Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Thorrez's commentslogin

In one of the pictures, the laptop is on his tray, and the wii is on the tray of the seat next to him, and that seat looks empty. So the wii got its own airplane seat?

Satoshi cannot spend his fortune. If he did, it would be visible on the blockchain and bitcoin's price would collapse.

their wealth is not in a single wallet, but rather in 20k wallets. So instead transferring bitcoin, they could just hand out access those wallets.

That’s not how you use that kind of wealth. You take loans with the fortune as collateral… come on that’s pretty basic stuff

>why would you do that if you were rich?

Satoshi can't spend any of his bitcoins without tanking bitcoin's price. So Satoshi needs to find some other way to support himself. Creating bitcoin related companies is one way.


Nobody knows which coins Satoshi owns, it's just a guess for the very early coins and that guess gets progressively less accurate as time goes by. And this was a long time ago. There was no particular reason to think back then that Satoshi spending his coins would tank the price. Everyone back then was spending Bitcoins because that was the only way to build the economy. The idea that if his coins move everyone would panic is a post-2015 idea when Blockstream killed Bitcoin as a genuine means of exchange and it became all about sitting on them as a speculative "investment".

But if he did want to spend he could just start from his last coins backwards.


This [1][2][3] seems to have a methodology for identifying Satoshi's coins, mined from 2009 to May 2010. But yes, for coins mined after May 2010, he likely can spend without scrutiny.

>The idea that if his coins move everyone would panic is a post-2015 idea

Here are 2 people in 2013 expressing that idea: [4][5].

[1] https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-...

[2] https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/more-on-block-mining-history-...

[3] https://bitslog.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accu...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5569077

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5569346


There's ambiguity here. When people talk about crashing the market they mean if he attempted to sell every last coin he owns for dollars all at once. Of course that would be a signal of lost confidence. What I mean is the more likely scenario of spending coins to achieve some specific goal or project.

He could tank the price to $1000 and still be a billionaire. There's a much more plausible reason for why Satoshi's coins haven't moved.

It would also seem likely that if he at any point was alive and realised he wouldn't be able to touch his original wallets, he'd still get in early enough to be rich from subsequently crested wallets nobody would suspect.

You find it likely that someone would give up their ~$70B fortune just in case it may reveal they are the creator of Bitcoin?

I find it likely that someone who realised that if they were to touch that paper fortune the Bitcoin price will totally crater would have made additional billions they could actually access by mining more bitcoin at a point where the difficulty was still ridiculously low.

The value of the bitcoins in those early wallets isn't real, because they are the most watched bitcoin wallets in existence, and any movement there would send shockwaves through the crypto space.


From a financial standpoint, this makes no sense.

First, they could just liquidate all their other BTC before moving the Satoshi coins.

Second, even with a significant price impact, the net worth of an additional 1M BTC would surely outweigh any realistic price slippage.

Third, the price probably wouldn't even crash that much. We're talking about a 5% increase in supply... which rationally, should result in a ~5% dip in price. I know the market would overreact, but I doubt it would be by much more than say 20%.


This 5% increase is actually huge, because the amount of bitcoins in actual free float is very small. The same coins get traded over and over while the vast majority sits in cold storage. A 5% supply sell off would eat up all of the order books, and that's before everyone else starts selling off.

Do note that the selloff would be automatic, huge wallets are monitored 24/7.

If I was Satoshi, I would go a to big bank and sell the private key directly for huge discount. Still a billionaire, no trace.


Who would realistically not want to cash out?

1. Someone so purely interested in the tech and not money they'd give up the wealth 2. Governments, specifically the ones that don't consider a few billion to be a lot 3. Someone who's dead


4. Someone who wants to keep all their fingers, and not meet some kind of horrifying death.

What's the much more plausible reason?

He lost access to the wallet either by mistake (never even saved the key) or because he willingly destroyed the key for philosophical reasons. Or he is just dead.

That the person is dead would be a pretty convincing one.

Or they just lost access.


Yep. Dead, lost access or in prison. I'm leaning towards dead.

Bottle rockets I assume. I had a lot of fun with them as a kid. Thankfully no one involved with those got hurt.

https://www.nhpyro.com/black-cat-bottle-rockets.html



> single-use plastic that is involved in biological research

The samples were not contaminated by plastic in the gloves. Latex gloves don't contain plastic, they're made from natural rubber. Nitrile gloves also don't contain plastic, although they're very similar to plastic.

The contamination that this study found wasn't microplastic contamination. The gloves weren't adding microplastics. The gloves were adding stearates, which aren't plastic, but look like microplastic in many of the methods for measuring microplastics.


>So, seems you have a choice, higher energy bills or higher indoors C02.

An HRV or ERV can help with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation


For CVE-2026-0755, that's a vulnerability in gemini-mcp-tool. gemini-mcp-tool's Github repo says "This is an unofficial, third-party tool and is not affiliated with, endorsed, or sponsored by Google." but this list shows the Google logo next to the vulnerability.

Also, it's not entirely obvious to me that the vulnerability was introduced by vibe coding.

https://github.com/jamubc/gemini-mcp-tool

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.


The first link claims the 6-hour outage wiped 99% of order volume. I went to the "source" and found an (AI generated?) ad by a company that wants to sell a product, where I cannot find the 99% number.

This whole website and everything around it are almost ironic.


This site, especially if you look at all the previous posts from this domain, is almost assuredly AI generated.

One of the "fun" hallmarks of many of these LLM assisted websites is that they seem to completely disregard basic accessibility (especially Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [1]). That small dark gray subtext on a black background is just horrific.

[1] - https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker


Yea, I was about to comment the same thing. I have noticed a lot of people weaponizing people's hatred of AI/slop and using rage baiting to drive views. No doubt someone would have looked at that entry of "Amazon lost 6M orders due to slop!" at face value and come away thinking it was true.

>Also, it's not entirely obvious to me that the vulnerability was introduced by vibe coding.

IDK why people act as if vibe coding invented software bugs that lead to vulnerabilities, as if those weren't already a thing by human programmers.


The same reason some use crime committed by illegal immigrants to push action, while ignoring the fact that citizens are more likely percentage-wise to commit those same crimes. It's confirmation bias at the least, and intellectual dishonesty at the worst, but either way, they want their worldview to be validated.

I know this is extremely off topic, but illegal immigrants are far more likely to commit crimes than citizens, not that this has anything to do with software bugs...

You got that exactly the wrong way round.

Here's one set of numbers from the CATO institute: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/illegal-immigrant-murde...

The only way your statement holds up is if you treat the act of existing while undocumented as a crime for this comparison, in which case sure - it's a tautology.


First of all, the link you provided mixes illegal migration with legal migration, a classic trick trying to downplay the effects of illegal immigration.

Second, it compares murder rates only, in the state of Texas, a state well known to have extreme amounts of legal guns. You can hardly generalise from this data.

Here is some interesting data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Denmark

FWIW I don’t live in the USA.


> First of all, the link you provided mixes illegal migration with legal migration

No it doesn't. I chose that article specifically because it provides figures for native-born citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants:

> Over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022, the homicide conviction rate in Texas for illegal immigrants was 2.2 per 100,000, compared to 3.0 per 100,000 for native-born Americans. The homicide conviction rate for legal immigrants in Texas was 1.2 per 100,000.

I accept that the figures in other countries may not work out the same way as figures in the USA.


I would not trust these numbers either way, because they are from a think thank with a very specific agenda.

I probably won't comment further, since as you said this is very off-topic (I only meant to draw out an analogy as to why discussions about AI tend to be ideologically skewed), but every statistic I've seen shows far lower crime rates among illegal immigrants versus citizens (aside from the statutory crime of being in the country illegally).

Soon GrapheneOS will support Motorola phone(s).

https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...


>Founded in 2004, Roblox paid out $1.5 billion to game creators last year. On average, the top 1,000 developers — individuals or companies — earned $1.3 million, according to the company.

So 87% of payouts go to the top 1000 developers.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: