Topic: Proposal: Make the orignal "Nakamoto" coins available for miners (Read 702 times)
I'm not sure this will solve any of the current problems bitcoin is experiencing. However, I think someone has finally hit on a proposal that will make Satoshi come out of hiding
and this is a subtle hint of whats to come...
if segwit activates.. a threat will come.
move to segwit keys or have your current UTXO killed off in a mass prunning event of blocks before activation date getting prunned
people can already see blockstream planning it as their threat to push people to use segwit keys to force people to move funds to even achieve segwits promises
P.S
core have all the prunned, mimble wimble and other plans to move funds and destroy blocks without community consent..
P.S
having code that can destroy coins is worse than just letting a thief move them.. oh and lets not forget the real world realising devs can simple delete coins at a whim will destroy any "asset" trust of fungibility.
if anything let a thief move them.. atleast the funds would then be moved to secure keys and then still part of circulation.. the ramifications of destroying funds will be worse.
think about it. if satoshi did move them to secure keys.. what would the response be.. "its not satoshi.. its D-wage theft, destroy them before they are all moved"
how will anyone know the difference between the legit owner moving them and a d-wave thief.
if segwit activates.. a threat will come.
move to segwit keys or have your current UTXO killed off in a mass prunning event of blocks before activation date getting prunned
people can already see blockstream planning it as their threat to push people to use segwit keys to force people to move funds to even achieve segwits promises
P.S
core have all the prunned, mimble wimble and other plans to move funds and destroy blocks without community consent..
P.S
having code that can destroy coins is worse than just letting a thief move them.. oh and lets not forget the real world realising devs can simple delete coins at a whim will destroy any "asset" trust of fungibility.
if anything let a thief move them.. atleast the funds would then be moved to secure keys and then still part of circulation.. the ramifications of destroying funds will be worse.
think about it. if satoshi did move them to secure keys.. what would the response be.. "its not satoshi.. its D-wage theft, destroy them before they are all moved"
how will anyone know the difference between the legit owner moving them and a d-wave thief.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
That article (with fabricated quotes) shouldn't impact coins for which the public address has never been revealed.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
what is 'version 1'
still sounds like an unnacceptable bug to me. Why would BU do this/allow this
Let me summarize this thread.
The idea is to destroy or steal someones (including the inventor and creator of Bitcoin himself) personal property, before it is being stolen.
The motivation behind this, is not to prevent the theft, but the sale of the stolen assets, in order to keep the market price up for the other owners.
That is sick and twisted. It is the type of logic governments use.
*YUCK*
The idea is to destroy or steal someones (including the inventor and creator of Bitcoin himself) personal property, before it is being stolen.
The motivation behind this, is not to prevent the theft, but the sale of the stolen assets, in order to keep the market price up for the other owners.
That is sick and twisted. It is the type of logic governments use.
*YUCK*
That article (with fabricated quotes) shouldn't impact coins for which the public address has never been revealed.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
What you are referring to does not apply to Satoshi's coins and other early coins.
They used a tx format that has been discontinued since v0.8 that used IP addresses.
See the following: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.134753
My understanding is that P2IP is vulnerable to quantum computing (in theory).
Theymos statements as to "Satoshi's Coins" originally was because his are the only "addresses"
remaining today that are the most vulnerable to QC, as well as the most likely to get selected for
cracking by QC (If I recall correctly).
That article (with fabricated quotes) shouldn't impact coins for which the public address has never been revealed.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
BU's code as written already allows miners to steal anyone's BTC because it doesn't verify signatures on transactions in "old" blocks, but the apparent age of a block is controlled by miners.
well that doesnt sound too good. Someone should probably fix that.
This is a slippery slope fallacy to imply that if we let the miners decide the blocksize, then they could then decide on anything else.
Fallacious because making EC blocksize part of the code does not automatically create EC for other parts of the code.
Fallacious because making EC blocksize part of the code does not automatically create EC for other parts of the code.
BU's code as written already allows miners to steal anyone's BTC because it doesn't verify signatures on transactions in "old" blocks, but the apparent age of a block is controlled by miners.
Quote
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
That is a made-up article with completely fabricated quotes.
My proposal is that if quantum computers make it a very high risk that millions of lost BTC will be "un-lost", then those BTC should be destroyed (not redistributed) before they can be taken by thieves. Everyone would have years to move their coins into secure addresses before this would happen, and anyone who failed to do so would almost certainly have their coins stolen due to weakened crypto anyway. From this proposal, dishonest people jumped to the idea that because it's possible that Satoshi's coins could be destroyed by this, that therefore I was proposing destroying Satoshi's coins, when that is absolutely not the point, and in fact an undesirable outcome. The ideal outcome would be that everyone would move their coins to secure addresses and that no coins would need to be destroyed.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
(I assume this is a tounge-in-cheek stab against EC, not a serious proposal)
good one.
This is a slippery slope fallacy to imply that if we let the miners decide the blocksize, then they could then decide on anything else.
Fallacious because making EC blocksize part of the code does not automatically create EC for other parts of the code.
good one.
This is a slippery slope fallacy to imply that if we let the miners decide the blocksize, then they could then decide on anything else.
Fallacious because making EC blocksize part of the code does not automatically create EC for other parts of the code.
To revisit this idea:
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
The comment I would make is that the only ones who need to agree to do this are the miners and they would directly benefit from it. It would delay them having to be paid via transaction fees alone, thus keeping the network stable.
I would change the approach described in the article by having the miners perform the operation. They could modify the chain to remove the coins and then keep mining away. As the miners are now concentrated in China, just a handful of miners would have to agree to do this. You don't need any change to code and there is no way for them to be prevented from doing it if they agree since hashing power overrules everything else.
I don't think it would set a precedent for other coins since this is just to protect the ecosystem and the miners. Attempting to do it in the code would never work as there are too many people who are required to agree to do it that way. Agreement between the majority hashing-power miners would be much easier. I'm sure it will be an issue visited when the coin limit date starts getting closer but it would be nice for them to start discussion now.
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
The comment I would make is that the only ones who need to agree to do this are the miners and they would directly benefit from it. It would delay them having to be paid via transaction fees alone, thus keeping the network stable.
I would change the approach described in the article by having the miners perform the operation. They could modify the chain to remove the coins and then keep mining away. As the miners are now concentrated in China, just a handful of miners would have to agree to do this. You don't need any change to code and there is no way for them to be prevented from doing it if they agree since hashing power overrules everything else.
I don't think it would set a precedent for other coins since this is just to protect the ecosystem and the miners. Attempting to do it in the code would never work as there are too many people who are required to agree to do it that way. Agreement between the majority hashing-power miners would be much easier. I'm sure it will be an issue visited when the coin limit date starts getting closer but it would be nice for them to start discussion now.
Jump to: