- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Todd’s urgent dismissal of the documentary reads to Hoback like an attempt to throw Satoshi-hunters off the scent. “It doesn’t surprise me at all that Peter would go on the offense. He’s a master of game theory—it’s what he does. He has spent a lot of years now muddying the waters,” says Hoback. “He’s an unbelievable genius.”
I haven’t seen the docu, but I did like his (Hoback’s) docu about Qanon, Q: Into the Storm.
There is an easier way, just sign something with Satoshi’s private key and no one will have a doubt that you are Satoshi. No need for all this ridiculous drama.
Technically that’s the same thing. Both are signatures with a private key.
Agreed, except that moving coins costs money while signing something with the private key doesn’t.
Both actions would cost billions more than any amount they would move or a signed transaction.
The price would crash knowing those coins were back in play.
It’d be a huge influx of potential coins considered to be lost.
That’s not accurate. Any serious investor would assume the coins still exist and could be moved. Selling the coins would roil the markets but that’s no different than if someone with a majority stake in a stock (eg DJT) were to dump their shares.
Any serious investor would be estimating how many other people are not serious investors, and understand that those unserious people would swing the price.
There’s no value to bitcoin except people’s expectations.
You’re not wrong but in general prices are moved by market makers who are trading large quantities. I can imagine assuming that the guy who invented bitcoin and went to such lengths to conceal his identity would not have access to his coins.