i agree with him but bitcoin now more expensive to be lost or stolen because high price of bitcoin .
in the past it is easy to lost 1 bitcoin without any problem because price was 100$ to 900$
do not forget that one Bitcoin can be divided into more than a million small pieces, so instead of looking at that you have one bitcoin, you can say that you have about a million pieces and so on.
We do not need to destroy them because we do not know how many addresses Satoshi has?
Topic: Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” (Read 18611 times)
December 31, 2017, 02:22:01 PM
That is, indeed a terrible idea. Even if someone cracks them that someone deserves them, it is like mining or finding a treasure in the deep sea. The effort and money needed to crack those addresses is far more than the money and effort to mine today so those pursuing that goal (cracking lost old addresses) should be rewarded with those Coins.
That was Satoshi's idea from the very beginning, to leave some rewards for those who will develop the computing needed to crack the algorithm by brute force using QC or huge amounts of energy.
That was Satoshi's idea from the very beginning, to leave some rewards for those who will develop the computing needed to crack the algorithm by brute force using QC or huge amounts of energy.
Wow...I was thinking about this very thread during initial stages of the theDAO exploit on the Ethereum platform. I had a stake in both theDAO and ether so it directly involved me. I shorted my stake immediately so ended up taking profit in the long run. But, the incident did alter my thinking somewhat regarding the immutability of a blockchain....I still maintain that the blockchain should remain immutable but in cases of mass theft where many individuals are attacked, I think that a fork, rollback, or some other measure should be proposed for the community to vote on. The negative consequences of such an occurrence should be offset by confidence gained thru the community consensus. However, I am assuming that the community also believes in the value of an immutable blockchain and that such measures would not be taken lightly. I am assuming that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to gain a consensus in all but the most grievous of circumstances.
ETH is still very new, and blacklisting ETH coins would do nowhere near the damage as blacklisting BTC coins would do.
I really hope they decide to make all the proposed changes in ETH. That way we can find out what happens when a coin does this without ruining BTC.My personal opinion is that if a coin were to fork for this reason,
Doing the fork(s) in ETH would be a great experiment. Will the value of ETH plummet even more and never recover? Will it recover after everyone forgets why it lost value in the first place?
Let's find out!
Full disclosure: I own BTC and I do not own any ETH/DAO therefore a failure of ETH/DAO can only affect me and my BTC indirectly.
EDIT:
I guess you might even be hard pressed to legally call the ETH/DAO event theft: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG
However it could be argued that any fork specifically targeting the coins moved in the event would be theft!
Interesting times for all.
Looks like the ETH experiment will proceed - they have strong support for a soft fork. Hard fork is too close to call at this point.
Personally, I had been buying some ETH in the weeks before the peak. But as things dragged out with no clear path forward and a lot of disquieting news in the aftermath of The DAO hack, I sold out completely. It's not that they stepped on a mine that scared me. It's that they are still standing in the middle of a minefield with no idea how to extract themselves. They can't fork themselves out of every mess someone gets into.
The price of ETH has held up surprisingly well so far. Much better than in the aftermath of the Vericoin hardfork a few years ago. But I have a hard time seeing how the price can be justified. Even in a best-case scenario progress is going to have to be much slower going forward, to avoid disastrous new hacks/bugs being exploited.
It's just one guys opinion who has no say in whether it happens or not.
They will NEVER start deleting peoples coins..
or it's the day BTC dies.
Conversation over.
They will NEVER start deleting peoples coins..
or it's the day BTC dies.
Conversation over.
No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
Yes I do not think someone has a right to destroy others coin holding for long time and I do not think destroying them will make any inflation IMHO. We should just let those coins leave sleeping where ever they are already! if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
ETH is still very new, and blacklisting ETH coins would do nowhere near the damage as blacklisting BTC coins would do.
I really hope they decide to make all the proposed changes in ETH. That way we can find out what happens when a coin does this without ruining BTC.My personal opinion is that if a coin were to fork for this reason,
Doing the fork(s) in ETH would be a great experiment. Will the value of ETH plummet even more and never recover? Will it recover after everyone forgets why it lost value in the first place?
Let's find out!
Full disclosure: I own BTC and I do not own any ETH/DAO therefore a failure of ETH/DAO can only affect me and my BTC indirectly.
EDIT:
I guess you might even be hard pressed to legally call the ETH/DAO event theft: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG
However it could be argued that any fork specifically targeting the coins moved in the event would be theft!
Interesting times for all.
I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.
First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.
More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.
I didn't say it was an existential thread to bitcoin. That's silly. It was an existential threat to the entity in question, The DAO. Given that the head of Slock.it is now saying it's dead regardless of what happens, I'd say that's pretty existential.
If they engage a hard fork it will require widespread consensus among the miners involved to pull it off. There is no contradiction between decentralization and getting something done. I think the muddled point you are trying to make is that if they bail out The DAO investors, people will expect it again in the future. That risk exists both in a mob rule and a dictatorship. That, not decentralization or centralization, is the real issue at hand.
As long as they can do it with a soft fork it will be OK.
Same thing for deleting satoshi's coins, if theymos and mining pools can do it with a soft fork (i.e. not changing the codes of Bitcoin, which is immutable.), than is OK.
On the other hand, I understand that a hardfork could make transactions that spend coins from blacklisted address(es) invalid so regardless of the length of the chain the builds on top of a block that includes transactions from the blacklisted address(es), that chain will be invalid, and miners will have clear incentives to build on top of the chain without these transactions because the economy will reject the other chain.
2 - The code of Bitcoin can (and has been) changed via a hardfork. The code of Bitcoin is simply code that has been accepted by the Bitcoin ecosystem. If there is a change to the Bitcoin code that the overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin ecosystem (and more importantly the bitcoin economy) agrees would be beneficial to Bitcoin (and bitcoin - lower case 'b'), then the code will be changed.
I think there is a fairly substantial difference between blacklisting the stolen DAO coins and blacklisting satoshi's coins.
In the case of the DAO, it is fairly easy to somewhat cryptographically prove that funds were stolen by looking at the blockchain and the DAO smart contract. I also understand that it is possible to validate the conditions of the smart contract by looking at both the smart contract and the address the funds were sent to (eg it is not possible to create a smart contract that has an arbitrary deposit address).
On the other hand, it is impossible to tell if satoshi was actually the person who is attempting to spend his coins. It is the bitcoin private keys that allow satoshi to spend his bitcoin, and not any other verification method. It is far worse to intentionally deprive someone of their property for no reason other then that their property might get stolen in the future then to deprive someone of property that fairly clearly does not belong to them.
It would also be bad to blacklist the stolen bitstamp coins (or the stolen bitfinex coins, or other coins that are claimed to be stolen) because in order to say that certain coins are stolen, you will need to believe the person who claims to be the "true" owner of said coins, and there is no real way of verifying that the "true" owner of the coins did not receive some kind of consideration in exchange for sending their coins to the "thief".
ETH is still very new, and blacklisting ETH coins would do nowhere near the damage as blacklisting BTC coins would do.
bitcoin that belongs to satoshi could be destroyed by theymos only if he is indeed satoshi himself , but i doubt it.
why are you insisting the bitcoins belonging to satoshi to be destroyed?
Well you never know. He could be the real Satoshi and he wants others to believe that his coins should be destroyed. But I don't know why he would want to do that. But you never know. why are you insisting the bitcoins belonging to satoshi to be destroyed?
why are you insisting the bitcoins belonging to satoshi to be destroyed?
Becoz quantum computers will steel his coinz as they where send to pubic key.
Soft fork will delete them no problem, you don't even need to upgrade, it is backwards compatible.
bitcoin that belongs to satoshi could be destroyed by theymos only if he is indeed satoshi himself , but i doubt it.
why are you insisting the bitcoins belonging to satoshi to be destroyed?
why are you insisting the bitcoins belonging to satoshi to be destroyed?
Isn't it going against the whole point of a decentralized currency to purposely destroy the coins in someone elses wallet? It's a slippery slope. If you do that, then you could destroy the coins in any wallet that you deem is too big.
No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
The blockchain's immutable hymen would remain intact even under the various Theymos proposals - I think. Only a rollback would change the past?
~~
This guy gets it. Becoz it is soft. It does not break the hymen of immutability.
Yes. And I think hard fork solutions could also be immutable? Only code modifications invalidating previous blocks would bring about change.
~~
No. Soft fork means immutable status quo. Hard fork means controversial and contentious consensus attacks on the network. Lrn 2 discern friend.
No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
The blockchain's immutable hymen would remain intact even under the various Theymos proposals - I think. Only a rollback would change the past?
~~
This guy gets it. Becoz it is soft. It does not break the hymen of immutability.
Yes. And I think hard fork solutions could also be immutable? Only code modifications invalidating previous blocks would bring about change.
~~
If Satoshi wants his coins so badly, then he can move them himself before they are destroyed.
What?
Course he want's them.
They are his.
Leave them alone.
This is a terrible idea. Example.
A man buys or acquires 1 btc. He then goes to prison, at age 18, for a 40 year sentence. He gets out...and his coins are gone....because he couldnt use or spend them.
How is it even a remotely good idea to take something of someone elses, and decide how often they should have to use their own btc. Thats utter bs.
You dun't understand. It is for the good of the collective. An aspiration that rises above any one man.
Hackers ain't gonna wait 30-35 years. If the security scheme is obsolete, they'll hack his money at first opportunity.
If Satoshi wants his coins so badly, then he can move them himself before they are destroyed.
What?
Course he want's them.
They are his.
Leave them alone.
This is a terrible idea. Example.
A man buys or acquires 1 btc. He then goes to prison, at age 18, for a 40 year sentence. He gets out...and his coins are gone....because he couldnt use or spend them.
How is it even a remotely good idea to take something of someone elses, and decide how often they should have to use their own btc. Thats utter bs.
No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
The blockchain's immutable hymen would remain intact even under the various Theymos proposals - I think. Only a rollback would change the past?
~~
This guy gets it. Becoz it is soft. It does not break the hymen of immutability.
No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
The blockchain's immutable hymen would remain intact even under the various Theymos proposals - I think. Only a rollback would change the past?
~~
No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.
Jump to: