Topic: [PROPOSAL] - lock the apparent Mt. Gox coins for now - page 3. (Read 4956 times)

If you fork the blockchain it is a guaranteed fact that somebody somewhere will get screwed over. How could this be a good idea?

bitcoin is bitcoin.. thats what its for.. no take backs.. no indian givers.. you wanna sell drugs.. guns.. or even uproot fiat.. i dont care... thats why bitcoin was created. if you're a damn fool and dont follow the protocol then you deserve to be robbed.. ie.. hold coins in our own wallets and dont let greed take over by trusting your coins to someone else (it says so right when you download bitcoin client !!! DONT TRUST OTHERS WITH YOUR COIN)

But what you're proposing is very risky for the whole network, just to keep some coins from being spent?
This would open up room for similar events taking place in the future, which would be even worse.

I've been accused of being level headed and sane several times on this forum. It's kind of weird. I'm used to being the crazy one. Maybe the same deal?

This is centralization, and is against one of the core values of Bitcoin.  End of discussion.



Ok.  No.  There is something you can do.  Make a client for users and a bitcoind for miners and pools that simply does not processes certain addresses that you are against.  Then publicize and distribute that client.  If you get 51% of the miners to follow you, you win!   It is not a whole lot of code just to ignore the addresses either.   Then when someone tries to move those coins, the network will fork.  If you have enough on your side the network will re-organize every time a block is mined with those coins and revert back to your fork without those coins moving. 

Never going to happen.

/thread

I agree. The OP is yet another rinse and repeat of one of the worst proposals possible.

Something's wrong when senior members of the forum have no clue how the integrity and value of Bitcoin is maintained.

I vote we lock this thread and stop discussing the distruction of Bitcoins fungibility forever.

I am gravely concerned that my name is being mentioned in a list of people who are "respected by the community".

Obviously I must have been slacking off somehow.

What can I do to make this right?

Nice thoughtful remarks.

Is this really like re-issuing a security though? It strikes me as more like evidence preservation, locking up the securities until their proper ownership can be determined.

This proposal is not intended to "run to big daddy" at all. This is not a proposal for any government agency or some such to regulate or change bitcoin in any way. It is a proposal for miners, those controlling more than 51% of the hashing power, to refuse to let their resources be used to support a large scale fraud or theft.

Firstly, you will never achieve consensus on an idea like this.  Bitcoin is digital cash for a reason.  

Secondly, in an alternate universe where you did freeze coins, it would set a precedent that people aren't responsible for their actions and decisions.  It would snowball into a centralized and ambiguous system, complete with favouritism, socialized bailouts, and a loss of freedom for its users.  

Thirdly, MtGox users did not lose their bitcoins.  MtGox defaulted on bitcoin IOUs.  There is a fundamental difference here that we as a community must come to appreciate. For the first time in history, we have a technology that allows its users to store, transport and exchange value with anyone else in the world, without the assistance of a third party or the permission of an authority.  All you need to do is secure your private keys.  

Good point about the potential dangers, particularly with the possible leaks of the source code and the database.

OTOH, it strikes me that freezing spending of reasonably well identified Mt. Gox accounts would be beneficial. How do you think that would harm an investigation? It strikes me as similar to evidence preservation.

Sounds much like the "asset forfeiture" scam that so many states are running these days in regards to (usually alleged) drug smuggling.

If bitcoin is viable, it is BECAUSE things like this can't be done.

I hope Kareles et. al. can or will recover the majority of the losses through legitimate means, or that the sale of their assets is such that most of the clients receive some compensation. However, there is NO scenario in which it would be wise to break bitcoin for the sake of making some people whole who were scammed or defrauded by a sketchy outfit.

The story that they're telling about malleability is simply untrue. Somebody, somewhere has the keys to the "missing" coins. Beyond the flimsy cover story, we really do not know what's going on. However, if the bankruptcy details they have made public are correct, they have close to half the missing assest already, not including customer funds. Which means that the missing coins can be had back at about 50 percent. Given how many sharks circled in at the low prices to try and gather up cheap coins, a lot of people would still make out well on this.

But that is an aside. You don't reissue a security because a brokerage stole some of it, and you don't reissue a currency for that reason either. If they "find" the coins, cool. If they don't, bitcoin is 6 percent more valuable.

While that seems harsh, going the "let's run to big daddy" thing is much harsher. Six percent is very paltry compared to 100 percent.

Good point. I guess the people controlling 51% of the hashing power would have to determine which independent group had sufficient validity. Such a group, constituted appropriately, seems like it could persuade them.

Hypothetical - what is someone doesn't mine at all. Is that extortion and tantamount to theft of the block reward? What constitutes the valid blockchain is essentially determined by a majority of the hashing power.

Also, the statement here ignores the fact that this proposal is to have a form of due process -- appropriate weighting of evidence and an appeals process.

Wait!  You're changing the rules?

You said a group of people respected by the community.  You didn't say anything about leaving the decision in the hands of the pools that have 51% of the hashing power.  I thought an independent group was supposed to review the evidence and inform the pools of which addresses they should ignore?

Great.  It sounds like we now have what you've requested...

"A group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence"

As soon as we hear from at least one of QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier we can proceed with your plan.

Assuming one of the three of them agree with D&T and I, I'll take it upon myself to contact all the mining pools and inform them of which addresses they should be ignoring.

What this will depend on, of course, is who controls the majority of the hashing power. I suppose if you four control 51%, that would make the point. There might be other reasons the rest of us would like to fork then, but that is a different question  

Miners discarding the valid blocks of miners who refuse to engage in the unethical blocking of wealth based on no due process is extortion and tantamount to theft of the block reward.

You are correct, I should have written, following the majority of the other miners.