Why do you think so? Satoshi definitely made some transactions in early days, to see, that the system is working correctly. For example: And also, when it comes to the Patoshi pattern, then it is all speculation: each time the extra nonce is resetted, it could be this miner, or that miner. Even if you go to and see block number 127, then it is just a guess, if it is owned by someone else, than block number 128, or not. According to this site, the owner is different, while in practice, it could be the same. Which means, that these connections are arbitrary. No, because people wouldn't believe it, even if it would be true. In that case, people wouldn't even be sure, if that coin was owned by Satoshi or not. Note that in Patoshi pattern, spent coins are marked as "others", and excluded from the pattern for some reason, and it is just an arbitrary decision of the chart maker. So, it would be no different, than if any early adopter would recover some old coins today. Because we can be sure only about single coins, that are owned by Satoshi. All of that headlines, like "Satoshi owns 1 million BTCs" is just a pure speculation, and guessing, based on Patoshi's pattern. And I even wonder, if those, who are deeply convinced, that all of these coins are owned by Satoshi, will really take them from him, or from some other early adopters instead. It would be funny, if someone would recover some 50 BTCs from the old wallet, and then figure out, that he was marked as "Satoshi" on some altcoin, and he has only BTCs, because other coins were stolen, because of a false guess of marking them as "Satoshi's coins".
Why do you think so? Satoshi definitely made some transactions in early days, to see, that the system is working correctly. For example: And also, when it comes to the Patoshi pattern, then it is all speculation: each time the extra nonce is resetted, it could be this miner, or that miner. Even if you go to and see block number 127, then it is just a guess, if it is owned by someone else, than block number 128, or not. According to this site, the owner is different, while in practice, it could be the same. Which means, that these connections are arbitrary. No, because people wouldn't believe it, even if it would be true. In that case, people wouldn't even be sure, if that coin was owned by Satoshi or not. Note that in Patoshi pattern, spent coins are marked as "others", and excluded from the pattern for some reason, and it is just an arbitrary decision of the chart maker. So, it would be no different, than if any early adopter would recover some old coins today. Because we can be sure only about single coins, that are owned by Satoshi. All of that headlines, like "Satoshi owns 1 million BTCs" is just a pure speculation, and guessing, based on Patoshi's pattern. And I even wonder, if those, who are deeply convinced, that all of these coins are owned by Satoshi, will really take them from him, or from some other early adopters instead. It would be funny, if someone would recover some 50 BTCs from the old wallet, and then figure out, that he was marked as "Satoshi" on some altcoin, and he has only BTCs, because other coins were stolen, because of a false guess of marking them as "Satoshi's coins".

Why do you think so? Satoshi definitely made some transactions in early days, to see, that the system is working correctly. For example: And also, when it comes to the Patoshi pattern, then it is all speculation: each time the extra nonce is resetted, it could be this miner, or that miner. Even if you go to and see block number 127, then it is just a guess, if it is owned by someone else, than block number 128, or not. According to this site, the owner is different, while in practice, it could be the same. Which means, that these connections are arbitrary. No, because people wouldn't believe it, even if it would be true. In that case, people wouldn't even be sure, if that coin was owned by Satoshi or not. Note that in Patoshi pattern, spent coins are marked as "others", and excluded from the pattern for some reason, and it is just an arbitrary decision of the chart maker. So, it would be no different, than if any early adopter would recover some old coins today. Because we can be sure only about single coins, that are owned by Satoshi. All of that headlines, like "Satoshi owns 1 million BTCs" is just a pure speculation, and guessing, based on Patoshi's pattern. And I even wonder, if those, who are deeply convinced, that all of these coins are owned by Satoshi, will really take them from him, or from some other early adopters instead. It would be funny, if someone would recover some 50 BTCs from the old wallet, and then figure out, that he was marked as "Satoshi" on some altcoin, and he has only BTCs, because other coins were stolen, because of a false guess of marking them as "Satoshi's coins".

Why do you think so? Satoshi definitely made some transactions in early days, to see, that the system is working correctly. For example: And also, when it comes to the Patoshi pattern, then it is all speculation: each time the extra nonce is resetted, it could be this miner, or that miner. Even if you go to and see block number 127, then it is just a guess, if it is owned by someone else, than block number 128, or not. According to this site, the owner is different, while in practice, it could be the same. Which means, that these connections are arbitrary. No, because people wouldn't believe it, even if it would be true. In that case, people wouldn't even be sure, if that coin was owned by Satoshi or not. Note that in Patoshi pattern, spent coins are marked as "others", and excluded from the pattern for some reason, and it is just an arbitrary decision of the chart maker. So, it would be no different, than if any early adopter would recover some old coins today. Because we can be sure only about single coins, that are owned by Satoshi. All of that headlines, like "Satoshi owns 1 million BTCs" is just a pure speculation, and guessing, based on Patoshi's pattern. And I even wonder, if those, who are deeply convinced, that all of these coins are owned by Satoshi, will really take them from him, or from some other early adopters instead. It would be funny, if someone would recover some 50 BTCs from the old wallet, and then figure out, that he was marked as "Satoshi" on some altcoin, and he has only BTCs, because other coins were stolen, because of a false guess of marking them as "Satoshi's coins".