Topic: Donning tin foil hat concerning multisig transactions - page 2. (Read 3798 times)

I see, ty for the explanation.

Yes, that's the use-case I care most about -- you have control over all of your keys, you just put them in multiple places so if you lose control of (say) your computer you don't lose your bitcoins.

But there are other use-cases, like you agreeing to let the government control half the keys, so the government can "guarantee" the transactions, etc.  I can imagine the PR campaign: "It is just like Federal Deposit Insurance (FDIC), only for Bitcoin!"

I don't think that will ever happen, though. I know I wouldn't trust the government to keep the keys to my money safe and secure, I don't think most people would, either. More likely is most people will trust banks to hold half the keys, and the governments will then regulate the banks like they do today to get information about who is paying who for what....

This crossed my mind a while ago, happy i'm on the same page with others. So we would have a great benefit with increased wallet protection and easier escrow but any government could adopt bitcoin as legal tender and force everyone use the multisig too. Crippling the Bitcoin client to generate only multisig with a predefined gov key would be easy given that the project is open-source.

Plenty of people, in a sense, have this, at least in the U.S. It's called a bank.

Government thinks you're a criminal? Boom, your account is frozen. They think you owe them something? Boom, they take the money out directly. The fact that they don't do it that often doesn't mean it never happens. And most people still wouldn't DREAM of not having a bank account, or worse, banking with some *unregulated* bank that doesn't do what the government tells it to.

I've even heard the sentiment expressed in this forum that letting government take a little bit of control of bitcoin in some form or fashion is a good thing because it lends bitcoin legitimacy! To my mind, the idea of there being a push toward government-controlled (read: "regulated") multisig accounts isn't just plausible, it's a question of "when", not "if."

small theoretical risk =/= plausible.  There is a small theoretical risk that all life on the planet will be exterminated via events we either will not be able to detect or will be powerless to stop. 

I understand that but I thought when this idea was first presented it was said that the user would keep both key's a in a backup wallet so you couldn't be held hostage with your service provider.

Plausible in the sense that you would accept having a "joint" account with the govt. People don't do that now so it seems unlikely they'd be very willing later. I think the idea was that thru a series of moves the govt convinces people that having a joint account with them for their own protection is a good idea. Personally I can't imagine many people feeling good about having a "joint" account with the govt now or in the future.

Be safe, Let Big Brother watch over your money.

Multi-sig is just what it's name implies - multiple signatories [addresses] needed to spend the money. A backup wallet is only an example usage based on the idea that the backup has both addresses present whereas the normal wallet does not.

Multisig is like requiring two people to know only half of a password each, instead of both of them knowing the full password.

Wait, so OP's scenario is plausible?? I thought the multisig transaction idea was suppose to have a backup wallet where you didn't need anything else to have access to your Bitcoins?

So far, I think the pace of technological change has outrun governments' ability to figure out how to use it to exert control.

Maybe governments will get more nimble, but I'm going to continue betting that entrepreneurs and individuals will continue to widen the gap between the new freedoms that technology enables and what the law allows.

RE: multisignature transaction dangers:  I'm completely convinced the (large, practical) benefits far outweigh the (small, theoretical) risks that it'll be abused by some repressive government(s).

The good thing about bitcoin is it's easy to create a new blockchain with different characteristics, so if bitcoin was ever corrupted by govt's people could just start a new non-scam blockchain.

Poe's Law. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

The example was tongue in cheek, to illustrate the extreme case.  However, the concern is real.

If you allow multi-signature transactions in the blockchain, that essentially means that all parties must agree to spend the coins in that transaction.  If one party has more military authority than the others, in that they can impose their will on the other parties without ramification, a problem potentially arises.  This is especially true if that party is willing to just let those coins rot in the block-chain forever.  The government wouldn't be the slightest bit concerned if you can't spend your money.  All they would be concerned about is whether they are exerting control.


It is not a matter of people giving up their responsibilities.  I'm not talking about you giving the government one of your signatures.  What I am saying is that when the government first gives you payment, that payment will be delivered with the government first generating two signatures, and then giving you one of them.  After all, they are the ones starting out with the bitcoins, so they hold all the cards.  Your only option is to refuse payment.  But, government employees and business that serve the government don't really have that option.  It is not reasonable to expect that even a significant fraction of people working for the government would refuse payment.  And, even if they did, there would be plenty more stepping in to take their place.

If a government has the capability to exert control, and has the need to do so, it will exert control.  Once a government has their hooks in one multisig transaction, they can refuse to allow coins to be spent unless they have hooks in the subsequent transactions as well.  Bitcoin without multisig capabilities does not give governments this hook.  Bitcoin with multisig does.  Whether you see this as a problem or not, is purely up to you.  However, I believe that this goes against the original spirit of bitcoin.

I think his story was tongue in cheek.  Remember most of the world currency was gold at one time, then redeemable for gold, then backed but not deemable for Gold, and then finally backed by nothing.  History would likely repeat itself.  Within 50 years it would be back to pure fiat.

This.

Stop blaming technology for weak minded people.

Could the govt subvert Bitcoin and uses it to enforce a loss of freedom?  Sure however the same thing could be said of the internet too.

The solution isn't a fear of tehcnology.  The solution is standing up for your rights.  Soapbox -> BallotBox -> Ammo Box.

or just accept the dominance is either than resistance and get with the program. 

I prefer Standard Transaction Federated Union.

If you can send a coin to an arbitrary address, you can send it to yourself to remove any restrictions. If you can't send it to an arbitrary address, then it's not a Bitcoin and existing vendors won't accept it. This works out the same as if a government created a new currency on a separate blockchain, and offered to trade it for bitcoins. It might catch on, but it would be less valuable than Bitcoins and people probably wouldn't get them confused.

At least they would not be able to print money. Without that privilege, governments won't be nearly as powerful and corrupt as they are now. It's still not such a bad scenario. You can always still trade gold.

If the WTF is signatory on a multi-sig transaction then that presumbly means they would exert control over each and every legal transaction. One can easily imagine they would maintain blacklists of addresses at a minimum and block transactions. With more sophistication they could go further, controlling spends based on time, total volume, economic indicators etc.

The natural result would would be forming a new blockchain without those controls and which in this context would be treated as illegal, black market transactions by the WTF.

That's not how multisig as far as I understand them will work.. You will always have a secured backup wallet with both keys.