this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
256 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
60035 readers
2717 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.