possible to check keys, all the energy in the known universe would still give you an astronomically small chance of success.
  - drawkbox 3y ago
    Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system. Easiest way is finding/stealing the keys but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure". There may even be ways to target earlier keys easier than later. It could take decades but it will happen. Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? 40-bit SSL certificates, Triple-DES encryption and MD5 + SHA-1 hashing would like a word. AES-256 could outlast the universe but that is based on our current knowledge, and sometimes encryption systems have doors, not only in the algorithm but the tooling that does the encrypting... the creators of bitcoin tools they used for keys may also be a weak link or even had doors they put in themselves as a failsafe, humans tend to do that due to game theory. Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far. Even if that holds, the chance that someone finds the keys or tracks them down, might be faster and most likely will happen as time goes on. The point being mainly that too much concentration in any financial system is a time bomb.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      Breaking the private keys to the concentrated wallet(s) targeted not the entire system This doesn't make sense. I was talking about what it takes to brute force a single key. but eventually over time compute does break encryption and keys made with those algos are no longer "secure". This is not true. You are misunderstanding the orders of magnitude differences in modern encryption from some weak schemes of the past. Are you suggesting as processing/compute increases, encryption doesn't get weaker from previous algorithms? I don't think you understand what it means to need an entire universe of energy with the smallest unit of energy for computation and still have an astronomically small chance or brute forcing the keys. The fact that some of the first algorithms used for unrelated purposes were weak has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your logic is basically "some encryption from 40 years ago was weak, therefore all encryption is weak." Encryption is a balance of compute/processing for encryption and decryption, too intense and the system is computationally too heavy. The encryption and decryption speed is not a factor here. So with that, over time all encryption will be able to be broken at some point following, as history has show so far. This is completely wrong. You are extrapolating off of something isn't a pattern in the first place. No one thought triple DES would last forever. This is like someone saying 'we moved on from 32 bits of RAM addresses so we will eventually move off of 64 bit and 128 bit to 256 bits'. Orders of magnitude don't work that way. 32 bits gives you 4 gigabytes, 64 bits gives you 18 exabytes and 128 bits is enough to give an address to every bit of data ever created. Your comment seems more like someone reading headlines and news articles instead of actually understanding what they are claiming.
chollida1 3y ago
This gets thrown around alot but I disagree. Mark Zuckerberg sells Meta shares, Bezoes sells Amazon shares, Gates sold a large portion of Microsoft. The BTC market is big enough to support satoshi selling his coins. Hell the ETF market alone could absorb all his coins. I have yet to see anyone show how satoshi selling a single coin would crash the market. He has about 2 days worth of liquidity in a relatively mature market. That's not much volume at all.
- duped 3y ago
  Those guys you mention have to announce months/years ahead of time how much they intend to sell and when to avoid moving the market.
jandrese 3y ago
This is silly. It is like saying nobody would invest in Amazon if Jeff Bezos sold even one share of his stock. Nonsense.
- sowbug 3y ago
  The prevailing belief is that the coins that Satoshi mined are impossible to transfer because Satoshi either never had the private keys, discarded them, or is dead without disclosing them to anyone. A transfer of any amount would invalidate that belief. That's quite unlike a large shareholder of a company who could sell shares but chooses not to, and whose assets would be passed to someone else upon death.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    But the immediate assumption is that he would want to burn the whole thing to the ground if he moved a single mBTC? Where does that come from?
ssd532 3y ago
Satoshi has not moved any BTC is one of the reasons it is considered as commodity. There is no owner of this thing. If he/she moves the BTC it means the creator has every intent to spend it and thus owns a large portion of it.

olalonde 3y ago

That's why many people he is either dead, in prison, or has lost his private keys.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago
Lost in a boating accident, such a shame...

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

The Satoshi-mining entity (from early days) has approximately one million bitcoin, verifiable on blockchain explorers of all kinds. There are multiple monitors (human and programmed) awaiting even a single Satoshi transaction from these addresses [1 "satoshi" == 1E-8 BTC]

tim333 3y ago

Maybe he has spent some of the money. There are a bunch of bitcoin considered Satoshi's that have never moved but who's to say he didn't mine some more on the side under another account? He seems a smart guy after all and that would be kind of an obvious thing to do. I'm wondering if as the guy gets old if he'll set up a charitable foundation with the main lot.