Topic: Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” - page 13. (Read 18596 times)
Yeah according to the news that satoshi Nakamoto has more than 1 million bitcoin in various wallet. wow that was enough to make bitcoin be dead or down to a very small price. let's hope he does not think to kill bitcoin
ok heres a plan..
everyone in this topic that thinks that destroying bitcoins is a good thing.. should all destroy their own coins first!
if you cant take the shock of wanting to destroy your own coins, then dont suggest destroying others.
everyone in this topic that thinks that destroying bitcoins is a good thing.. should all destroy their own coins first!
if you cant take the shock of wanting to destroy your own coins, then dont suggest destroying others.
Frustation is the key i believe that match the sugestion gaved here,makes no sense,the creator just not be able to use his own coins ,people will panic some say others says it will be too many power at bad persons but isnt our choise.In the end this will be always the Nakamoto option and final.
The difference between this and PayPal is that PayPal will just take the funds and pocket them. Theymos' proposal makes it impossible for anyone to use those funds.
So some early adopter decided to buy coins in 2011, and store them - and five years later, their coins are destroyed but they are supposed to be happy because their savings have evaporated instead of being appropriated?
It's like stealing someone's money, and then setting fire to it and saying, "See? I'm not going to use your money, I'm just destroying your savings, that makes me a good guy".
I totally agree on this one that are all a theory,why would destroy some else money they have earned it and they deserve it as long as they want it,if it is going to be destroyed then let those people knows it so they can decide what to do with it..
oh no lauda is failing to grasp logic again..
even in another threat he is saying that
does he not realise how stupid he is becoming.. moving coins from one 256bit address to another 256bit address is meaningless in regards to security.. its purely like moving a $20 bank note from ur left pants pocket to your right pants pocket.. nothing more or less
also destroying satoshi's stash purely for "security weakness" reasons is totally obsurd.
i feel sorry for lauda. he really needs to stop talking to blockstreamers and start reading actual code and using logic to think for himself.
unless a new version of bitcoin was to offer 512bit or 1024bit encryption, then moving funds to the same 256bit encryption is meaningless.. or then destroying random peoples funds simple because they are hoarding is even worse.
i am starting to wonder what these blockstream lovers are drinking because there must be some mind numbing chemicals involved somewhere
are they soo stupid, or are they really trying hard to break bitcoins fungibility just to promote their incorporated sidechains
even in another threat he is saying that
You do realize that it is most likely that you would have lost your coins in either case since this is about weakened encryption? There's just a difference between the community drawing out to a consensus in which coins get "destroyed" or a hacker exploiting the weakened encryption only to take away your coins. You'd have to choose the lesser of two evils.
does he not realise how stupid he is becoming.. moving coins from one 256bit address to another 256bit address is meaningless in regards to security.. its purely like moving a $20 bank note from ur left pants pocket to your right pants pocket.. nothing more or less
also destroying satoshi's stash purely for "security weakness" reasons is totally obsurd.
i feel sorry for lauda. he really needs to stop talking to blockstreamers and start reading actual code and using logic to think for himself.
unless a new version of bitcoin was to offer 512bit or 1024bit encryption, then moving funds to the same 256bit encryption is meaningless.. or then destroying random peoples funds simple because they are hoarding is even worse.
i am starting to wonder what these blockstream lovers are drinking because there must be some mind numbing chemicals involved somewhere
are they soo stupid, or are they really trying hard to break bitcoins fungibility just to promote their incorporated sidechains
I'll tell you what happens if someone cracks old coins. They will move them one address at a time, bouncing it around for awhile. Anyone who is smart enough to crack old coins will be careful. They won't dump all 1 million. (For all we know, they can only crack one at a time, so they only have 50.)
What do YOU think is going to happen, transfer the coins to an exchange, sell them for pennies on the dollar, and have to explain to the jackboots where their millions came from? Have you never dealt with legacy finance and its intrusive regulations before?
Why are the h4xx70rs any more likely to dump their BTC, when it's *exactly what Bitcoin is good for* -- storing wealth beyond the reach of statist pigs?
I've told you what I think.Why are the h4xx70rs any more likely to dump their BTC, when it's *exactly what Bitcoin is good for* -- storing wealth beyond the reach of statist pigs?
Either theymos is trolling himself (proposing something that can't be done), or he can. You stop trolling.
No and no.If I wanted someone to decide which of my actions are rational and which are not, I'd stay under nanny state's skirts.
It's obvious that you are unable to determine what is rational and what isn't. 
Either theymos is trolling himself (proposing something that can't be done), or he can. You stop trolling.
Do you honestly think that Theymos can implement coin blacklisting by himself?
Implementing a workable coin blacklisting scheme would take consensus. Big word, look it up.
Yeah I don't understand how people assume that theymos can press a button and destroy coins at will? are these people retarded or just new to Bitcoin? if there is not a big consensus such thing will never happen. Theymos has a strong voice in the community but thats all, he doesnt make it or break it, he just gave his opinion on the matter.
What do YOU think is going to happen, transfer the coins to an exchange, sell them for pennies on the dollar, and have to explain to the jackboots where their millions came from?
I've told you what I think.Either theymos is trolling himself (proposing something that can't be done), or he can. You stop trolling.
No and no.If I wanted someone to decide which of my actions are rational and which are not, I'd stay under nanny state's skirts.
It's obvious that you are unable to determine what is rational and what isn't. A handful of core players control this forum, the bitcoin reddit, the alert keys, the github, and bitcoin.org. <<< this equals bitcoin consensus
Actually they don't control this forum.
A handful of core players control this forum, the bitcoin reddit, the alert keys, the github, and bitcoin.org. <<< this equals bitcoin consensus
Either theymos is trolling himself (proposing something that can't be done), or he can. You stop trolling.
Do you honestly think that Theymos can implement coin blacklisting by himself?
Implementing a workable coin blacklisting scheme would take consensus. Big word, look it up.
"Consensus" is a nebulous term. It could mean 51% of the core devs agreeing on something, or 100% of everyone involved in Bitcoin agreeing on something.
Big word, complex concept, and you don't even need to look it up, I'll give you a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Decision_rules
Quote
...20-50 years when this is an actual issue
Why would theymos pick this point in time, "Bitcoin's Civil War," to bring it up? It's as if he's shorting or something
No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or we're no better than paypal.
Agreed. I think it would set a dangerous precedent if core began locking or destroying old coins.
But I'm unsure how anyone could stop them considering their new level of power, authority, and centralized control.
~~
No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or we're no better than paypal.
Agreed. I think it would set a dangerous precedent if core began locking or destroying old coins.
But I'm unsure how anyone could stop them considering their current level of power, authority, and code control.
~~
Either theymos is trolling himself (proposing something that can't be done), or he can. You stop trolling.
Do you honestly think that Theymos can implement coin blacklisting by himself?
Implementing a workable coin blacklisting scheme would take consensus. Big word, look it up.
Why des everyone assume that as soon as quantum crooks get their thieving paws (which exist in all states prior to t=0) on pre-2012 coins, that they'll immediately dump them, with mindnumbing slippage, on the market?
What do you think is going to happen? They're going to transfer the coins to another address and wait? I doubt that.Why are the h4xx70rs any more likely to dump their BTC, when it's *exactly what Bitcoin is good for* -- storing wealth beyond the reach of statist pigs?
Protected from everyone but theymos, that is.
Stop trolling. Theymos can't have an effect in this case (i.e. can't destroy anyone's coins)."It's their choice" is not really an argument when the action is very irrational.
If I wanted someone to decide which of my actions are rational and which are not, I'd stay under nanny state's skirts. If Satoshi does not want those coins used, he has already destroyed the private key. They will not be used. Ever. By anyone. If Satoshi wants those coins to use, who are we to tell him otherwise?
What do you mean by 'destroyed the private key'? That does not prevent the "Quantum problem" at all.Why des everyone assume that as soon as quantum crooks get their thieving paws (which exist in all states prior to t=0) on pre-2012 coins, that they'll immediately dump them, with mindnumbing slippage, on the market?
What do you think is going to happen? They're going to transfer the coins to another address and wait? I doubt that.Protected from everyone but theymos, that is.
Stop trolling. Theymos can't have an effect in this case (i.e. can't destroy anyone's coins).I do think that is unreasonable. If people don't want to move their old coins, that's their choice.
And you would want to keep coins in unsafe encryption because of what exactly? "It's their choice" is not really an argument when the action is very irrational. For those too lazy to go back and find out what we are really talking about, here is a summary:
Quote
When/If QC becomes a reality (this is a big When/If) and
After QC becomes a viable threat to Bitcoin and
After we have already replaced the QC vulnerable algorithms in Bitcoin with QC safe algorithms which means
After a highly publicized, bitter, drawn out, drama about the "death of Bitcoin" because of QC in every news outlet everywhere and
After a majority of new addresses and transactions are using the new QC safe algorithms which means
After a vast majority of all Bitcoin users have heard about the issue, the solution and the consequences of not moving their coins
Then and only then, maybe, we should consider possibly blacklisting older coins that are not covered by the QC safe replacement algorithms, especially the more highly vulnerable very early coins.
This only makes sense after we have transitioned to new QC safe algorithms
Note that at the rate QC is progressing those of us alive right now really don't have to worry about this. Perhaps our grandchildren or maybe our children.
After QC becomes a viable threat to Bitcoin and
After we have already replaced the QC vulnerable algorithms in Bitcoin with QC safe algorithms which means
After a highly publicized, bitter, drawn out, drama about the "death of Bitcoin" because of QC in every news outlet everywhere and
After a majority of new addresses and transactions are using the new QC safe algorithms which means
After a vast majority of all Bitcoin users have heard about the issue, the solution and the consequences of not moving their coins
Then and only then, maybe, we should consider possibly blacklisting older coins that are not covered by the QC safe replacement algorithms, especially the more highly vulnerable very early coins.
This only makes sense after we have transitioned to new QC safe algorithms
Note that at the rate QC is progressing those of us alive right now really don't have to worry about this. Perhaps our grandchildren or maybe our children.
So all these conditions can take many years, so why now publish this opinion and give media who just oversimplify things reason for next FUD against Bitcoin. Better to be quiet and share the opinion after some conditions happened already, unless theymos have reason to make the Bitcoin price lower, thats it.
You people are nuts. It's a problem if he doesn't sell them. It's a problem if he never moves them. Make up your mind or mind your own ducking business.
I don't think that giving a grace period for them to move coins out of addresses with weak encryption and then 'locking' them or something is unreasonable.
I do think that is unreasonable. If people don't want to move their old coins, that's their choice.
I'd rather have my coins be lost than some bad actor acquiring them and just dumping them for fiat.
I respect your choice to do as you wish with your coins. Stay the hell away from my coins.
It would however be quite unfortunate to see (e.g.) satoshi's coins being moved and directly dumped in the future due to weak encryption (but it is what it is).
Why des everyone assume that as soon as quantum crooks get their thieving paws (which exist in all states prior to t=0) on pre-2012 coins, that they'll immediately dump them, with mindnumbing slippage, on the market? What will they do with that much fiat? how will they possibly launder such a sum?
Why wouldn't they keep it in BTC, because Bitcoin is a superior way of storing your wealth, as it has been scientifically proven on numerous occasions in this very forum? Don't they know that their bitcoins are protected from human meddling by the immutable and eternal laws of the universe*?
*Protected from everyone but theymos, that is.