5 ms·

The space has moved past this risk for a lot of reasons, to start. And it’s hard to understand I think in light of modern (relative to pre-2018/19) widespread m

The space has moved past this risk for a lot of reasons, to start. And it’s hard to understand I think in light of modern (relative to pre-2018/19) widespread mainstream adoption. But, a long term protection for BTC when it was smaller and tbh anyone’s guess how it would turn out (still is IMO), was: who are you going to haul into senate hearings, court, cryptography export control violations, whatever over BTC? This happened ample times in the recent past before BTC with digital money attempts and cryptography projects. It’s happening now with mixers on btc and ethereum. It was a real risk to BTC in its own way. With BTC then and now, there was no real leader though. There were important core devs and industry leads, but no one held true sway like, say, Vitalik did with eth early days. So it wasn’t so much a firm “did something wrong” risk for BTC’s founder, but more of a concern that the US govt had taken very heavyhanded measures against many similar projects to BTC. As there was no one to target in BTC’s case, this protection played a large role in its early push into staying power. Also going to color this with CIA had the lead dev at the time visit them to discuss it in 2011. So there was certainly some real sustained attention to it from the start.

fenalphthalein 3y ago
Sounds like this person was really smart to begin with. High-level societal awareness caused them to choose the private route, and focus on releasing something for the greater good. I wouldn't be surprised if this person never even took a single bitcoin for themselves, other than the ones used for code testing purposes. That would create another avenue for people to come after them if it became public that they hoarded some of the Bitcoin for themselves.
- reactordev 3y ago
  This. Maybe, Satoshi saw where it was going, knew it had wings, didn’t want to be the elephant’s plaything in some senate hearing, and bowed out. Sometimes people make things because it’s the right thing to do. Other times people make things because they are experimenting and seeing what sticks. This was a case of both. The right idea, at the right time, without hubris, and without someone to blame or throw in court if the experiment fails.
  - notso411 3y ago
    [dead]
- radlad 3y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised if this person never even took a single bitcoin for themselves, other than the ones used for code testing purposes. Unlikely - https://coincodex.com/article/28459/satoshi-nakamoto-wallet-address/ https://coincodex.com/article/28459/satoshi-nakamoto-wallet-...
  - jjmarr 3y ago
    The value of his publicly-known wallets are well into the tens of billions. Yet Nakamoto has not cashed out.
    - arein3 3y ago
      Maybe he will cash out in the future if his cryosleep awakening will be successful Allegedly this guy is nakamoto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scienti...
- tromp 3y ago
  Satoshi could have chosen a 0 BTC subsidy in the blocks he mined. Or he could have burned all the BTC he mined. But he chose to do neither, leaving himself as the biggest BTC owner ever. Other coins have been designed in a way where the founders can only obtain coins by mining them in very small quantities or buying them on the open market (mostly by fixing the block subsidy forever).
  - dogman144 3y ago
    I mean that “other coins design” part is looking at this aspect from the 2024 perspective of many blockchains many designs existing. In 2009, calling Bitcoin the only blockchain in town doesn’t even do service to its extreme novelty at the time. There were no other ideas on how to design, let alone any ideas on what would work long term, and there were no “open markets” for crypto haha.
  - bitcoin_anon 3y ago
    Or he deleted the keys. Also can you choose a smaller subsidy? Wouldn’t that be an invalid block?
    - tromp 3y ago
      Yes, the coinbase can be any value from 0 to the maximum, which is subsidy + fees. It has been below the maximum several times in fact.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
When in 2011 ? You seem to mean that it was unknown by then, but it wasn't : 2011 was pretty much the year when it blew up into the public consciousness, spreading from the likes of Slashdot and Ars Technica into more generalist publications (also causing its first - or was that 2nd? - bubble popping) : "The Crypto-Currency" - The New Yorker (2011) https://archive.is/wsbcQ https://archive.is/wsbcQ (I love how I picked it randomly, and the first two subtitles are "Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor." and "It’s not clear if bitcoin is legal, but there is no company in control and no one to arrest.")
- dogman144 3y ago
  I know what you’re getting at but I disagree with the analysis and I’ll try to frame what I mean, which is somewhat the opposite. I mean the ‘11 visit is indicative of serious attention paid to by serious people very early on relative to the rest of crypto’s history. As in, the founder was right to be cautious. “Early on” in this case means that outside of tech pubs and curiosity pieces due to the compelling founder mystery, the space was treated as a joke by and large. Like watch Banking on Bitcoin, and imagine trying to convince critics of it at that time that ETFs, crypto aide to Ukraine, 3x nation state adoptions, custody teams at big banks, and so on were all coming. I would just completely disagree if you argued this wasn’t the theme then. So yes, 2011 and intel agency interest is quite early on. For example, it’s taken 15 years to get tangible regulatory clarity which arguably just starting finally with the ETF.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  this is like winning lotto ticket but not cashing it . anyone in theory could have read the article or related ones and bought some, but you would needed to hold

fenalphthalein 3y ago

Sounds like this person was really smart to begin with. High-level societal awareness caused them to choose the private route, and focus on releasing something for the greater good. I wouldn't be surprised if this person never even took a single bitcoin for themselves, other than the ones used for code testing purposes. That would create another avenue for people to come after them if it became public that they hoarded some of the Bitcoin for themselves.

reactordev 3y ago
This. Maybe, Satoshi saw where it was going, knew it had wings, didn’t want to be the elephant’s plaything in some senate hearing, and bowed out. Sometimes people make things because it’s the right thing to do. Other times people make things because they are experimenting and seeing what sticks. This was a case of both. The right idea, at the right time, without hubris, and without someone to blame or throw in court if the experiment fails.
- notso411 3y ago
  [dead]
radlad 3y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if this person never even took a single bitcoin for themselves, other than the ones used for code testing purposes. Unlikely - https://coincodex.com/article/28459/satoshi-nakamoto-wallet-address/ https://coincodex.com/article/28459/satoshi-nakamoto-wallet-...
- jjmarr 3y ago
  The value of his publicly-known wallets are well into the tens of billions. Yet Nakamoto has not cashed out.
  - arein3 3y ago
    Maybe he will cash out in the future if his cryosleep awakening will be successful Allegedly this guy is nakamoto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scienti...
tromp 3y ago
Satoshi could have chosen a 0 BTC subsidy in the blocks he mined. Or he could have burned all the BTC he mined. But he chose to do neither, leaving himself as the biggest BTC owner ever. Other coins have been designed in a way where the founders can only obtain coins by mining them in very small quantities or buying them on the open market (mostly by fixing the block subsidy forever).
- dogman144 3y ago
  I mean that “other coins design” part is looking at this aspect from the 2024 perspective of many blockchains many designs existing. In 2009, calling Bitcoin the only blockchain in town doesn’t even do service to its extreme novelty at the time. There were no other ideas on how to design, let alone any ideas on what would work long term, and there were no “open markets” for crypto haha.
- bitcoin_anon 3y ago
  Or he deleted the keys. Also can you choose a smaller subsidy? Wouldn’t that be an invalid block?
  - tromp 3y ago
    Yes, the coinbase can be any value from 0 to the maximum, which is subsidy + fees. It has been below the maximum several times in fact.

BlueTemplar 3y ago

When in 2011 ? You seem to mean that it was unknown by then, but it wasn't : 2011 was pretty much the year when it blew up into the public consciousness, spreading from the likes of Slashdot and Ars Technica into more generalist publications (also causing its first - or was that 2nd? - bubble popping) : "The Crypto-Currency" - The New Yorker (2011) https://archive.is/wsbcQ https://archive.is/wsbcQ (I love how I picked it randomly, and the first two subtitles are "Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor." and "It’s not clear if bitcoin is legal, but there is no company in control and no one to arrest.")

dogman144 3y ago
I know what you’re getting at but I disagree with the analysis and I’ll try to frame what I mean, which is somewhat the opposite. I mean the ‘11 visit is indicative of serious attention paid to by serious people very early on relative to the rest of crypto’s history. As in, the founder was right to be cautious. “Early on” in this case means that outside of tech pubs and curiosity pieces due to the compelling founder mystery, the space was treated as a joke by and large. Like watch Banking on Bitcoin, and imagine trying to convince critics of it at that time that ETFs, crypto aide to Ukraine, 3x nation state adoptions, custody teams at big banks, and so on were all coming. I would just completely disagree if you argued this wasn’t the theme then. So yes, 2011 and intel agency interest is quite early on. For example, it’s taken 15 years to get tangible regulatory clarity which arguably just starting finally with the ETF.
paulpauper 3y ago
this is like winning lotto ticket but not cashing it . anyone in theory could have read the article or related ones and bought some, but you would needed to hold