Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 That's why you should invest in Bitcoin and not in crypto 😉
•
11
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 No, that's not the reason why BTC is better. The reasons have already been explained to you in many other discussions, but since you don't pay any attention to them anyway, let alone accept opinions other than your own, it would be pointless to discuss them now.
••
1 million Bitcoin is currently around 80 billion euros. All well and good. These coins have never been moved. So either Satoshi was an idiot and messed up access to his coins or he was never interested in self-enrichment and may have lost access on purpose.
••
Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
@Madhatter5566 That seems to be your favorite pastry.
If Satoshi was planning to enrich himself, he screwed up because he lost access to his coins. He also revolutionized, or rather perfected, the concept of storing value for humanity. It went badly for him.
If he still has access, what is he waiting for? There is nothing that a person cannot buy with money. This raises the suspicion that enrichment is not what he had in mind with Bitcoin.
Whatever the motives and background, he has created a revolutionary store of value that is here to stay.
If Satoshi was planning to enrich himself, he screwed up because he lost access to his coins. He also revolutionized, or rather perfected, the concept of storing value for humanity. It went badly for him.
If he still has access, what is he waiting for? There is nothing that a person cannot buy with money. This raises the suspicion that enrichment is not what he had in mind with Bitcoin.
Whatever the motives and background, he has created a revolutionary store of value that is here to stay.
••
Money is a store of value. Bitcoin can therefore be both. You don't have to get hung up on that.
If he lost access without meaning to, he screwed up. Then nothing is enriched.
If he lost access without meaning to, he screwed up. Then nothing is enriched.
•
11
•Deleted User
1Yr
Comment was deleted
You don't have to be abusive.
Of course Satoshi Nakamoto is a billionaire, provided that he has access to the coins. However, the fact that he does not touch these coins, which came into his possession incidentally without premining (if he has access at all), shows that he had something other than enrichment in mind.
And it is also clear that those who recognize great potential first can also participate at lower costs from the outset and profit disproportionately. This is nothing new and not reprehensible. If this exercise option is not exercised, and he had more than enough opportunities to become filthy rich, then one can certainly assume higher goals and ideals.
Of course Satoshi Nakamoto is a billionaire, provided that he has access to the coins. However, the fact that he does not touch these coins, which came into his possession incidentally without premining (if he has access at all), shows that he had something other than enrichment in mind.
And it is also clear that those who recognize great potential first can also participate at lower costs from the outset and profit disproportionately. This is nothing new and not reprehensible. If this exercise option is not exercised, and he had more than enough opportunities to become filthy rich, then one can certainly assume higher goals and ideals.
••
But you don't have to continue being abusive.
Whether I found a listed company or initiate an innovation in the monetary system are two different things. Founding a company--> profit motive. Inventing an innovative store of value--> correcting errors in the system. Whether he might have gotten rich in the process?
I already said, let him be rich. There is nothing reprehensible about recognizing the potential of innovations, holding on to them and developing them further; many people inevitably become rich from this. That doesn't make the idea behind it any worse, as long as he has played fair at all times, which he has done thanks to Bitcoin's high level of transparency.
Whether I found a listed company or initiate an innovation in the monetary system are two different things. Founding a company--> profit motive. Inventing an innovative store of value--> correcting errors in the system. Whether he might have gotten rich in the process?
I already said, let him be rich. There is nothing reprehensible about recognizing the potential of innovations, holding on to them and developing them further; many people inevitably become rich from this. That doesn't make the idea behind it any worse, as long as he has played fair at all times, which he has done thanks to Bitcoin's high level of transparency.
••