Topic: Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” - page 11. (Read 18611 times)

Wow.  This relatively benign topic is shedding light on some of the deeper aspects of the project.  It's bringing up questions about motivations, intentions, and governance that have never been explicitly expressed. 

It's been demonstrated throughout history that when communities grow, it becomes necessary to form some sort of representative governing body to keep the community in line with its social and political philosophies....but, that describes a "third party" which leads to a conundrum.

So, what do we do about anticipated security issues?  Well, that depends on the motivations of who we're asking, right?  If we take a vote using some sort of consensus protocol, then the majority wins even if they're obviously "bad actors!"  For example, if we took a vote on whether or not to redistribute bitcoin equally among the community, a vote FOR redistribution would probably prevail.

I believe that when these type of question arise, we need to fall back on the original intent of the system for answers.  We need to hold fast to the vision of a decentralized system in which the ledger cannot be changed unless the entire proof-of-work is redone (good luck with that!).  The integrity of the ledger is the spine of the system.  We have to accept the ledger as our preamble and work within that context....We shouldn't design solutions based on greed, power, or lust because that goes against the original train of thought that lead to the technology.  Will the block chain ledger maintain value if we manipulate the ledger without redoing the necessary proof-of-work required in the original protocol?  What's more important: the integrity of the ledger or the value of its component entries?

The media can react negatively to anything, and they usually do because doing so gets more viewers, so imagining how they might react to any scenario where their reaction isn't bought and paid for is about pointless.  Moreover, even if it was worth considering, comparing two potential reactions to two unreasonable solutions (destroy coins / never make another change to the current design ever again) doesn't justify anything when there are a reasonable solutions available.  More technically speaking, one change does not necessitate the other.  Adding a new encryption scheme that can and should be switched to does not break fungibility or set a bad precedent.  Burning or blacklisting coins at the block chain level that you don't have the keys for does break fungibility and set a bad precedent.

Reuters - 2021:

"Bitcoin, a virtual currency known to use cryptography to protect users funds, has now officially been broken. Thousands of users lost over 15 billion USD in funds when a Quantum Computer broke the ECDSA scheme which is used for the public/private key pairs. Bitcoin core developers were unable to comment at the time of the hack".


Having every mainstream news saying bitcoin was broken and people are losing money is worse than a 2mn coin hack-and-dump (whether slow or fast dump).

Compared to the above scenario, being prepared to move coins to safe addresses, giving a long time to do so and then taking other measures like freezing pubkey coins, is not a bad alternative.

Love it. That is so true. Luckily, i don't think the bitcoin core devs are that stupid, and if they ever did, miners and users could just fork the code.

Next thing you know they'll start fiddling with the 21 million cap and making transactions reversible. 

~~

Disclaimer: The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons, places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

Scene: Office setting the day following a neighborhood barbecue hosted by S. Notamoto.


Themmos: Hey Notamoto, thanks for that great cookout last night, by all standards it was the best one we've had in the neighborhood for years.

Notamoto: Thanks Themmos! I really try to help out where I can. After all our neighborhood and community is very important to me. I have put my life into building my home and grounds, as well as the foundations for our great community, and want everyone to know how much I appreciate everyone's support.

Themmos: Yeah, that's great Notamoto. Hey, umm, I been meaning to tell you something.

Notamoto: Yes?

Themmos: Well, a couple of us happened to notice a few of the locks on your house were quite old and maybe a bit of a security risk.

Notamoto: Really?

Themmos: Yes, you see, we were hanging out by the front door as the party grew, and while you were out back cooking up some of those delicious seafood kebabs, we got to talking about the vintage style of your locks.

Notamoto: My locks?

Themmos: Yes, yes, your locks Notamoto. Charlie and Bob, they were saying they appeared to be an earlier design, a less secure design mind you.

Notamoto: I think my locks are just fine.

Themmos: No, no Notamoto, I assure you they are not. In fact they are quite insecure. You see after a few drinks we got to theorizing on how some ambitious criminal could somehow in the future come up with a way to circumvent your locks and steal all of your possessions.

Notamoto: I think my possessions are quite safe. After all they been that way for years.

Themmos: I realize that Notamoto, but you are not seeing the big picture. The way Charlie and I figure it sometime, perhaps in as little as 10 years, someone might come up with a way to break in to your house and steal everything you own.

Notamoto: Well as unlikely as that sounds, let's just play along with your fantasy for a minute. They steal all of my stuff, so how does that concern you?

Themmos: It concerns me and the rest of the neighborhood greatly Notamoto. You see we are still recovering from Carpet-les staging his home robbery a few years back. Property values are just now beginning to recover. We as your neighbors cannot allow that type of thing to happen again. After all, who would want to buy a home in a neighborhood so infested with crime?

Notamoto: I think you are overreacting and stretching things a bit here?

Themmos: Well, I hate to have it come down to this Natamoto, after all you were the first to build in the neighborhood and laid the foundations for such a great community for the rest of us to come in behind you and build upon, but not this is no longer just about you. It is about our right to have our property values remain stable, if not continue to rise.

Notamoto: Uhh..

Themmos: Ok, well what I been meaning to tell you, no use protesting as it is already in motion, Charlie and Bob are burning your house down as we speak.

Notamoto: WHAT!!!!?

Themmos: Yes, Natamoto, you see a house burns down, it is a sad tragedy, but long term no harm is done to the community, it is JUST a house fire. Buyers are not scarred off.

Notamoto: My house?

Themmos: But if someone were to break in and steal all your possessions, well now, I don't think the community could recover, at least not in the time-frame myself and others are comfortable with. I mean no one would pay top dollar to buy a house in a community with a burglary problem.

Notamoto: My life, my dreams, my passions?

Themmos: Yes, yes, I hate to be the one telling you this Notamoto, but don't think of yourself, think of the community. After all, you brought this on yourself, as you could have moved all your possessions and changed your locks long ago. You have had like 7 years man, what were you thinking.

Notamoto: I can't believe this, someone call the police, the fire department, uhhhh?

Themmos: Too late for any of that Notamoto, well I need to get back to work, nice chatting with you.

I agree, and remember all those coins won't be at a SINGLE address, even mining on your own node it uses a new address from your keypool for every block found. So a QC could brute-force one maybe after a long time, then it would have to do each and every one of the others too, unless he purposely moved them to a single address?

And agreed with above poster, someones coins should never be touched. For any reason. Someone steals them and dumps them on the open market I would rather, than a few people deciding whos coins they should and shouldn't destroy. I understand the addresses may be subjectable to QC attacks, so be it. I would rather a large theft and dump which the market could absorb and recover from when some time has elapsed, than bitcoin forever having a reputation of 'destroying' coins and the implications and precedent that sets.

And then not only must a QC get into one address, it must get into every single address that was generated while these early adopters mined.

Bitcoin developers, community or anyone don't have the right to influence decision like this. Coins owned any individual should never be tinkered with.
Even if we had fast and easy way to determine which coins belong to Satoshi and destroy or quarantine it - we can't do that.

Oh, how I laughed.
You sir, deserve a cookie.

ECSDA is the weakest link in the chain that is susceptible to quantum computer attacks. The other cryptographic components used in Bitcoin are more resistant to attack. This has been talked about for years. Please do try to keep up.

Its nothing to do with the article, it is the idea of  censoring in ANY WAY the ledger and disabling coins in any way. If quantum computing became a reality, wed have much more to think about than brute forcing these private keys; what if it could undo all the work on the ledger? Either way, while he is entitled to his own opinion which I respect, I do not myself agree with this opinion and am opposed in ***ANY WAY*** doing anything of the sort. To implement anything like this at any time would destroy confidence in a "trustless" system. Id much rather someone stole them and dumped them on the open market which it would absorb in the end than the action of censoring/destroying those coins due to the implications. Could a government then pay off the developers to disable funds by an entity i.e WikiLeaks? The act of censorship like that would set a dangerous precedent.

The British threatened to storm the embassy with Julian Assange, but were forced to relent when they realized they were setting a dangerous precedent*

This is one of those cases, if they can be censored even for this reason, then that opens doors for future coins to be censored later. Think of the trust issues, and I really wouldn't like the media to even get ahold of the fact that someone prominent in the community suggested such an action, the implications of it are far higher than someone stealing and dumping the coins. I understand he said it wouldn't happen for many many years if it were to, but I still disagree whole heartedly with it.

The media would also twist this something silly.

BUT he has reasoning and logic which is valid to him, so what can I say? We can let network coconscious decide these things and the implications of what happens afterwards. The text above is just my opinion, his opinion is equally as valid, which is why many of us live in democracies. Network consensus has that decision.

Well, I tried.... did _no one_ see my post with Theymos' own response in it a few posts back? It's quite reasonable and I hope people eventually see his point (and stop reacting to the distorted article). 

Next week on "news" dot bitcom dot com....

Theymos: “Kittens belonging to nuns should be flung into active volcanoes”

 

notice how I said 'some people' and not all? because most will think the idea is madness. And reading the thread shows that, but I read the article. People are entitled to their opinions of course, but I know it wont be implemented and if it were, id be worried. The guy who found his bitcoins he mined early on and bought an apartment with them is one example, to even suggest that they should be destroyed in any way to prevent theft is just madness, its like robbing or destroying gold out of someones vault cause someone might steal it.

If they were dumped on the open market and crashed the price, that would 1. be temporary and two. Just how things roll, the coins are owned by someone and that someone has a right to those coins. Be it 1 year or 50 years down the line. I made my investment in full knowledge the price could crash due to these coins. I was talking about it with my mate only today in fact.

All I know is no major mining pools would implement code that destroyed coins as it would harm bitcoins reputation as a whole and thus what they earn with their massive ASIC investment, this would never happen.

If anything like this did happen AND coconscious implemented it (no chance), once the media got ahold of it, bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general is done for.

Obviously my posts are just my opinion and a heated one at that, but that's all it is.

You two bozos did not even read the last few posts before dumping your steaming pile of opinion.  Back up one fucking page and read a few posts before you enter into a thread.

I don't agree. Quite frankly some people are motivated by greed and worried about the price crash which would be temporary of dumping those on the open market because it harms their profits. He earned those coins, if he decides to spend them or share them out. Once you start doing stuff like this, bitcoins use as an indisputable* ledger goes, and so does my respect for it.

i think its fair to destroy them so the value stays forever. after all if satoshi needs the btc, he must have spent it.

Satoshi earned those coins for his innovation.

full stop.

And... to even consider proposing destroying coins that have been held for a while, over time that would destroy all the coins...
But WTF is this? It is madness. My coins, my private keys and no one should dictate when they get destroyed, if I want to hold them for my kids or grandkids (being gay beside the point), then that's for me to do as I choose. Same to satoshi..

Based on the fundamental assumptions of the discussion all active coins like those in exchanges and mining pools would have long since been moved to the new QC hardened system.  The basic assumption of the discussion is that we are talking about a time in which the only coins left on QC vulnerable addresses are the static/older coins - which would include Satoshi's coins assuming he/she/they have not moved them, all other unmoved coins, all "bitcoin eater" coins (no private key ever known), all lost coins (private key lost), etc.  I made the wild ass guess this would be "about one million coins" - could be more, could be less.

The assumption of the discussion is that a vast majority of all coins are circulating on the newer QC hard addresses BEFORE this blacklisting/pruning idea is ever seriously considered.

Poor idea, disables the ability to hold wealth for your own for generations.