"...in the style of the massive wall of water resembling a
menacing prolongation of Mount Fuji as depicted in The Great Wave off Kanagawa"
Section 2 defends BTC from being a Ponzi scheme. The public doesn't worry it's a Ponzi scheme so much as an instance of Tulip Mania.
Section 3 says that since Bitcoin is prone to getting ripped off, it needs to be insured. The SEC would of course argue that since it's prone to getting ripped off, it SHOULDN'T be insured.
Section 4 is just horse shit no one at the SEC is going to understand, let alone read. FUD.
Section 5 is a basic conclusion.
Compare gold to the DJIA since 1900.
And don't go comparing Bitcoin to gold in any event. It doesn't have the history behind it, and there are too many instances of investment fads that die hard.
Anyway I agree with your point that while the economy has surged over the past 116 years, gold has been tradeable for an ever-decreasing share of economic output or share of the available real assets, and has been far outpaced by how a conservative portfolio of equities would have performed over the same period.
Official currencies can be devalued relative to real economic production, either intentionally or through mismanagement, but they are not an act of faith like betting on precious metals that have long since been deprecated as official currency.
Then making it impossible for him to claim his bitcoins or prove that he's the real Satoshi, thus will never claim to be Satoshi?
Sometimes, the most simple yet stupid explanation can be real
I think it is much more reasonable to assume that he fears for his life and about hacker attacks and that is why he takes every precaution possible to conceal his identity. People have killed other people for less money than a million bitcoins.
I believe, based on the white paper, that his creation was ideologically motivated. He believed in what he was making, and would have taken every precaution possible.
There's always the chance he didnt think it would take off and let his Bitcoin stagnate and get lost. But I don't believe it is so.
There is a quote of him saying something like he would never destroy a private key. And the fact that his disappearance happened right before everything really took off, but I clearly remember there was a very tight knit group of people who absolutely believed in the cause.
And he handed development off so carefully, I can hardly believe he would have just neglected something in my opinion he personally believed would be world changing.
With no concrete way to prevent a hack and no insurance if one were to happen -- I can only see this ending badly -- and quite frankly, given how little thought they've put into security I'm quite alarmed. Effectively, everything they've put forward to protect these Bitcoins has been known to be inadequate since 2012. We've seen that multi-sig was introduced and it still didn't help. We've also seen that multi-sig and hardware modules haven't been enough to prevent every inside job, hack, or scam.
In my view the only concrete way to handle Bitcoins as an exchange is to extend Bitcoin to allow coins to be locked up into a special clearing phase. You would have it so that coins could be spent after N confirmations but before then they could be transfered to a fail-safe address. This isn't my idea but its a simplification of what Emin Gün Sirer proposed with his Bitcoin vault idea (though I did think of something similar in the past.)
Because honestly, you can never, ever rely on fully preventing these hacks as the basis for a solid security model. Hacks. Are. Going. To. Happen. Regardless of how many walls you decide to build. Thus, the only effective security model for doing high-risk crypto-finance is to do something that offers us a plan B when they do. And that's what Bitcoin vaults are for -- they allow us to cancel / revoke coins during a clearing phase without breaking Bitcoins irrevocable nature (since you only treat coins as final after +6~ confirmations after the clearing phase.)
The simple truth of the matter is -- Bitcoin in its current form is inadequate for services like centralized exchanges (as evidence by numerous hacks) and the only reason why people continue to do business under this scenario is for opportunistic profit. If any of these companies really gave a shit about security there is absolutely no way they would continue to run a financial service with NO WAY to cancel fraudulent transactions. I consider this a pretty basic corner-stone of modern banking and as long as it can't be done in Bitcoin, EVERY wallet, Bitcoin exchange, and store that's handling Bitcoins is just waiting to be fucked.
Only because nobody actually uses it, I think? Or have I missed out on something in the Bitcoin community since I left it?
This is probably my favourite. Yeah, people who just want to buy drugs are definitely going to follow eleven screens of directions in detail: https://np.reddit.com/r/AlphaBay/comments/3t9e79/a_full_mult...