http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/
Indeed - why settle for a 1% ongoing dev fee when you can instead own more than 5% of the total number of coins that will ever be created?
I'd suggest looking to Linux as a better example of an alternate: Most of the core kernel development work is done by people who work for companies (Intel, IBM, Google, etc.) that have collectively decided that Linux is so useful they want to make sure it stays around by subsidizing its development. This isn't a bad model for Bitcoin either -- if, e.g., the exchanges all paid for one full-time developer. But it doesn't work for a "startup" coin that doesn't have a well established ecosystem.
Perhaps rpietila's MEW is good enough - or better. But coding takes money, because most coders like to eat and feed their families.
Satoshi mined the coins himself, everyone had equal chance to mine. So there is nothing wrong with his stash at all. He had to pay for mining to obtain the coins and so he did. Indeed - why settle for a 1% ongoing dev fee when you can instead own more than 5% of the total number of coins that will ever be created?
I'd suggest looking to Linux as a better example of an alternate: Most of the core kernel development work is done by people who work for companies (Intel, IBM, Google, etc.) that have collectively decided that Linux is so useful they want to make sure it stays around by subsidizing its development. This isn't a bad model for Bitcoin either -- if, e.g., the exchanges all paid for one full-time developer. But it doesn't work for a "startup" coin that doesn't have a well established ecosystem.
Perhaps rpietila's MEW is good enough - or better. But coding takes money, because most coders like to eat and feed their families.
The Bitcoin Core developers have discussed bounties many times, and come to conclusion it leads to people stressing out bad quality code just to collect the paycheck.