Topic: In the spirit of fungibility: some things BitFinex hacker might want to consider (Read 707 times)

The problem is the morality. If we can do a reorg once, this will convince the community that a reorg is natural. You can't just fix your mistakes by undoing them. You shouldn't be able to. What's lost should be lost.

Who else are you waiting for, before a reorg becomes a non-option?
The way virtual exchanges are being hacked is driving lots of people away from bitcoins.

No. Please dont let this happen. I don't want bitcoin to become another ethereum. Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized, no one has control. Unless we reach a mass consensus, which is highly unlikely, the hacker should keep the coins.

This has never happened in the past, it should never happen in the future. to name a few, Mt gox went down, cryptsy went down and Bitfinex went down. Did they get a reorg? No.

Ah so thats what that meant about a haircut.

I thought it was because when he or they get caught they will give him a buzzcut when he gets sent to jail.

Reading comprehension, my friend.

You simply neglected to identify the only person that publicly offered this suggestion to a Bitfinex representative, I rectified that.

I didn't mention anything about Blocksize, either. You did.

Eh, I don't know. Personally it sounds like a good idea, but at the same time it seems like there are some issues presenting themselves. Namely the reorg. When applied as a fork, this shows that there is too much power with those who publish the forks, and as mentioned some people have already spoken loudly against it. I'm in favor of going against the blacklisting attempts, however I personally believe that a hack is a hack and in an economy like this where a majority of things are trust-based, nothing should be blacklisted and nothing should be reorged out of existence. If that was a thing, we could have done it with Mt.Gox.

That is factually incorrect seeing as the  Core developers are the principal drivers behind efforts to improve fungibility.

I'm not directing the attacker to do anything but consider his options in case someone manages to rile up enough loud mouths.

I didn't create this thread for you trolls to pollute it with Blockstream/Core/Blocksize non sense either

did not find the button for watching. 

The suggestion by Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream Co-Founder and Bitcoin Core Developer, wasn’t to just simply blacklist coins… it was to reorg the hack away entirely. Of course he backtracked quickly when his Blockstream coworkers and other Core contributors squealed loudly about it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4vupa6/p2shinfo_shows_movement_out_of_multisig_wallets/d61qyaj

The only people who could damage fungibility at this point are the Core developers and the handful of dominant mining pool ops. These are the parties to whom you should be directing your plea. Directing the attacker to do what you say reads like a letter to santa.

Yesterday there was a suggestion to get miners to blacklist the stolen coins. It is plausible Bitfinex might want to try and make this happen. It's possible some miners lost funds in Bitfinex also which may make this more attractive.

The hacker should have a couple of choices to prevent this from happening. They could either negotiate with bitfinex to keep say 10% of the coins or they can thwart blacklisting by getting the coins into circulation.

This will involve an initial haircut of 25% (30kbtc). Use a percentage of it to pay varying moderate/small amounts of approx 0.1 BTC to many of the most active addresses in Bitcoin to protect against reorg by getting them linked into transactions. Spend about 100 BTC on this.

Then they should create a series of nLockTimed transactions that pay 6 BTC in fees every 4 blocks for the next year for a total of 10000 BTC in fees. These transactions should pay large amounts (e.g. 50 BTC) to randomly selected active users from major Bitcoin forums spread out across the transactions.

This incentivizes the users to fight any blacklisting attempts and the hacker can pay themselves in the same chain of transactions.

I'm sorry for the losses of everyone involved and it's unfortunate to see two companies likely go down with this (BitGo & BitFinex) but it is essential that Bitcoin fungibility be preserved.

Any attempt to damage it needs to be thwarted.