<blockquote>
  <p>Basically, we pretty much do not know anything about these people.
  Will they be a risk in the future?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Basically, we pretty much do not know anything about these people so it is very hard to say. It also depends on what you mean by a threat..</p>

<p>A threat from their ideals? Can it be much worse than the monetary powers who are already present?</p>

<p>A market threat? Even "large" holders will struggle to influence the market, every large spike gives a redistribution of wealth. Those people who were holding a lot of coins generally sell when they see an opportunity. People wont sacrifice their quality of life for money.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T09:35:55.180Z
2013-11-12T09:35:55.180Z
MaxSan
<p>Large Bitcoin holdings are static assets.  The price only climbs if there are active trades.  It would be in the interest of large holders to promote the use, trade and circulation of the currency.</p>

<p>If a large holder were to dump all their coins on the market all at once would cause the price to drop, but that would not be in their own interest, as they would lose their investment.  Then again, they can only get a return on their investment if they sell it.  It would be sensible that if a large investor wanted to liquidate their holdings, they would trickle them out slowly to keep the price high.  </p>

<p>Also, the total amount of money wrapped up in Bitcoins and the risk involved is not enough to attract really serious investors.  There are some large investors, such as the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/09/the-11-million-in-bitcoins-the-winklevoss-brothers-bought-is-now-worth-32-million/" rel="nofollow">Winklevii</a>, but they are attracting attention because they are the exception, not the rule.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T09:40:55.033Z
I rather asked it they will (or could) be a threat in the (maybe distant) future - because if the price climbs with very low trade volumes and large Bitcoin holders still hoard, then they represent even a greater risk in the fugure. Example: price today: 350 USD/BTC, price in the future: $35,000 USD/BTC - so the same ammount of BTC is 100 times the worth. Such a hoarder selling will catch 100 times more people just getting into the system... So the these hoarders will become more and more influential I think.
Kozuch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T10:59:38.130Z
Who would be most at risk?  People with a large stake in Bitcoin:  themselves.  If they worked against their own self-interest, sure, they could present a risk, but you can depend upon greed to keep us safe.
James Sheils
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T11:22:13.877Z
Ok, I put it wrongly. Big BTC holders will pose a risk for FIAT world, because their wealth in FIAT will be insane. Ok, so the threat boils down to a case when big BTC guys could go insane and act against their self-interest. Quite interesting to think about... probably not a huge chance this is going to happen... right?
Kozuch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-09-21T04:27:47.657Z
So your question boils down to "are very wealthy people dangerous?" I would answer no, but I tend to favor fiscal liberalism.
Tyler
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T09:13:19.917Z
2013-11-12T09:13:19.917Z
James Sheils
<p>I've not investigated a lot but there is an attack to the bitcoin network called "selfish miners". It talks about people mining and keeping their bitcoins without "using" them. Maybe it could work also in this scenario.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T16:40:44.957Z
2013-11-12T16:40:44.957Z
ddddavidee
<p>There are most likely individuals or groups who hold (and hoard?) large sums of Bitcoin because of various reasons. I believe these people are the early adopters or miners of Bitcoin. Basically, we pretty much do not know anything about these people. Will they be a risk in the future?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T12:30:37.840Z
Related: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/408/does-hoarding-really-hurt-bitcoin
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-12T21:04:23.567Z
yeah a huge risk. There are individuals with more then 15% of all bitcoins. They could easily decide to destabilize the entire market if they so choose.
Loourr
<market>
Will large Bitcoin holders be a threat in the future?
Kozuch
# Will large Bitcoin holders be a threat in the future?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-11-12)

There are most likely individuals or groups who hold (and hoard?) large sums of Bitcoin because of various reasons. I believe these people are the early adopters or miners of Bitcoin. Basically, we pretty much do not know anything about these people. Will they be a risk in the future?

**Tags:** market

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/408/does-hoarding-really-hurt-bitcoin  
> **username_2**: yeah a huge risk. There are individuals with more then 15% of all bitcoins. They could easily decide to destabilize the entire market if they so choose.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-11-12. Score: 1

> Basically, we pretty much do not know anything about these people.
> Will they be a risk in the future?

Basically, we pretty much do not know anything about these people so it is very hard to say. It also depends on what you mean by a threat..

A threat from their ideals? Can it be much worse than the monetary powers who are already present?

A market threat? Even "large" holders will struggle to influence the market, every large spike gives a redistribution of wealth. Those people who were holding a lot of coins generally sell when they see an opportunity. People wont sacrifice their quality of life for money.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2013-11-12. Score: 1

Large Bitcoin holdings are static assets. The price only climbs if there are active trades. It would be in the interest of large holders to promote the use, trade and circulation of the currency.

If a large holder were to dump all their coins on the market all at once would cause the price to drop, but that would not be in their own interest, as they would lose their investment. Then again, they can only get a return on their investment if they sell it. It would be sensible that if a large investor wanted to liquidate their holdings, they would trickle them out slowly to keep the price high.

Also, the total amount of money wrapped up in Bitcoins and the risk involved is not enough to attract really serious investors. There are some large investors, such as the [Winklevii](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/09/the-11-million-in-bitcoins-the-winklevoss-brothers-bought-is-now-worth-32-million/), but they are attracting attention because they are the exception, not the rule.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I rather asked it they will (or could) be a threat in the (maybe distant) future - because if the price climbs with very low trade volumes and large Bitcoin holders still hoard, then they represent even a greater risk in the fugure. Example: price today: 350 USD/BTC, price in the future: $35,000 USD/BTC - so the same ammount of BTC is 100 times the worth. Such a hoarder selling will catch 100 times more people just getting into the system... So the these hoarders will become more and more influential I think.  
> **username_4**: Who would be most at risk?  People with a large stake in Bitcoin:  themselves.  If they worked against their own self-interest, sure, they could present a risk, but you can depend upon greed to keep us safe.  
> **username_0**: Ok, I put it wrongly. Big BTC holders will pose a risk for FIAT world, because their wealth in FIAT will be insane. Ok, so the threat boils down to a case when big BTC guys could go insane and act against their self-interest. Quite interesting to think about... probably not a huge chance this is going to happen... right?  
> **username_5**: So your question boils down to "are very wealthy people dangerous?" I would answer no, but I tend to favor fiscal liberalism.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2013-11-12. Score: 0

I've not investigated a lot but there is an attack to the bitcoin network called "selfish miners". It talks about people mining and keeping their bitcoins without "using" them. Maybe it could work also in this scenario.


---

