Plan to get community approval for distributing 1.1 million BTC from Satoshi

10/05/2026 I want to propose sharing unused BTC, but we need more than 51% of miners and users on board. This BTC is sitting in around 22,000 wallet addresses from the early days of Satoshi Nakamoto. How many coins are we talking about? Roughly 1,100,000 BTC. Here’s the deal: Satoshi made the network open-source, which means if over 51% of us agree, we can make changes. I think that the BTC in those leftover addresses is essentially ours; we just need to come to a consensus. 1. My idea is to split these coins evenly among all network users. 2. To get a share of the coins, you’d need a wallet address that already has some of those coins. 3. The amount of BTC from Satoshi would be distributed based on how many existing addresses hold them. 4. This could bring huge attention to the network, and a lot of people would see the advantages. 5. If we don’t go for this, we’re basically agreeing to lose a massive chunk of our supply. I could set up a dedicated site and bring in experienced developers and the owners of bitcoin.org to help with this. I’m really interested in how people would react to such a significant moment. Do you think it’s doable? Or is it just stealing, and maybe Satoshi still wants to keep those coins? What do you all think? Cheers.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. If 51% of the users want to change the protocol, they cannot force the rest 49% to adopt the change. Bitcoin is consensus-based. It only takes 1 user to make a change, and he now belongs to an entirely different network. If other users want to adopt his changes, they can just download and run his client. The Bitcoin and Censorcoin networks will then coexist, and the more people sell Bitcoin for Censorcoin, the more successful Censorcoin is.

The mere thought of stealing satoshi’s property is so stupid I feel like OP might be brad garlinghouse

Brad is too stuck-up to admit that Bitcoin technology is better than whatever his shitcoin is doing. This sounds more to me like someone who simply wants more money. CSW, is that you?

Lots will disagree on this because once this proposal is approved and done, it destroys the integrity of the network.  The once, "your coins is secured" will be "your coins can be secured by other hands".  I do not know why people are so interested to distribute something that they don't own  .  If you want to distribute Bitcoin to each network participants, why don't you use your own Bitcoin to fulfill your desire? Anyway, I disagree with this proposal and won't support it because it will make the  supposed to be "dead coins" back into the market circulation thus affecting the valuation of Bitcoin in the market.

Only over my dead body, I would fight against this proposal with my life as would countless people that believe and live the Bitcoin principles. Would you fight this way for it? Stealing coins from somebody from the past and then rewarding people who have done nothing to deserve it is a horrible idea. We should never reward people for things that they did not earn because it never works out good even if we ignore completely why this should not be done due to the specifics of Bitcoin. Greed and envy, most people look every day what others are posting in social media and living fake lives. The more they look at it, the more they get upset that they do not have things that others do and since they can't find a way to earn the money that is needed for that they look for ways to get money they don't deserve.. This statement is beautiful.   People who come with these kinds of ideas would never do that with their own coins, they like to steal other people's coins though and make up bad reasons to do it.

I'm not a thief, but I won't reveal my identity (I hope she won't reveal it herself either). You're all screwed if Satoshi goes down and sells his coins. This case is too big, and too many people are looking for him. What we see from the community's response is irrefutable proof that this network will exist for a long time. What follows from this response? It's worth stocking up on a large amount. Sometimes we need to talk about abstractions. Regards,

How confident you are that those 22000 address belong to Satoshi rather than someone else? 100% ? 99%? 50% ? What counts as participant? node ? hashrate ? something else ?

You shouldn't touch another person's coins. Period.

Even if coins would sit on "1000000 OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP OP_TRUE", and someone would want to distribute them, then still: sending the same amount of coins to all existing addresses is very far from being "fair". For example because one person can have more than one address. And then, someone who owns 100 different addresses will receive less coins, than someone else, who owns 1000 different addresses. Assuming that one human owns one address is far from reality, unless you want to globally push everyone through KYC. Possible? Technically yes, but practically, a lot of people will be against it, so it will be just some altcoin, which people will happily sell for the old BTCs instead. You always need two parties to make a transaction: if there is a seller, then there is also a buyer. Even if Satoshi would start selling coins here and now, and would want to sell everything immediately, then still: some people will just get cheaper coins, and after that, everything will just go back to normal. Because after happily buying them cheaply, they will have no reason to sell them low, especially if they would know, that they were owned by Satoshi. There were many altcoins, where creators did "pump and dump". And guess what: if the project is useful, then after being dumped, it will recover. It is just a matter of time. It is only a pure speculation. For example: http://satoshiblocks.info/ There is block number 127, which has unspent coins. How do people know, if it is mined by Patoshi or not? They simply guess. It has extra nonce equal to 6, and the next block uses 9. On this chart, you can see, that block 127 is marked as Other, and block 128 is marked as Patoshi. Why? Because the creator of this chart guessed so. But there is no proof, that it is the case. Both coins are unspent, so there are no traces. Some people wanted to really re-assign some of these coins, and guess what: they didn't, because there is no single address with one million BTCs from 2009. There are many separate ones, and nobody can be sure, which address is owned by whom. And even if we assume, that Patoshi pattern really groups the same addresses together, then still: each time the counter goes to zero, there could be a different miner. There are a lot of ways to split the coins. Even if there would be something, spendable by anyone, then still: splitting it honestly is a hard task. And reaching consensus on that would be difficult, even if coins would be locked on OP_TRUE with some timelock.

You're writing that if Satoshi Nakamoto sells all his coins, we're all doomed... But if, for example, Michael Saylor sells all his coins, we're not all doomed? Michael Saylor and his company currently hold only slightly fewer coins than Satoshi Nakamoto. 🙋 If you're afraid that Satoshi Nakamoto might sell his coins, then you're sure he's alive (I, for one, am sure he's already dead). However, forcibly taking Bitcoin from a living person is theft. It's not classified otherwise. 🤷 Fear, in my opinion, is not the emotion that helps you make the right decisions... Why do you think that if Satoshi Nakamoto sells all his coins, we're all doomed? On the contrary, we'll buy more Bitcoin at a lower price!  Incidentally, Satoshi Nakamoto previously discussed with users of this forum the problem of coins whose private keys were lost or whose owners disappeared. He proposed treating such situations as dividend payments to all remaining network participants. Because reducing the number of coins in circulation increases the value of the remaining coins. So, with your solution, you're proposing to rob not only Satoshi Nakamoto, but all of us. 🙋

In the Bitcoin consensus rule, the interest of every participant is considered unlike other kind of consensus. Coin takeover or freezing violate the property ownership and censorship resistant principles/rules of Bitcoin  A user knowing what the rules say sort of agree to them when he joins the network, so the agreement cannot be breached unless the rules are changed with his consent. No planned changes should affect anyone negatively.. 51% participants vote according to bitcoin rules otherwise even 1% rule-based voter can successfully reject the votes and prevent then from scaling through

I see this topic has resonated with active forum members, who have been posting since 2017! As far as I'm concerned, the owner of a coin is anyone who holds the private key of a given wallet, which could be 1, 2, or 150,000 people. So naturally, if someone comes into possession of the private keys of these wallets, they will be the sole issuer according to the BTC whitepaper. I invite you to the latest installment of the results of two months of research and analysis of the Satoshi Nakamoto group's REVEAL. (Coming soon) I'm curious to hear your opinions, Best regards.

Leave my coins, you greedy little thief

Where is the rationale/argument/justification for such a proposal? I'm not for or against (okay I lie, I'm against) but people go through a lot of thought and reflection in BIPs to explain the motivation for each change. I know you're not putting one out, but would still like to see that you thought it out properly and not just decided we should have nice things, and nice things are defined by something we thought about on a lazy Sunday afternoon after a drink or ten.

Go ahead if you want to make a clown of yourself by doing that   Making a website won't do anything and you would need miners to agree and approve proposal for hard fork. And you can't just move coins you don't control, except in your dreams...

There's nothing as sweet as getting something free of charge, without putting in much work for it, especially when it comes to money. Imagine it's the Op that has funds in the network, I bet you we won't hear of this ridiculous proposal. Some people just look for crafty methods to get people to engage in their absurd threads.

This is airdrop mentality, the desire to get things for free, easily, without working for it; the tendency to seek shortcuts. Actually, by leaving the coins behind, Satoshi has effectively donated them to all of us. That's more than a million coins out of circulation. That significantly shrinks the circulating supply, which means it somehow contributes to Bitcoin's scarcity, thereby helping push the price up. We should be thanking Satoshi for this. Also, what makes us think we're entitled to Satoshi's coins?

OP, what if you make a proposal of Satoshi's coins to be randomly distributed to other wallet addresses but then Satoshi's wallet suddenly wakes up and starts transferring money? How will you feel? More and more old era wallet addresses are waking up and what gives us a guarantee that Satoshi's wallet is left without the owner? Maybe he still has access to the wallet but doesn't plan to use it right now? We shouldn't touch anyone's address, doesn't matter what happens. You can invite powerful programmers and bitcoin.org owner but are you sure that they'll accept or even read your invitation? So well and beautifully said.

So, have you and everyone else lost the ability to economically acquire bitcoin? This is an insult to a valuable entity. MS is probably the investor who will be hit the hardest. I thought Satoshi still needed it, and people didn't need it this way. So next, should bitcoins in burning addresses also be distributed randomly?