Topic: [POLL] Moral dillema. Satoshi's coins. VOTE - page 2. (Read 1225 times)
Apart from genesis block 50 coins and a few known others, u never know for sure, which coins actually belong to Satoshi.
Has anyone bothered to consider that we're not just living in one long unchanging moment, but a succession of continuous moments often referred to as "time"?
Just because the public keys Bitcoin uses today are quantum resistant, there is no guarantee that innovations in the field won't be capable of that in future.
The point is this: if one attacker could steal Satoshi's coins, even if it were 500,000 BTC, don't you think that's *ahem* somewhat of an issue? If we can do something before it happens, that would be preferable.
Maybe it'll never be possible, but you're all making one hell of an assumption. If the right thing to do is to protect Satoshi's money, doing nothing might not be an option.
Just because the public keys Bitcoin uses today are quantum resistant, there is no guarantee that innovations in the field won't be capable of that in future.
The point is this: if one attacker could steal Satoshi's coins, even if it were 500,000 BTC, don't you think that's *ahem* somewhat of an issue? If we can do something before it happens, that would be preferable.
Maybe it'll never be possible, but you're all making one hell of an assumption. If the right thing to do is to protect Satoshi's money, doing nothing might not be an option.
Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.
SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.
If the current address is already having a quantum resistant but, some times are not be able for btc be hardfork into the another or new algorithm? SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.
Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.
SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.
If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.
He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.
SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.
If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.
He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.
Best argument ever, I have also known that unspent addresse are quantum resistant but failed to make the connection.
Yes it is true, unspent addresses should stay as they are, and nobody should have the right to spend/lockout any address unless they have the private key as well.
I personally think that there is no reason to destroy Satoshi's coins, that is a shitty idea and I think that a majority of investors already account for those coins, meaning that they know they likely won't ever circulate. Because of this, the price of Bitcoin more than less represents the value of circulating Bitcoin, to a decent extent.
Destroying Bitcoin to stop a market crash is just a bad idea.
Destroying Bitcoin to stop a market crash is just a bad idea.
Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.
SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.
If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.
He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.
SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.
If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.
He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.
i voted no, but to be honest i dont really no what you are getting at, what would he have to upgrade?? if his coins are at a certain address and every node upgrades to said QC resistant algo than his coin should still be at them addresses 
As per Bitcoin Wiki, user action would be required:
Quote
A new public-key algorithm can be added to Bitcoin as a softfork. From the end-user perspective, this would appear as the creation of a new address type, and everyone would need to send their bitcoins to this new address type to achieve quantum security.
There's no need for a third way, Satoshi's coins are already safe from quantum computer attacks.
Quantum computers can't calculate a Bitcoin private key from an unspent bitcoin wallet, so Satoshi's coins are safe from quantum computer attacks. He never moved any of his coins. If he had moved some he would have revealed a public key which a quantum computer needs to calculate the private key.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet-1382996984
Quantum computers can't calculate a Bitcoin private key from an unspent bitcoin wallet, so Satoshi's coins are safe from quantum computer attacks. He never moved any of his coins. If he had moved some he would have revealed a public key which a quantum computer needs to calculate the private key.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet-1382996984
Quote
Quantum computers are capable of breaking elliptic curve DSA (ie. given a public key, a quantum computer can very quickly find the private key), but they cannot similarly reverse hash algorithms (or rather, they can, but it would take one 280 computational steps to crack a Bitcoin address, which is still very much impractical). Thus, if your Bitcoin funds are stored in an address that you have not spent from (so the public key is unknown), they are safe against a quantum computer - at least until you try to spend them. There are theoretical ways to make Bitcoin fully quantum-safe, but the fact that an address is simply a hash of a public key does mean that once quantum computers do come out attackers will be able to do much less damage before we fully switch over.
Do zilch. Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else what to do with their coins? And aside from a handful, how do we know which blocks were Satoshis? Some very early miners might well have stayed under the radar. I think this million coin figure is a long way from reality.
I voted 2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground.
No one has the right to destroy someone else's coins,I understand that this is a special case and a move like this may prevent a possible deflation but I am sure that Satoshi knows better than anyone else how to protect them and what is the best for Bitcoin.
They only thing that worries me and makes me think it again is if he is still alive or not,it would be great if he shows signs of life until then.
No one has the right to destroy someone else's coins,I understand that this is a special case and a move like this may prevent a possible deflation but I am sure that Satoshi knows better than anyone else how to protect them and what is the best for Bitcoin.
They only thing that worries me and makes me think it again is if he is still alive or not,it would be great if he shows signs of life until then.
i voted no, but to be honest i dont really no what you are getting at, what would he have to upgrade?? if his coins are at a certain address and every node upgrades to said QC resistant algo than his coin should still be at them addresses
Trying to create a rift in the community by only providing 2 credible options? Remember when you tried to convince me you weren't trolling, lol
For me, Bitcoin is just a great example of blockchain power and use, actually 10 billions is nothing compared to economy.
Let the future say what will happen.
Let the future say what will happen.
Let's do a little rehash of previous discussion about what to do with the risk of Satoshi's coins being stolen. But let's change the narrative a little bit.
Scenario:
The rise of powerful quantum computers is inevitable. All Bitcoin users will have to upgrade to a new quantum-resistant algo, or have their funds stolen.
The question is, what to do with Satoshi's coins:
1 - give Satoshi a 'notice period' (i.e. 1 year time to upgrade) after which, the coins will be destroyed. (vote 'Yes' in the poll)
2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground. (vote 'No' in the poll)
3 - there's a third way (describe in reply). (vote '3rd option' in the poll)
This is meant to be a question about ethics, not about likelihood of QC being a threat or what would be the real impact on the market. So let's assume the scenario as real.
Ps. Vote changing allowed.
Scenario:
The rise of powerful quantum computers is inevitable. All Bitcoin users will have to upgrade to a new quantum-resistant algo, or have their funds stolen.
The question is, what to do with Satoshi's coins:
1 - give Satoshi a 'notice period' (i.e. 1 year time to upgrade) after which, the coins will be destroyed. (vote 'Yes' in the poll)
2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground. (vote 'No' in the poll)
3 - there's a third way (describe in reply). (vote '3rd option' in the poll)
This is meant to be a question about ethics, not about likelihood of QC being a threat or what would be the real impact on the market. So let's assume the scenario as real.
Ps. Vote changing allowed.
Jump to: