Topic: Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” - page 14. (Read 18595 times)
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?
TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
You clearly need some help with reading/English comprehension, so I've added some text effects to make it easier for you.
The detail you are missing is it's irrelevant if Satoshi upgrades his node or not. What difference would it make if he does or he doesn't? He may hold most of the coins, but he doesn't hold most of the hashpower or even most of the nodes 
Let me try a different tack:
Imagine yourself as a pastel-colored pony, living in Equestria, where Bit coins are used as money. Bear with me, I'm just making you imagine this stuff to stress that the scenario is purely hypothetical (Bit coins1 actually are the currency of Equestria, but that's purely coincidental).
1. Be Princes Luna, hold the lion's share of Bit coins,win a free vacation from the government, at Club Fed be sent to Moon by your sister, Celestia.
2. A Royal Edict is announced: Royal Guard will destroy all Bit coins minted prior to 2011-11-21, when Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5.0 was released, because those old coins "should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation." (yeah, Celestia does sound a bit like theymos, but again, pure coincidence).
3. You, Luna, wat do?
Clearly all your coins will be gone, clearly you are the one who will suffer most from this (because it's mostly YOUR coins that will be destroyed).
Clearly other ponies can only profit from this, because even Ponka knows that having fewer total Bit coins in Equestria means that her share will be worth more (that sort of simplistic "reduced supply increases demand" mentality is pretty common in Equestria, a stunted misapplication of some Ponyville school of economics ideas, but i digress...). So it's in Ponka's (and Rara's and every other pone's) rational self-interest to upgrade toFriendship Core 0.13.
You're losing all your coins, Luna, now wat?
...
From the boldface text, it should be clear to you that the scenario is hypothetical. I also do not care if it's only Satoshi or dozens of people who will lose their coins, because destroying people's coins, coins which are not your coins, and therefore not yours to destroy, is bad, m'kay? Let me try a different tack:
Imagine yourself as a pastel-colored pony, living in Equestria, where Bit coins are used as money. Bear with me, I'm just making you imagine this stuff to stress that the scenario is purely hypothetical (Bit coins1 actually are the currency of Equestria, but that's purely coincidental).
1. Be Princes Luna, hold the lion's share of Bit coins,
2. A Royal Edict is announced: Royal Guard will destroy all Bit coins minted prior to 2011-11-21, when Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5.0 was released, because those old coins "should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation." (yeah, Celestia does sound a bit like theymos, but again, pure coincidence).
3. You, Luna, wat do?
Clearly all your coins will be gone, clearly you are the one who will suffer most from this (because it's mostly YOUR coins that will be destroyed).
Clearly other ponies can only profit from this, because even Ponka knows that having fewer total Bit coins in Equestria means that her share will be worth more (that sort of simplistic "reduced supply increases demand" mentality is pretty common in Equestria, a stunted misapplication of some Ponyville school of economics ideas, but i digress...). So it's in Ponka's (and Rara's and every other pone's) rational self-interest to upgrade to
You're losing all your coins, Luna, now wat?
...
I don't want you guessing whether those people are dead or not, you greedy pig. The coins are theirs to do with as they please, even if that happens to be nothing.
>There is no way to truly fix this unless the encryption is so badly broken that the coins are already stolen.
Then Bitcoin is already broken.
If we find out tomorrow that the encryption for all coins mined prior to 2016 is broken, will you destroy those coins too? If you want to be safe, fork Bitcoin to a safe chain, one which destroys the coins which you think will become "unsafe" in the future, when the quantum computer cometh, or the Son of God returns to h4xx0r your blogchain. Or cash out into USD.
Jeez
TL;DR: I do not want theymos confiscating or destroying people's money, even if it's for the common good. Because you know who does that?
“This issue has been discussed for several years,” he said. “I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue.”
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
In my view, the moment Bitcoin devs or anyone start dictating what to do with bitcoin of others, censorship resistance of bitcoin will be lost. Satoshi would be proud for sure.
So you agree with thymos or not? Should the coins be destroyed or not?
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
In my view, the moment Bitcoin devs or anyone start dictating what to do with bitcoin of others, censorship resistance of bitcoin will be lost. Satoshi would be proud for sure.
So you agree with thymos or not? Should the coins be destroyed or not?
I do not agree. But I respect his opinion.
I completely understand the sentiment, however, the problem here is similar to that of the problem with colored coins. It sets a precedent that threatens fungibility. If you bury a fortune of cash in coffee cans and someone else digs it up, you can't expect the issuing government to void the bills. The bitcoin development team and miners should absolutely be doing less than a government when it comes to controlling what users (including bad actors) do with the tokens. Providing a way to protect said tokens against new threats is a must to keep the project alive, but preventing the use of tokens that weren't protected using that provision is a huge no-no.
The analogy would only fit if the user either was dead or had no access to their own coins anymore. However, I absolutely understand both your and theymos'es view on this matter. The similar goes with HF's, it would set up a precedent that we do not want in the system. You make a very valid point as I disagree giving the development team and/or miners more "power" than they already have. 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). 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'd rather have my coins be lost than some bad actor acquiring them and just dumping them for fiat.
I completely understand the sentiment, however, the problem here is similar to that of the problem with colored coins. It sets a precedent that threatens fungibility. If you bury a fortune of cash in coffee cans and someone else digs it up, you can't expect the issuing government to void the bills. The bitcoin development team and miners should absolutely be doing less than a government when it comes to controlling what users (including bad actors) do with the tokens. Providing a way to protect said tokens against new threats is a must to keep the project alive, but preventing the use of tokens that weren't protected using that provision is a huge no-no.ETA: Another good analogy: Say you have whatever treasure locked in a safe that you own. If it turns out that locking mechanism used in that safe is vulnerable to lock-picking and the manufacturer opts to provide a new locking mechanism, that doesn't mean the manufacturer should take any other steps such as:
1) Go to the location of your safe and weld it shut because you haven't installed the new mechanism
2) Go to the location of your safe, pick the lock, remove the contents, and destroy them
3) Go to the location of your safe, pick the lock, remove the contents, and re-distribute them to other consumers who have changed their locking mechanisms
ETA2: Due to the pseudonymous nature of bitcoin and the way encryption and private keys work, it is not possible for the safe manufacturer in my second analogy to do the following:
X1) Go to the location of your safe, break it open, remove the contents and store them until you contact them (because they have no way for you to prove who you are)
X2) Go to the location of your safe and replace the locking mechanism (because the new mechanism takes a new key, which you would not possess, moreover, if they could pick the old lock in order to take this step, a bad actor already would have done so an your treasure would be gone)
Additionally, you are suffering from a common misperception that one person owns all of the old coins.
I too believe that this is not the case, and we can't really know for sure either.While said dead people may have made plans while alive to provide access to said coins, in cases where they did not, those coins will either remain at those addresses forever (unlikely unless we wipe ourselves out since technology never stops improving) or be taken by bad actors (not the end of the world, but what Theymos is worrying about).
Exactly. The people that were quick to jump to conclusions here have not done their share of research and thinking. Theymos makes a fair point here.There is no way to truly fix this unless the encryption is so badly broken that the coins are already stolen, so either a bad actor gets the coins, or nobody does. I believe the original vision of bitcoin would most likely indicate that the bad actor gets the coins, however, you need to understand that they likely don't move until we're dead and that Satoshi and/or other dead people don't get them either way.
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'd rather have my coins be lost than some bad actor acquiring them and just dumping them for fiat.-snip or trolling.
That's what it is. TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
You move your coins towards QC safe algorithms. If you don't want to do that, then that is your problem not ours.wat do?
You clearly didn't read my hypothetical, in which I obliquely alluded to Satoshi doing time @ Club Fed.
*Unless theymos decides to destroy your coins, in which case your money's GONE baby! SFYL
I think Theymos is worried that Wright and his fund may have access to some early coins and wants to give core the power to remove them if it proves to be the case. This is just a wild guess, time will see how this plays out.
No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or were no better than paypal.
Stop posting your opinion when you've clearly no content from this thread. This is not about Wright and Theymos has built up his argument and position properly.No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or were no better than paypal.
TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
You either move your coins towards QC safe algorithms or you do nothing. If the person does not want to do that, then that is their problem, not ours.wat do?
For those too lazy to go back and find out what we are really talking about, here is a summary:
This is a nice summary. Everyone who reads it should gain a little more insight as to why theymos has such a opinion. There's definitely not going to be general consensus right away, and BurtW's view is a example of that. 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.
2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.
Very detailed explanation: The effect is that same as when people refused to upgrade to "Bitcoin Stupidity" (aka Bitcoin Classic). 
1) Core devs make evil update
2) Users and miners don't update to evil version
3) Nothing changes because users and miners are still running old version
What detail is missing?
Let me try a different tack:
Imagine yourself as a pastel-colored pony, living in Equestria, where Bit coins are used as money. Bear with me, I'm just making you imagine this stuff to stress that the scenario is purely hypothetical (Bit coins1 actually are the currency of Equestria, but that's purely coincidental).
1. Be Princes Luna, hold the lion's share of Bit coins,
2. A Royal Edict is announced: Royal Guard will destroy all Bit coins minted prior to 2011-11-21, when Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5.0 was released, because those old coins "should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation." (yeah, Celestia does sound a bit like theymos, but again, pure coincidence).
3. You, Luna, wat do?
Clearly all your coins will be gone, clearly you are the one who will suffer most from this (because it's mostly YOUR coins that will be destroyed).
Clearly other ponies can only profit from this, because even Ponka knows that having fewer total Bit coins in Equestria means that her share will be worth more (that sort of simplistic "reduced supply increases demand" mentality is pretty common in Equestria, a stunted misapplication of some Ponyville school of economics ideas, but i digress...). So it's in Ponka's (and Rara's and every other pone's) rational self-interest to upgrade to
You're losing all your coins, Luna, now wat?
TL;DR: You hold all the "early" bitcoins. The rest of bitcoiners (miners, exchanges, devs, people running nodes) do not. Devs decide to destroy early coins. This advantages *EVERYONE BUT YOU*.
wat do?
1.
I think Theymos is worried that Wright and his fund may have access to some early coins and wants to give core the power to remove them if it proves to be the case. This is just a wild guess, time will see how this plays out.
No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or were no better than paypal.
No blacklisting coins, no reversing transactions or were no better than paypal.
It may be best in the long run to not do anything with the "dead" coins and let the QC take them, IMO.
This may well be the least controversial approach, especially if there are several competing QC implementations owned by different parties and if these coins cannot be "stolen" all at once but rather "re-mined" over a period of time.
Yes, I agree. This is the best approach but alas it is too simple, there is no real controversy, and you can't get clicks and sell ad space on your blog with the title "Bitcoin: working just fine, no need to change it"
It may be best in the long run to not do anything with the "dead" coins and let the QC take them, IMO.
This may well be the least controversial approach, especially if there are several competing QC implementations owned by different parties and if these coins cannot be "stolen" all at once but rather "re-mined" over a period of time.
Except for all the idiots that jump in with their idiot opinions about what they think this thread might be about based solely on the title this has been a pretty interesting thread.
For those too lazy to go back and find out what we are really talking about, here is a summary:
Now my opinion. Yes I have one too.
Assuming that most of the 21M coins have been mined by the time this happens and assuming there are about 1M highly vulnerable coins in the blockchain then don't worry about it at all. In other words just let those 1M coins, the most highly vulnerable coins, the easy pickings, be stolen by the people with the QC. The worst case scenario is that the brilliant people who have access to the most advanced technology are also the stupidest people or are a nefarious actor and they dump the entire 1M coins on the open market. Two things will happen:
1) The price will go into the toilet for a while, those that don't panic will get to buy up a bunch of cheap coins and make a fortune when the price recovers, those that panic will lose everything. In other words business as usual in Bitcoin land.
2) We will know this has happened so everyone that has their coins on the remaining vulnerable addresses will immediately move their coins to the new QC safe addresses - problem solved.
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.
Now my opinion. Yes I have one too.
Assuming that most of the 21M coins have been mined by the time this happens and assuming there are about 1M highly vulnerable coins in the blockchain then don't worry about it at all. In other words just let those 1M coins, the most highly vulnerable coins, the easy pickings, be stolen by the people with the QC. The worst case scenario is that the brilliant people who have access to the most advanced technology are also the stupidest people or are a nefarious actor and they dump the entire 1M coins on the open market. Two things will happen:
1) The price will go into the toilet for a while, those that don't panic will get to buy up a bunch of cheap coins and make a fortune when the price recovers, those that panic will lose everything. In other words business as usual in Bitcoin land.
2) We will know this has happened so everyone that has their coins on the remaining vulnerable addresses will immediately move their coins to the new QC safe addresses - problem solved.
2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.
Very detailed explanation: The effect is that same as when people refused to upgrade to "Bitcoin Stupidity" (aka Bitcoin Classic). 1) Core devs make evil update
2) Users and miners don't update to evil version
3) Nothing changes because users and miners are still running old version
What detail is missing?
Maybe you are suggesting only "Satoshi" doesn't upgrade and everyone else is evil? In that case, "Satoshi" not upgrading wouldn't help because the design is centered around consensus and we would have consensus that evil is the correct version.
Maybe you don't realize that all full nodes have to validate blocks. If all users run full nodes and don't upgrade to evil version but all miners do upgrade, then not only will propagation of the evil blocks be hindered, but there will further be no users accepting/buying coins from miners and no miners mining fees from user transactions. In this scenario, any incentive for the miners to upgrade becomes nullified and they switch back to the version users are running. Of course, the users could decide to upgrade before the miners decide to downgrade, however at that point, the users no have longer not upgraded.
See what I mean about pulling teeth?
Nope, you have no point here.1. Sure there will be 20 threads, there are 20 threads on just about everything, "Why do banks hate bitcoin," "Why do people hate bitcoin," "Why should we use bitcoin," Why should people use bitcoin," etc., etc. How would these 20 threads change anything? Would starting 20 "Death is unfair!!1!" threads make death disappear?
So staying quiet and not talking about it solves the problem? Good to know.I remember now. I said that would be as effective as starting 20 threads protesting death. Please don't misinterpret that as me suggesting we could achieve immortality by staying quiet. Because that's not what I'm saying at all.
2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.
Very detailed explanation: The effect is that same as when people refused to upgrade to "Bitcoin Stupidity" (aka Bitcoin Classic). 
what the hell, you come back to bitcointalk after being away for a while just to see this topic on top of discussion section.
then you read a little bit of it and realize it was just a drama and click bait
i missed bitcoin drama
then you read a little bit of it and realize it was just a drama and click bait
i missed bitcoin drama
2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.
Very detailed explanation: The effect is that same as when people refused to upgrade to "Bitcoin Stupidity" (aka Bitcoin Classic). Quote
This issue has been discussed for several years. I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation.
comment actually sounded accurate to me at first, as I continue to lurk in this thread, I am reminded of discussions about this years ago, and IIRC (which is 50% likely), before the "value" of Bitcoin clouded judgment of hodlers, I think the very rough consensus was that when the encryption is broken (in 100 years with plenty of time to switch encryption measures before any losses [sarcasm]forget Moore's law, which obviously has to break since math =/= infinite[/sarcasm]), recovery of lost/forgotten coins wouldn't be a big deal. Assuming my recollection is correct, kudos to those in this thread who have maintained that vision, and shame on the "Chicken Little" crowd. To be clear, I wouldn't put myself or Theymos in either of those groups. See what I mean about pulling teeth?
Nope, you have no point here.1. Sure there will be 20 threads, there are 20 threads on just about everything, "Why do banks hate bitcoin," "Why do people hate bitcoin," "Why should we use bitcoin," Why should people use bitcoin," etc., etc. How would these 20 threads change anything? Would starting 20 "Death is unfair!!1!" threads make death disappear?
So staying quiet and not talking about it solves the problem? Good to know.2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.
Very detailed explanation: The effect is that same as when people refused to upgrade to "Bitcoin Stupidity" (aka Bitcoin Classic). Update:
I'm almost certain you were one of the people tossing around the altcoin argument against XT and Classic, in which case this completely valid example is awfully hypocritical.
I may or may not have used that, however there's a reason why I've used this 'example' for this specific user. According to him, coins prior to Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5 are affected. Did he propose to selectively destroy some coins, but not others?
This is like pulling teeth
Nope.This is like pulling teeth
Didn't you say that 99% of the people here "don't even understand what Big O notation is" (inb4 paraphrase, not an exact quote)?
I've said that and I stand by it.How are these simpletons gonna understand what the devs are proposing? And what of the people who are simply hodling their BTC & not sodling it, like, you know, Satoshi? How do they even have a say in this?
1) If you think that in the case of such a proposal that everyone would be quiet, and that there wouldn't be 20 threads about it in this section, then there's something wrong with your perception of the community.2) They have a say by refusing to adopt the next version and/or switching to other implementations.
As an example, my node would never be upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins.
Sometimes I just don't understand how people around here think
2. How would it matter if Satoshi (or any person simply hodling BTC) refuses to "upgraded to a version that tries to 'destroy other peoples' coins"? A detailed explanation plz.