Topic: Fork The Blockchain And Block The Seized FBI Coins. (Read 13426 times)

If Bitcoin users chose not to upgrade from Current-Bitcoin to Next-Bitcoin, then they will be using a *coin I'll refer to as Current-Bitcoin. Current-Bitcoin will then be a coin without developers. That's a potential problem. I suppose if enough users refused to upgrade, then at least one or two developers would go with them, so I'm not too worried. I just wanted to point it out.


I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no. Identity is a tricky concept.

That is really you?

If you mean it's up to the users and not the developers, it's hard to have a cryptocoin with no developers.

If you mean it's not up to the developers because they have to follow the law or go to prison, then I guess you're right. It does make me wish everyone coding and even using bitcoin had followed Satoshi's lead and remained pseudonymous. In fact, I'm starting to regret using my real name and photo on this forum.

The laws would cover all the cryptocoins. Not all the cryptocoins (and more importantly their developers) would cooperate with the law.

Unless the government is really stupid, the laws would cover all altcoins on top of Bitcoin, so forking wouldn't help you at all.

It's depressing to me how many people in the bitcoin community seem to want regulation, want to cooperate with so-called authorities. Listening to some of the NY hearings yesterday was a downer.

Forking over the FBI-seized coins is probably not worth it, but there are many things that would be worth forking over (e.g., government approved miners with blacklists, forcing government identities to be associated to addresses, etc.). In an open source project like this, I think we can all negotiate from a stronger position if we are ready to fork. In terms of software, the only way people who support bitcoin (in its current form) could fork is by refusing to upgrade.

Maybe it's worthwhile to be prepared in case the liberatarian bitcoiners decide they need to split from the Quisling bitcoiners. Quisling bitcoin would probably be more popular and mainstream because it would be government approved and could be used to go after those doubleplusungood money launderers. I'd personally continue along the libertarian fork if it came to that, even if the Bitcoin Foundation and majority of miners went with the Quisling fork.

There's a saying: Relationships are better when there's a packed suitcase at the door. Don't fork, but always be ready to fork. Currently, in terms of software development support, we aren't ready to fork.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it is a good idea. 

Hopefully most of the people smart enough to code a new coin with a fork of the blockchain are also smart enough to reason through why this would actually do far more damage to bitcoin than good if it were successful.

The continued seeming interest in the ideas of this thread depress me slightly.

It would be totally possible to create a fork of the Bitcoin chain to do this.  Trouble is, the people who suggest these thing over and over and over never get past the talking/posting about their ideas and on to the doing it stage.

I get the impression that a lot of people think talking about something is the same thing as doing it and that is just not true.

Don't think this is something that is possible to do.

And when one country is at war with another and one seizes Bitcoin from a person in the other country.....everyone in one country will want to fork the other guy.

If Al Qaida gets coins should we folk them?   If Russia's version of the FBI seizes some the same way?

Do we have an annual voting system about which ones to fork and burn?

I have seen that many people appear to think forking Bitcoin to seize some coins the FBI hold is a good idea.  I think this is an interesting concept, however I am not sure if it is that much of a good idea.  However, if you think this is a sensible move which can succeed, I am giving you the opportunity to buy this altcoin now.  I will sell 10 of these coins for just 1 BTC.  I own over 10 BTC in the current chain and will therefore be granted 10 coins in the new anti-FBI altcoin.  I am happy to pre-sell these now, this could be an opportunity for you.

You will be able to multiply your money by 10x for free if the new chain succeeds.

Please bid at the following website
https://www.coingig.com/Shopping/10-Bitcoin-on-any-anti-FBI-fork---Guaranteed-Now---10x-your-money-9308

Many thanks

HighHorseCoin or LameAssCoin both fit even better.

Sounds like a great idea for another alt coin:  "MoralCoin" or something like that...

I was actually referring to actually programming morality / law into the protocol. Starting from core axioms (of non-aggression), with potential competition in certain parameters ("statutes of limitation", criteria for land ownership, etc). I.e. the decentralization and real codification of the entire legal system. So users wouldn't be voting on the morals of the situation (that would already be pre-coded), but simply on the facts of the case, which are not under dispute in this case.

Of course, users will be free to disagree with the axioms or parameters of a particular brand of MoralCoin, and it would be fascinating to see which brand of law/morality would succeed.

Bitcoin has already implemented your "algorithmically programed moral rules into the technology -- whereby there simply needs to be a near-consensus".

The current behavior is the initial state of the system.

If a "near-consensus" agrees on a new behavior of the system, then open-source developers modify the code, and people indicate their agreement with the near-consensus by upgrading their wallets.

What is clear is that there is nothing even close to a "near-consensus" for most of these silly ideas.

This is trivial to accomplish, and morally[1] justified. The real question is how successful would a competition of MoralCoins be. I think it actually might even be possible to algorithmically program moral rules into the technology -- whereby there simply needs to be a near-consensus of client-provided factual input, and the algorithms handle the rest. This would alleviate the ubiquitous fears of slippery slopes and emotional mobs.

For example, nobody can deny that the coins were taken from DPR without his consent. Someone might try to "argue" (in MoralCoin's programmable logic language) that DPR was bound by a so-called Social Contract, but that will be invalid since a contract requires informed consent. And so on.

[1] Morality is universal. (And thus rational / logical.)

FIFY

Satoshi would spend less time worrying about what the FBI will do with the bitcoins they seized, and spend more time developing the Bitcoin network.  Had the participants been more careful with their private keys the FBI would not have been able to seize the coins.

What would Satoshi do?



How would the fork for this purpose fit into his BTC vision?

(Let's send him a PM and ask for his opinion on the matter )

The U.S. government has already made multiple statements declaring that bitcoin has value, I doubt the FBI has any concerns about that.