4 ms·
Once speculation has been that since he's likely to own a significant fraction of the existing bitcoins, he and his family may be threatened/kidnapped/etc if hi
by hkmurakami 13y ago
Once speculation has been that since he's likely to own a significant fraction of the existing bitcoins, he and his family may be threatened/kidnapped/etc if his identity becomes public.
There are many "rich people" around the world but their wealth isn't usually found in an untraceable, liquid form
- jlgreco 13y agoBitcoin is not untraceable (far from it), but if I were him this would be my reason for staying anonymous. I would not trust my safety to other people not trusting mixers.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kevinpet 13y agoIt's untraceable until he starts using it. Not bitcoin in general, but Satoshi's stash specificially.
- jlgreco 13y agoUntraceable until the robber starts using it too. It is either useless to the robber, or traceable. If someone steals Satoshi's bitcoins and leaves him in a ditch (so that he can't tell people they were stolen), as soon as that somebody starts spending them other people are going to start looking for him (mistaking the thief for Satoshi, at least until they connect an identity to the coins.) However this does not afford you any protection from robbers that believe, mistakenly or otherwise, that they can clean the coins in a mixer.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoIt's worth noting that if speculation that they own 1million bitcoins is true, that's almost 5% of the total of 21million that will ever exist. That certainly seems like a good reason not to go public to me.