user70793: Satoshi Nakamoto is supposed to own 1.000.000 bitcoins on a thousands of wallets, and most of them are untouched since early blocks. This stake can potentially flood the market, so miners could probably be interested in banning them. 
So, is it possible to create a soft fork (protocol update, approved by most of hashing power), that will deny any future transaction with early block coins? It is not really fair, but miners are greed and they should probably approve it. Is it a possible scenario?

user49354: This could be implemented theoretically, but this idea will certainly never be implemented. It's because:

You don't know which addresses exactly are owned by Satoshi Nakamoto.
This idea is against all Bitcoin-principles. If you have Bitcoin, nobody should be able to steal it unless he has your private key. Bitcoin would become unreliable if you can't be sure that your funds will stay on the address where you send them.

(Hint: at the time when Satoshi Nakamoto got his Bitcoin, the bitcoins were nearly useless. And caused by the fact that he didn't touch the bitcoins yet many people assume that he lost his private keys, but this is only guesswork)

user63872: Others have commented on the technical possibility of this, so I'll address the economics:
I don't believe any smart miner would do this. Why? Because it would destroy confidence in the network. If the miners were willing and capable of blacklisting the coins stored at Satoshi's addresses, then who's to say they won't do the same to the coins stored at any other address? The value of the network is very closely tied to its security. Give users a reason to doubt this and they will flee, and prices will crash.

user5406: Yes, since blacklisting a set of UTXOs would be done by adding more rules and thus restricting the set of allowed transactions, technically such a change could be introduced as a soft fork by the miners.
However, I would sincerely doubt that censoring Satoshi from spending her coins would find broad community support. I suspect that such an endeavour would quickly escalate the already existing tensions between community and miners.

70793: <p>Satoshi Nakamoto is supposed to own 1.000.000 bitcoins on a thousands of wallets, and most of them are untouched since early blocks. This stake can potentially flood the market, so miners could probably be interested in banning them. </p>

<p>So, is it possible to create a soft fork (protocol update, approved by most of hashing power), that will deny any future transaction with early block coins? It is not really fair, but miners are greed and they should probably approve it. Is it a possible scenario?</p>
 49354: <p>This could be implemented theoretically, but this idea will certainly never be implemented. It's because:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>You don't know which addresses exactly are owned by Satoshi Nakamoto.</p></li>
<li><p>This idea is against all Bitcoin-principles. If you have Bitcoin, nobody should be able to steal it unless he has your private key. Bitcoin would become unreliable if you can't be sure that your funds will stay on the address where you send them.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>(Hint: at the time when Satoshi Nakamoto got his Bitcoin, the bitcoins were nearly useless. And caused by the fact that he didn't touch the bitcoins yet many people assume that he lost his private keys, but this is only guesswork)</p>
 63872: <p>Others have commented on the technical possibility of this, so I'll address the economics:</p>

<p>I don't believe any smart miner would do this. Why? Because it would destroy confidence in the network. If the miners were willing and capable of blacklisting the coins stored at Satoshi's addresses, then who's to say they won't do the same to the coins stored at any other address? The value of the network is very closely tied to its security. Give users a reason to doubt this and they will flee, and prices will crash.</p>
 5406: <p>Yes, since blacklisting a set of UTXOs would be done by adding more rules and thus <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/30817/5406">restricting the set of allowed transactions</a>, technically such a change could be introduced as a soft fork by the miners.</p>

<p>However, I would sincerely doubt that censoring Satoshi from spending her coins would find broad community support. I suspect that such an endeavour would quickly escalate the already existing tensions between community and miners.</p>
