Topic: Should core bitcoin developers freeze stolen Mt.Gox bitcoins? - page 2. (Read 6164 times)

Evidently. Perhaps some editing is in order.
What the hell are you talking about? Throughout the free world, the government does not produce food. The government is an impediment to the food producers - dictating how and when and where and in what manner they are allowed to produce food, how and when and where and in what manner they are allowed to transport their food, how and when and where and in what manner they are allowed to sell their food, and on and on. It is the people working together according to their interests and desires that do the producing - the rulers (i.e. the archy) merely get in the way.
Bullshit. Did the government decide it would be Maxwell that would formulate the mathematical basis for the wave propagation and interrelation of electricity and magnetism? Did the government tell Edison to invent the light bulb? Dictate that Tesla was to develop the A.C. transmission system? Sure Franklin had his kite and key, and was also instrumental in the founding of the USA, but this is a coincidence, not an act of government. Some governments run electrical utilities, sure. Other electrical utilities are privately developed, owned, and managed.
Again, humanity abandoning the concept that there can be an authority exempt from the morality that binds the rest of us does not extinguish all the forward progress and technologies not only already in existence, but that are continually developed. These are developed not by edict of government, but by individuals working alone or together in free collaboration.
Now you've stepped off the deep end. War is nothing but opposing _governments_ engaged in mortal combat. By definition, one cannot have war without government - IOW, there can be no war in anarchy.
Well, that would not be anarchy then , would it? an : lack of - archy : rulers - anarchy : lack of rulers.
Another jump off the deep end. North Korea an anarchy? Are you even thinking about what you are typing?
Look, I'm not about to pretend that having a go at anarchy would be all unicorns and rainbows. But to go off equating it with all the pain and suffering the world has ever known is foolish, deceitful, and ultimately counterproductive. I don't know if you are being foolish here, or being deceitful. I suspect the former, as I suspect that you're the victim of indoctrination via public schooling - a system of programming managed by the very people who are 'in power' under a system of government.

But please, at least think about what you're saying.

If this happens, would developers develope changes to bitcoin so to block big farmers?
If not tools to avoid big theft of bitcoins is going to happen, is there also a resistanse towards developing a other mining strategy for bitcoin?

Yeah this is somewhat unfortunate when you consider how it was designed and intended. I don't think they foresaw how fast the jump would be made to more advanced mining technologies, especially ASICs, which kind of took bitcoin away from the diehard geek enthusiasts and put it firmly in the hands of whoever can afford to spend 5-7 figures on mining equipment.

I doubt whether they will do anything like that. If they do so, then it will harm the reputation of the Bitcoin, and the exchange rate will tumble to near-zero. In the end, it will affect these powerful mining cabals also. But I agree with you, it is theoretically possible to do so. One of the fundamental flaws of Bitcoin. But as of now, we don't have to fear about it.

This, I see as a major flaw in bitcoin's model.... hear me out...

It looks like bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly difficult to the point that only a few rich with huge server farms can mine the coins. When there comes a point when there are like 10 major server farms that mine 90% of the bitcoins, which looks to be where it's going...

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I can't see how we wouldn't end up with a few large server farms mining most of the coins, controlling most of bitcoin. Can anyone steer me to not believe this?

And who is to say if the developers do "take power" that they wont get greedy and start extorting people by threatening to freeze bitcoins in an account if people dont pay a ransom... Worst case scenario of course..

I'm pretty sure what he's looking for is something called... fiat. Trying to convince people to have the option of 'freezing' coins goes against the whole fundamental concept of decentralisation and Bitcoin. If it could be frozen power would then reside with the developers. Not to mention, even if they did agree, I doubt the miners and nodes would accept and implement the change and without them good luck.

If Bitcoin can be freeze will you be using it ?

The question already obey the rules for Bitcoin .

as above, agree 100%

I think the main point here is that Bitcoin is not going to change in this way.  Ever.

So if you want a coin that can be frozen if stolen, etc. then you will need to move to an alt chain that does what you want.

No amount of posting, no matter how spirited, will change the fundamentals of Bitcoin.  

I wonder if anyone has created an alternate coin that has the properties you desire?

Perhaps a government backed and controlled coin is what you are looking for.

Bitcoin should always stay in control of the people using it. Not by any small group of people. Thats how it starts losing its reputation, if people start controlling it.

no this would not be a good idea and it goes against what people have come to expect of Bitcoin.  The media would have a field day with this type of thing happening and Bitcoin would lose alot of interest form it's users IMO.

Being tech savvy does not automatically mean that you are financially prudent or wise in any other respect. Keeping significant funds on remote sites has never been sensible, the risks have been repeated countless times and anyone who failed to be aware of them just wasn't doing their research. You look pover in Service Discussion and you see tales of people being incredibly, insanely reckless with money they can't afford to lose. There is no fixing that in a protocol of anything.

Yes, people should not have to "do their research" if the goal is mass appeal. I 100% agree with that. But that's not where we are now. Bitcoin is not ready for mass appeal. The services and infrastructure still need to grow up.

The fact that people need to do their research turns people off. The fact that people who don't do their research are getting ripped off turns people off. But if you start banning coins then this will deal a far more crippling blow to Bitcoin than a few early adopters realising they are out of their depth and a bit of bad press. It will cause desertion by the people that are currently making this thing work.

I've seen you posting the same line enough now to understand that you will never agree that this point of view is the correct one. Likewise I'm not willing to agree with your ideas of the inevitable death of Bitcoin if the scams and thefts are "allowed" to continue.

Both of these arguments have some merit, perhaps we can at least agree there. You must now agree that this debate has been running long enough to see that the "ban scammed coins" camp has very little support and it's just not going to happen. The MtGox loss/theft so far hasn't persuaded anyone in a position to start rejecting transactions to do so, and it's hard to imagine a bigger loss.

So please can we let this one drop now?

Generally in whatever happens the human is the weak link. If you drive a car, Paying the bills online, using bitcoins. If not car had evolved we would be driving T-fords still. I understand the concept of bitcoin, but in generall should the bitcoin exist regards to the founders ideology, or the users demands. I think with so smart programmers that created this, they can evolve bitcoin without lose the desentrilized ideology. Security measurments and desentrilisation is not the same thing. Somehow it should possible to get security protocols that is not monitored by governments and other, at least with as huge amounts as robed in MT.gox.

Bitcoin will never become mainstream, if you limit them to the tech savvy. And for heavens sake, a lot of people who lost their money in Gox were actually tech savvy! The difference between theft using fiat and that using Bitcoin is:

1. Theft using fiat: Strong chance of the perpetrator getting caught and sent to the jail. The victim gets support from the society and the authority.
2. Theft using Bitcoin: Almost no chance of catching the perpetrator. The victim is shunned and accused of carelessness.

As soon as a private key loses the ability to access the relevant funds - Bitcoin is broken. Game over.

It's the user mind set that needs to change, not the protocol. If you wouldn't send cash in an envelope to a PO Box in Poland, why would you send Bitcoins to the same guy if he ran a website?

The thing is, with Mt. Gox, they didn't even notice the coins were missing for years (supposedly.) So at this point, isn't it likely that those coins have been transferred many times and could be in the hands of completely innocent people who were not involved with the theft but received bitcoins as payment or purchased them, and didn't know they were buying coins that were stolen from Mt. Gox? I mean, are you going to prosecute someone because a $20 bill in their wallet was used in a drug transaction 2 years ago? Absurd.

This would really hurt BTC as it would no longer be decentralized and people would have more faith in fiat.  It isn't fair to people who received stolen funds without knowledge.

I agree to that its not about undesentrilising bitcoins. if bitcoin is going mainstream it needs to evolve. Keep the desentrilisation, but its not said that there can be introduced security measurements and other that makes sure if you steal large amounts they get freezed and useless. This will slow down the blackhats and other bad people.

A other option could be to create a ideal organisation, and the bitcoins that get seased immediatly after a big theft like in MTgox before inocent people receive them.  The coins that were stolen, and will not receive them back, but the thief will not enjoy them either. But the humans threw the organisation benefits. This will in the long run teach the professional thievs that its not worth time to use time on this, and this behaviour would disappear and be history.

In general I think its wrong to think about bitcoin as a Anarchy heaven. I do not sure if the anarchists even know what they want to achieve with anarchy. With anarchy society totaly brakes, down, for instance no food production and other. Where will you as a anarhyst get food. Where will you get electricity, noone are producing it or the equipment needed to produce it. Go and live as a farmer in the stone age, then you can not sit with the computer and enjoy programming. Also in general to get anarchy to build a new society does not work, because the society need to be broken down completly. The only thing it leads to is pain and suffering, then war, then death and more war before a new order is growing with the survival of the fittest mentality. And the new order will in the long run somehow look similar to something that already existed previously. Somehow there will be leaders, governmental looking structures and so on and things just repeat itself. In general the strongest and meanest and the one with biggest muscles or weapons becomes the chief until the next one kills him. Anarchy will lead us toworse times we hopefully never will see again. Some parts in the world its still that way. Look at north korea for example where citizens been killed, starved and even worse where an elite dictates how thing will be...Just my unedited thoughts.  
 

If people were giving cash to street vendors for them to look after, I guarantee that the theft rate would be 90+%. The problem is that people are giving their Bitcoins to any old website operator for them to look after.

If you don't control the private key to your coins, you don't have your coins. This needs drilling in to people.