Silk Road forums
Discussion => Security => Topic started by: CHROOT on May 03, 2013, 09:25 am
-
Bitcoin technical analysis blogger Sergio Lerner has uncovered a million btc hoard from block chain 1 that has never been sold; an estimated $150 million fortune.
His detailed analysis concludes this one-million block of bitcoins belongs to founder Satoshi Nakamoto.
His evidence is detailed and he has several follow-up posts that go into even further detail.
(clearnet link)
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/#comment-811
-
Old news. It's been posted here a few times. Once by me. By the way, it's strong speculation. Whoever it is has been mining since the beginning yes, and hasn't moved any coins. Old news regardless.
-
Jesus, that article was written like two days ago. Bunch of ninjas in here I guess.
The press made such a big deal about that $11 million btc fortune from the Winkelvoss twins and someone is sitting on a fortune ten times that.
Either way it's not a good sign. Stocks that contain a heavy short interest are considered bullish because they have to cover at some point. Someone sitting on 10% of the entire bitcoin float means that at some point selling pressure could tamper any long-term rise in btc.
-
Jesus, that article was written like two days ago. Bunch of ninjas in here I guess.
The press made such a big deal about that $11 million btc fortune from the Winkelvoss twins and someone is sitting on a fortune ten times that.
Either way it's not a good sign. Stocks that contain a heavy short interest are considered bullish because they have to cover at some point. Someone sitting on 10% of the entire bitcoin float means that at some point selling pressure could tamper any long-term rise in btc.
17 days ago. I guess not that old generally speaking, but when you follow bitcoins like I do, anything older than a two weeks seems ancient. What can I say, I'm a bitcoin aficionado.
-
Either way it's not a good sign. Stocks that contain a heavy short interest are considered bullish because they have to cover at some point. Someone sitting on 10% of the entire bitcoin float means that at some point selling pressure could tamper any long-term rise in btc.
You have to understand a few things. Satoshi won't kill his own creation by dumping his coins, ever. He hasn't touched them for good reason. If he started moving coins it would cause MAJOR panic in the bitcoin scene and the price would start crashing. If people saw that the creator of bitcoin started moving or selling his coins then they would start to lose faith. They would ask, "if he belkieves in bitcoin so much then why is he selling them?" It would be bad. There is also speculation that he died or lost access to those coins due to something technical like a hard drive corrupting. No one really knows. Shit, we don't even know that's his coins. It could be any of the early adopters that started along side Satoshi.
Fear not, it isn't a bad thing. The Winklevoss twins owning over a million bitcoins is a much worse thing, and that has already happened for a fact.
-
You have to understand a few things. Satoshi won't kill his own creation by dumping his coins, ever. He hasn't touched them for good reason.
You have to understand a few things. People don't always make perfectly rational decisions. In fact, a hallmark trait of humans is their irrational nature.
Maybe he gets a $100,000 hospital bill from cancer, a messy divorce, lawsuit, criminal charges. Shit, there are literally millions of scenarios where people are forced to sell their savings despite obviously not wanting to.
-
You have to understand a few things. Satoshi won't kill his own creation by dumping his coins, ever. He hasn't touched them for good reason.
You have to understand a few things. People don't always make perfectly rational decisions. In fact, a hallmark trait of humans is their irrational nature.
Maybe he gets a $100,000 hospital bill from cancer, a messy divorce, lawsuit, criminal charges. Shit, there are literally millions of scenarios where people are forced to sell their savings despite obviously not wanting to.
At the current value, he would only have to sell a thousand coins to get 91 grand. Satoshi hasn't made a mistake yet. He didn't even make a single mistake in the code. He didn't maek a mistake in keeping his identity a secret. I have faith.
Winklevoss twins are another story. I don't have faith in them or their decisions.
DPR could have a huge stockpile of coins too. Pirateat40 has a huge stockpile. Satoshi isn't the only one with a suspected stockpile. We know for a fact the twins do and we know for a fact that pirateat40 did.
In the end, there is nothing we can do about it except discuss and speculate and that is what we are doing right here. :)
Now I'm going to pop your karma cherry, +1 :)
-
Satoshi hasn't made a mistake yet. He didn't even make a single mistake in the code.
In the April 2, 2013 article in The New Yorker titled "The Bitcoin Boom" columnist Maria Bustillos does an exhaustive summary of Satoshi and her conclusions echo what you have said. She mentions his incredible foresight and "unfailingly cool and collected" demeanor when he was posting on the bitcoin forums.
-
Satoshi won't kill his own creation by dumping his coins, ever. He hasn't touched them for good reason. If he started moving coins it would cause MAJOR panic in the bitcoin scene and the price would start crashing. If people saw that the creator of bitcoin started moving or selling his coins then they would start to lose faith. They would ask, "if he belkieves in bitcoin so much then why is he selling them?" It would be bad. There is also speculation that he died or lost access to those coins due to something technical like a hard drive corrupting. No one really knows. Shit, we don't even know that's his coins. It could be any of the early adopters that started along side Satoshi.
So what's your guess, are they Satoshi's?
What's your take on his disappearance since 2012?
-
So what's your guess, are they Satoshi's?
What's your take on his disappearance since 2012?
I couldn't begin to guess if they are his. They are most definitely one of the first adopters that worked with Satoshi. The real question is, does somebody still have access to those coins? They could have been on a hard drive that died, or the person could have died or many other possibilities.
He said why he left. He left because Wikileaks started accepting bitcoin donations. He said he didn't want that. He said it would be bad for bitcoin. He said if Wikileaks accepting bitcoins that he is leaving. Wikileaks started accepting bitcoins and he made his farewell.
-
those dam face book kids again ??? lol
-
The real question is, does somebody still have access to those coins? They could have been on a hard drive that died, or the person could have died or many other possibilities.
How much thought has the bitcoin community given this scenario? Does it seem likely? Is there any scattered evidence that might support this theory? That's an awful lot of coins to be forever locked in the system.
He said why he left. He left because Wikileaks started accepting bitcoin donations. He said he didn't want that. He said it would be bad for bitcoin. He said if Wikileaks accepting bitcoins that he is leaving. Wikileaks started accepting bitcoins and he made his farewell.
Wow, so wikileaks became persona non grata yet Silk Road gets a pass?
Odd that a man invents a crypto-currency and then abandons it because he doesn't like how it's being used. I wouldn't even put wikileaks on my top ten sites accepting bitcoin that would turn me off.
-
The real question is, does somebody still have access to those coins? They could have been on a hard drive that died, or the person could have died or many other possibilities.
How much thought has the bitcoin community given this scenario? Does it seem likely? Is there any scattered evidence that might support this theory? That's an awful lot of coins to be forever locked in the system.
Oh yes, I've seen it brought up a lot. It is also quite likely considering the circumstances. None of the coins have ever moved. Early adopters treated coins like they were less than pennies and many didn't implement proper security measures like backing them up various ways and places. They threw them around at each other willy nilly.
He said why he left. He left because Wikileaks started accepting bitcoin donations. He said he didn't want that. He said it would be bad for bitcoin. He said if Wikileaks accepting bitcoins that he is leaving. Wikileaks started accepting bitcoins and he made his farewell.
Wow, so wikileaks became persona non grata yet Silk Road gets a pass?
Odd that a man invents a crypto-currency and then abandons it because he doesn't like how it's being used. I wouldn't even put wikileaks on my top ten sites accepting bitcoin that would turn me off.
You have the dates wrong. He left before Silk Road was around. His final message was on December 12, 2010.
-
The only time anyone ever saw him get upset was in December 2010 when speaking about people soliciting bitcoin donations for WikiLeaks. That was shortly before he disappeared.
-
Would governments try to lock him up or assassinate him for creating bitcoin? I'm shore the bankers would have a crack at him. maybe being anonymous is the only way to survive. Bitcoin is still a baby and he knows this, this can be seen in the structure of bitcoin. Why would he sell his coins when he values them so much more than the market value.
Satoshi Nakamoto had a vision to change the world, $150million will not go far if you are trying to change the world. Imagine the entire world is using bitcoins day to day, now imagine the creator of this monetary freedom had 5% of the entire bitcoin economy. This person/group would be in a position to change the world.
-
The only time anyone ever saw him get upset was in December 2010 when speaking about people soliciting bitcoin donations for WikiLeaks. That was shortly before he disappeared.
You'd think these anti-government types who create stuff like this would relish donations to a site like Wikileaks. Never thought of him as towing the company line but it sure sounds like it.
He must be furious that his invention has essentially become (for the time anyway) a drug-backed currency. Que sera sera I guess.
-
The only time anyone ever saw him get upset was in December 2010 when speaking about people soliciting bitcoin donations for WikiLeaks. That was shortly before he disappeared.
You'd think these anti-government types who create stuff like this would relish donations to a site like Wikileaks. Never thought of him as towing the company line but it sure sounds like it.
He must be furious that his invention has essentially become (for the time anyway) a drug-backed currency. Que sera sera I guess.
It's not that he was against WikiLeaks at all. He said it wasn't ready for the governments attention or any big attention and he knew that's what it would get from WikiLeaks accepting bitcoin donations.
Bitcoins value was backed heavily by SR in 2011 but now it is backed by greed and speculation. SR no longer affects the market value of bitcoins.
-
The only time anyone ever saw him get upset was in December 2010 when speaking about people soliciting bitcoin donations for WikiLeaks. That was shortly before he disappeared.
You'd think these anti-government types who create stuff like this would relish donations to a site like Wikileaks. Never thought of him as towing the company line but it sure sounds like it.
He must be furious that his invention has essentially become (for the time anyway) a drug-backed currency. Que sera sera I guess.
It's not that he was against WikiLeaks at all. He said it wasn't ready for the governments attention or any big attention and he knew that's what it would get from WikiLeaks accepting bitcoin donations.
Bitcoins value was backed heavily by SR in 2011 but now it is backed by greed and speculation. SR no longer affects the market value of bitcoins.
Couldn't agree more. SR's effect on the price of BTC is almost non-existent.
-
this was a great thread to read. learned some interesting stuff.
think the 150million could have just been a testing machine to mine and then was discarded with no thought of the wallet :/ thats what im kind of leaning towards
-
Bitcoins value was backed heavily by SR in 2011 but now it is backed by greed and speculation. SR no longer affects the market value of bitcoins.
Couldn't agree more. SR's effect on the price of BTC is almost non-existent.
I wouldn't call it non-existent. Insignificant, yes. Carnegie Mellon researchers did a comprehensive analysis of Silk Road over 8 months in late 2011-2012, and estimated Silk Road sales to comprise roughly 5% of bitcoin trading. This was back when bitcoins were ~$15. Silk Road has grown immensely since then, but bitcoin has grown explosively. My guess is that Silk Road sales now account for less than 1% of bitcoin transactions.
Here is the Carnegie Mellon analysis, btw.
CLEARNET WARNING
http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2012/tr_cylab12018.html
-
Would governments try to lock him up or assassinate him for creating bitcoin? I'm shore the bankers would have a crack at him. maybe being anonymous is the only way to survive. Bitcoin is still a baby and he knows this, this can be seen in the structure of bitcoin. Why would he sell his coins when he values them so much more than the market value.
Satoshi Nakamoto had a vision to change the world, $150million will not go far if you are trying to change the world. Imagine the entire world is using bitcoins day to day, now imagine the creator of this monetary freedom had 5% of the entire bitcoin economy. This person/group would be in a position to change the world.
Japan, i.e. Satoshi Nakamoto, has changed the world. $150M+newly minded BTC = BTC market control.
Think about it more deeply, please.
BTC is primarily Yakuza territory: Drug Control. It has been the only underground market never to cause a stink like Italian, Irish, French, African (American), Asian criminal organizations. It seems to be the only pure marketplace left, even amidst CEO and banking conspiracies. Japan already went through their Housing Crisis in the 80s/90s. They are 30 years ahead of Americans and eons beyond Europe. Satoshi has enough economic influence over BTC to control the narcotic economy.
Predictions:
Mt. Gox will survive for more than century.
BTC will never fall behind the production costs (which have been immaculately designed), and can only increase beyond mining costs.... which is over $60 already. This is like African ivory: the less of a resource, the more precious it becomes. Malthus was half right: as a commodity disappears, it increases in market price. What else needs to be considered is that the more hostility and repression BTC faces, the more precious it becomes. Miners hold the key to its value... which simultaneously depends on technological advancements--Moore's Law.
Get the fuck with the program. Buy BTC. Hold it. And pay your respects to the most modest society on the planet.
Peace, love, and Thank Nippon.
-
The real question is, does somebody still have access to those coins? They could have been on a hard drive that died, or the person could have died or many other possibilities.
How much thought has the bitcoin community given this scenario? Does it seem likely? Is there any scattered evidence that might support this theory? That's an awful lot of coins to be forever locked in the system.
Oh yes, I've seen it brought up a lot. It is also quite likely considering the circumstances. None of the coins have ever moved. Early adopters treated coins like they were less than pennies and many didn't implement proper security measures like backing them up various ways and places. They threw them around at each other willy nilly.
I've been thinking about these missing coins lately. If Satoshi was active on the message boards up until 2012, how come something as big as this was never brought up by him? Surely he must have been asked numerous times about such a large cache of bitcoins from the genesis block that have never been moved. I mean, if the guy lost the password that controls ten percent of the entire bitcoin float, wouldn't he mention this at some point?
-
The real question is, does somebody still have access to those coins? They could have been on a hard drive that died, or the person could have died or many other possibilities.
How much thought has the bitcoin community given this scenario? Does it seem likely? Is there any scattered evidence that might support this theory? That's an awful lot of coins to be forever locked in the system.
Oh yes, I've seen it brought up a lot. It is also quite likely considering the circumstances. None of the coins have ever moved. Early adopters treated coins like they were less than pennies and many didn't implement proper security measures like backing them up various ways and places. They threw them around at each other willy nilly.
I've been thinking about these missing coins lately. If Satoshi was active on the message boards up until 2012, how come something as big as this was never brought up by him? Surely he must have been asked numerous times about such a large cache of bitcoins from the genesis block that have never been moved. I mean, if the guy lost the password that controls ten percent of the entire bitcoin float, wouldn't he mention this at some point?
I told you earlier in this thread and I'll tell you again, Satoshi left in December 2010.
-
I told you earlier in this thread and I'll tell you again, Satoshi left in December 2010.
His last communication was in April 2011, and prior to that he was an active member on the bitcoin forums up until the wikileaks issue. So, between 2008 bitcoin inception and his leaving the community in 2011 nobody ever asked him about a million missing bitcoins? He never mentioned it in all his posts?
-
I told you earlier in this thread and I'll tell you again, Satoshi left in December 2010.
His last communication was in April 2011, and prior to that he was an active member on the bitcoin forums up until the wikileaks issue. So, between 2008 bitcoin inception and his leaving the community in 2011 nobody ever asked him about a million missing bitcoins? He never mentioned it in all his posts?
Active where? His last post on bitcointalk was in December 2010 during the WikiLeaks shit with mastercard and paypal and crap when people were soliciting donations for them.
-
Does anyone understand Japanese culture?
Nippon is the epitome of the Three Musketeers: All for one, and One for All.
Their culture is very cohesive--probably one the most cohesive in modern society, a product of the feudalism and samurai culture... going all the way back the 1200s... and even a bit earlier.
Anyway, Satoshi probably has the largest single collection of BTC, which means he has the most influence over BTC fluctuations.
Would governments try to lock him up or assassinate him for creating bitcoin? I'm shore the bankers would have a crack at him. maybe being anonymous is the only way to survive. Bitcoin is still a baby and he knows this, this can be seen in the structure of bitcoin. Why would he sell his coins when he values them so much more than the market value.
Satoshi Nakamoto had a vision to change the world, $150million will not go far if you are trying to change the world. Imagine the entire world is using bitcoins day to day, now imagine the creator of this monetary freedom had 5% of the entire bitcoin economy. This person/group would be in a position to change the world.
Banks don't have a problem with BTC or Satoshi. How many people have learned how to use/access BTC? <10% of the world, probably. Do you know why people use banks? Mostly because they don't have the means or the confidence to protect their own money. Also, they do so because of modern accounting and services; it is backed by FDIC in the States. Furthermore, even if 90% of the global markets relied on BTC, all that means is that banks will begin offering services for BTC, which essentially removes any cryptocurrency protection BTC truly offers.
People will ALWAYS get scammed, identity stolen, bank accounts stolen, etc., etc. Just because there is a currency that performs with more integrity and reliability than any bank will ever offer does not mean that banks will be threatened. Even people who use BTC have been scammed, so when there is a human element, there is a security flaw....
Banks, corporations, and governments have to deal with the existence of BTC, but that in no way implies that this trinity of human corruption will ever be separated from controlling and managing the resources of the masses.
In other words, BTC is best suited for intelligent, tech savvy individuals who are able to learn and adapt to the dynamic landscape of financial turmoil. Banks, corporations, and governments are for everyone else.
-
In other words, BTC is best suited for intelligent, tech savvy individuals who are able to learn and adapt to the dynamic landscape of financial turmoil. Banks, corporations, and governments are for everyone else.
lol bitcoins are for smart people. Banks, corporations and governments are for dumb people.
Reminds me of a dumb man that I know. I told him about bitcoins last year and he still says "fuck bitcoins, I would never put my money into something like that, I want to buy GOLD! GOLD is where it's AT! Oh man I want to get some GOLD! That's how you make money is you buy GOLD!" :o I try to tell him that gold is more of a way of storing wealth for generations and not a short term investment. I also tried to tell him that bitcoins will go up more over time. Earlier this month I saw him out and he said "how are those bitcoins doing? I said they went down in value some, and he cut me off and laughed and said "I know I saw it on the news, I told you it was a scam!" Even though I told him about bitcoins before they were 10 dollars... :o He lives up the street from me and we smoke together sometimes and he will mention government or politics and then when I say something he zones out and doesn't pick up any of the information. He thinks the fighting in Syria just started because he just saw it on the news... He says he gets all his information from the news... ::)