Yeah, go ahead and fork Bitcoin and freeze the FBI coins, I'll sell all my coins on the new fork and purchase actual Bitcoins with the proceeds.
I approve.
Topic: Fork The Blockchain And Block The Seized FBI Coins. - page 7. (Read 13426 times)
Horrible idea. Millions of coins would be sold due too not trusting the "most trusted system"... This would do more harm than good.
The goal should be to delete those coins from the system completely, and kick them back into the mining queue to be re-created into the network. Absurd, I know, but I can't think of anyone who would be unhappy with the outcome of this idea.
You seem to be suffering from a severe lack of imagination.
Cops and robbers. If you threaten to murder someone and you get caught you go to jail. Do the crime pay the time.
max kiesier said he would buy $80 million worth of coin if the fbi were to sell them.
Ah ok, I see. So does that mean that a bitcoin is digitally indestructible? Like matter? If no one claims access to the key, then the btc will just be floating around in the nether for eternity? 
Are Bitcoins indestructible? Here is a pretty interesting thread discussing this on a few different levels: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/are-bitcoins-indestructible-358010
The goal should be to delete those coins from the system completely, and kick them back into the mining queue to be re-created into the network. Absurd, I know, but I can't think of anyone who would be unhappy with the outcome of this idea.
Have you read this thread? Have you read my responses to this thread? Read my signature. Now, can you think of someone, anyone, that would be very unhappy if even one single coin was blacklisted? 
Ah ok, I see. So does that mean that a bitcoin is digitally indestructible? Like matter? If no one claims access to the key, then the btc will just be floating around in the nether for eternity?
Yes, as long the protocol is working the BTC from lost private-keys will be forever unaltered entries in a ledger. However I think the entropy law would kick in at some point and literally destroy all the BTC computed in the ledger.
But by proxy, if the medium for which the password is stored is destroyed, and the password gives access to the btc, then access to the coin must also be destroyed. The protocol may still contain the supplied btc, but access to that btc is void if the private key is deleted. Meaning the protocol would just retain the bitcoin mined and do....what with it? Would it then be distributed among the miners?
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
Well, not exactly as you put. The interesting aspect of the protocol is that a loss of the private-key do not result in the destruction of any BTC. If the private-key is recovered the access is restored and the user can send the BTC to any public-key. There is no way to the protocol determine if a private key was lost or not. Therefore the BTC in any public-key will remain "untouched" as long the private-key is not used to validate a transference.
Ah ok, I see. So does that mean that a bitcoin is digitally indestructible? Like matter? If no one claims access to the key, then the btc will just be floating around in the nether for eternity?
But by proxy, if the medium for which the password is stored is destroyed, and the password gives access to the btc, then access to the coin must also be destroyed. The protocol may still contain the supplied btc, but access to that btc is void if the private key is deleted. Meaning the protocol would just retain the bitcoin mined and do....what with it? Would it then be distributed among the miners?
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
Well, not exactly as you put. The interesting aspect of the protocol is that a loss of the private-key do not result in the destruction of any BTC. If the private-key is recovered the access is restored and the user can send the BTC to any public-key. There is no way to the protocol determine if a private key was lost or not. Therefore the BTC in any public-key will remain "untouched" as long the private-key is not used to validate a transference.
Ah ok, I see. So does that mean that a bitcoin is digitally indestructible? Like matter? If no one claims access to the key, then the btc will just be floating around in the nether for eternity?
But by proxy, if the medium for which the password is stored is destroyed, and the password gives access to the btc, then access to the coin must also be destroyed. The protocol may still contain the supplied btc, but access to that btc is void if the private key is deleted. Meaning the protocol would just retain the bitcoin mined and do....what with it? Would it then be distributed among the miners?
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
Well, not exactly as you put. The interesting aspect of the protocol is that a loss of the private-key do not result in the destruction of any BTC. If the private-key is recovered the access is restored and the user can send the BTC to any public-key. There is no way to the protocol determine if a private key was lost or not. Therefore the BTC in any public-key will remain "untouched" as long the private-key is not used to validate a transference.
This is a bad idea.
What if you just destroyed the hard drive or the wallet or whatever the bitcoins are stored on?
In first place, BTC are not stored anywhere. What is stored in a wallet (file) and thus in a hard drive is the private-keys which allows someone sign and validate the transference of BTC from one public-key to another public-key. In other words, the only thing stored in a hard drive is a pre-defined password which allows any user to send BTC to whatever Bitcoin address they want. With that in mind, I stated that there is not a system embed in the Bitcoin protocol which allows an user to delete the BTC already supplied. Anyone can just delete a private key in their possession, but no one can command the protocol to delete the BTC supplied.
But by proxy, if the medium for which the password is stored is destroyed, and the password gives access to the btc, then access to the coin must also be destroyed. The protocol may still contain the supplied btc, but access to that btc is void if the private key is deleted. Meaning the protocol would just retain the bitcoin mined and do....what with it? Would it then be distributed among the miners?
Not being pushy or anything, just legitimately curious is all
What if you just destroyed the hard drive or the wallet or whatever the bitcoins are stored on?
In first place, BTC are not stored anywhere. What is stored in a wallet (file) and thus in a hard drive is the private-keys which allows someone sign and validate the transference of BTC from one public-key to another public-key. In other words, the only thing stored in a hard drive is a pre-defined password which allows any user to send BTC to whatever Bitcoin address they want. With that in mind, I stated that there is not a system embed in the Bitcoin protocol which allows an user to delete the BTC already supplied. Anyone can just delete a private key in their possession, but no one can command the protocol to delete the BTC supplied.
There is a principle here: Bitcoin needs to be free of politics. Go against that principle and you will harm or even destroy Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is apolitical money, it cannot be taken away, be devalued through making more for the rich, or (with proper precautions) seized.
DPR should have secured his coins better. He should have used some Brainwallets. For his sake (if he ever gets out) I hope he still has some Bitcoins hidden somewhere, but I doubt it.
Think about this from the opposite point of view. If the FBI failed to protect their own Bitcoins and some shady organization found their key and stole their Bitcoins, would we care? I bet not. Nor should we.
There is only one time that Bitcoin should go against it's own principles. In the event of an existentialist threat. In the event of a hostile government/organization destroying the Bitcoin network, we might take drastic steps to save Bitcoin. Even then, some people will argue that it would be better to let it die and switch to an altcoin based upon different principles.
You should always be aware of the principles that you live by. For instance, I treat "Freedom" and "Life" as my highest principles. I give them equal value, since they require each other.
Bitcoin needs to follow it's own principles too.
Bitcoin is apolitical money, it cannot be taken away, be devalued through making more for the rich, or (with proper precautions) seized.
DPR should have secured his coins better. He should have used some Brainwallets. For his sake (if he ever gets out) I hope he still has some Bitcoins hidden somewhere, but I doubt it.
Think about this from the opposite point of view. If the FBI failed to protect their own Bitcoins and some shady organization found their key and stole their Bitcoins, would we care? I bet not. Nor should we.
There is only one time that Bitcoin should go against it's own principles. In the event of an existentialist threat. In the event of a hostile government/organization destroying the Bitcoin network, we might take drastic steps to save Bitcoin. Even then, some people will argue that it would be better to let it die and switch to an altcoin based upon different principles.
You should always be aware of the principles that you live by. For instance, I treat "Freedom" and "Life" as my highest principles. I give them equal value, since they require each other.
Bitcoin needs to follow it's own principles too.
They aren't dumb. There is significant more power in the act of *retaining* control over such a large portion of total Bitcoins. They aren't going to waste it on some silly short term price crash dumping. The real threat here is that the Government now controls a big portion of all Bitcoins. That's pretty much the very OPPOSITE of what was intended with Bitcoin.
It is not a big portion, it is less than 2% of the total of BTC supplied. Stop the FUD, please.
Quote
The goal should be to delete those coins from the system completely, and kick them back into the mining queue to be re-created into the network. Absurd, I know, but I can't think of anyone who would be unhappy with the outcome of this idea.
Yes, absurd and stupid. There is not such thing as "mining queue" and there is no system in place to delete the already created BTC.
What if you just destroyed the hard drive or the wallet or whatever the bitcoins are stored on?
They aren't dumb. There is significant more power in the act of *retaining* control over such a large portion of total Bitcoins. They aren't going to waste it on some silly short term price crash dumping. The real threat here is that the Government now controls a big portion of all Bitcoins. That's pretty much the very OPPOSITE of what was intended with Bitcoin.
It is not a big portion, it is less than 2% of the total of BTC supplied. Stop the FUD, please.
Quote
The goal should be to delete those coins from the system completely, and kick them back into the mining queue to be re-created into the network. Absurd, I know, but I can't think of anyone who would be unhappy with the outcome of this idea.
Yes, absurd and stupid. There is not such thing as "mining queue" and there is no system in place to delete the already created BTC.
Er, because it's a philosophical question. Would you do something about it if you could, or would you just let it happen because it's a free market?
No, not because it's a free market. Because money isn't guilty. And blacklisting money won't help anything apart from creating troubles to Bitcoin users.Help track down pedophiles, that's the best thing you can do.
This... money isn't guilty. If you wen't to the ATM today and withdrew money and someone told you at some point that $20 bill was in the hands of a child molestor who used it to buy kiddie porn, does that change the $20 bill at all ? No of course not. Regardless of whos hands it passes through a bitcoin is still a bitcoin.
Allowing FBI to have any more control than they already do is bad.
It is similar to owning too much of a network, and a good example is 51%+ threats to Bitcoin.
This doesn't just mean Bitcoin networks, all networks in general.
FBI has enough power, they should not be allowed to gain more resources/power with these seized Bitcoins.
I will be using a Bitcoin tracking device to make sure I never get Bitcoins that the FBI once had and I will be able to track every company/person that accepted them.
This is very easy and possible to do.
We as a community can reject these coins all on our own.
It is similar to owning too much of a network, and a good example is 51%+ threats to Bitcoin.
This doesn't just mean Bitcoin networks, all networks in general.
FBI has enough power, they should not be allowed to gain more resources/power with these seized Bitcoins.
I will be using a Bitcoin tracking device to make sure I never get Bitcoins that the FBI once had and I will be able to track every company/person that accepted them.
This is very easy and possible to do.
We as a community can reject these coins all on our own.
Then at the same time you can argue that DPR shouldnt have been able to have that many bitcoins , or anyone for that matter. Inviduals could be just as dangerous as a group (like the fbi in this scenario). Thinking a guy selling drugs and putting out hits on peoples lives is less of a threat holding that many bitcoins just seems silly to me.
There's always going to be potential threats like these. I think it would go against the nature of bitcoin to say a certain person or group shouldn't be allowed to hold x amount of bitcoins though just because you personally don't trust them to do the right thing with those coins. Imagine a world of bitcoin where you can only get bitcoins if youre on an approved list and even then you can only own a certain amount, I don't like the idea of that.
With all that said, I'm still fairly confident that the FBI isn't going to do anything with these bitcoins that would severly hurt the market. Especially considering how bitcoin has moved away from just being a 'shady black market' type thing and has moved into real business's and job creation. Especially as America seems to be moving closer to allowing bitcoin to expand. Just doesn't seem likely to me that at this current stage the FBI would do something that would at this point cause a lot of people to lose their jobs and entire industries/businesses to go under. If bitcoin was still only being used to just buy drugs or launder money then I could see the FBI wanting to hurt it, when you have real legitmate businesses and people involved in bitcoin now though it seems a lot less likely..... heck I wouldn't be suprised if theres multiple people in the FBI who have their own personal holdings in bitcoin.
edit: btw, why would you care if you own coins the fbi once had in their possession. If you go to the ATM tomorrow and you receive cash that was once touched by police or the fbi do you really care ? It's still cash regardless of who it passed through at one point. Weither the FBI use to hold it or not, it's still the same bitcoin.
They are enemies to our community, likely planning to dump onto the market to cause a flash crash.
They aren't dumb. There is significant more power in the act of *retaining* control over such a large portion of total Bitcoins. They aren't going to waste it on some silly short term price crash dumping. The real threat here is that the Government now controls a big portion of all Bitcoins. That's pretty much the very OPPOSITE of what was intended with Bitcoin.
The goal should be to delete those coins from the system completely, and kick them back into the mining queue to be re-created into the network. Absurd, I know, but I can't think of anyone who would be unhappy with the outcome of this idea.
I'd be unhappy with it and would probably stop using Bitcoin entirely if that were ever done for any reason.
All you blacklisting supporters suck. You and your ideas are going to destroy Bitcoin.
Jump to: