Topic: Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” - page 17. (Read 18587 times)

That's a fair point. I'm a little bit skeptical about QC and whether a future, actual QC can indeed identify private keys efficiently. But I could be wrong. If I'm wrong then you're right, we'd need to conduct a wholesale migration of bitcoin funds to new QC-safe algorithms.

So in that case I agree we need to migrate and anyone who doesn't would likely lose their bitcoin. But I would urge that such a migration observe certain principles - that a maximum amount of warning time be employed, with widespread advertising within the bitcoin ecosystem and clear instructions that are as simple as possible on what needs to be done. And if possible, I'd support having a process by which someone who manages to miss all the advertising (I can think of many valid reasons why this might happen) can still migrate their bitcoin or otherwise be recompensed after appropriate review.

(The transition from old Piggycoin to New Piggycoin in the altcoin world is a case in point. As I recall, millions of new coins were unclaimed after 12 months, despite it being a young currency that you'd expect holders to pay close attention to. As cryptocurrency matures this problem could grow more severe.)

Ok, let's burn the Satoshi Coins!

One of Bitcoins fundamental features is censorship resistance. Interfering with or "destroying" anyone's bitcoins is the same as steeling them.   

I wouldn't be surprised if the other part is AI related (pattern-recognition related). AI is damn good at spotting patterns that we miss. And with prime numbers starting to have patterns pop-out*, it means that if the underlying order can be understood, then their appearance can be predicted and thus prime-based encryption is done even without QCs.

* http://www.nature.com/news/peculiar-pattern-found-in-random-prime-numbers-1.19550

I was. Thank you for the correction. I forgot I was at bitcointalk for a moment. 

My personal opinion is that those are Satoshi's coin. Only he has the rights to determine its disposal.

Would it be correct to say that Theymos is talking about a much bigger leap into altcoinland than eg. raising blocksize would be?

If you're directly responding to the quote in the title, theymos has never said that. This is a false quote.

Correction: You think that theymos thinks that.

Read my previous post before responding.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but you do not address the reason why we
are even talking about this issue of moving coins to the new system.

What would be the solution for you (and others like you), within your context and desires
stated above, if the current cryptography associated with our privatekey(s) are known to
be very vulnerable to brute force and theft by an advanced QC in 5-25 years?

Can't it be assumed that at some point in the future we will all need to switch to stronger
privatekey cryptography? Are you and others assuming that our current encryption type
will be equally as strong from generation to generation, passing those HODLed privatekey(s)?




... And there goes the thread, "A wild Hitler appears!".

Theymos just thinks he knows better about a lot of shit and he doesn't care that the larger community can't see his vision.  His 'right' is very right and if you don't like it you are going to be deleted.  Hitler was the last guy who believed his way was so correct. 

Make it 6 digit

In 2001, Shor's algorithm was demonstrated by a group at IBM, who factored 15 into 3 × 5, using an NMR implementation of a quantum computer with 7 qubits.[4] After IBM's implementation, two independent groups, one at the University of Science and Technology of China, and the other one at the University of Queensland, have implemented Shor's algorithm using photonic qubits, emphasizing that multi-qubit entanglement was observed when running the Shor's algorithm circuits.[5][6] In 2012, the factorization of 15 was repeated.[7] Also in 2012, the factorization of 21 was achieved, setting the record for the largest number factored with a quantum computer.[8] In April 2012, the factorization of 143 was achieved, although this used adiabatic quantum computation rather than Shor's algorithm.[9] In November 2014, it was discovered that this 2012 adiabatic quantum computation had also factored larger numbers, the largest being 56153.[10][11] Since April 2016, the largest integer factored on a quantum device is 200099, using D-Wave 2X quantum processor [1].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

As far as I know, the algorithm checks the age of the coin itself. (Correct me if I'm wrong here). This is where mixers are very useful. Oldies are mixed with freshly minted coins to avoid those high transaction fees.

When this topic first came up I assumed it was a prank or vicious smear against Theymos or something. I won't comment on it for the most part, except to offer a personal preference and a few related thoughts:

1. I thought it entirely reasonable that I might accumulate (HODL) bitcoin for the rest of my life, eventually passing on at least some portion of it to my children (the rest going to charity). I might reasonably live another 40 years or more. And I don't see why my children should need to touch the bitcoin they inherit either - the private keys could be passed on to future generations. Thus, my expectation all along has been that I might not move my bitcoin for decades. Bitcoin passed from generation to generation could remain untouched for a century or more.

2. Every time I make a bitcoin transaction between my own accounts I'm taking a risk, in one form or another, of exposing my private keys (and passwords). Right now my main holding of bitcoin is in a wallet from which I've never done a withdrawal, and have no plans to do so. Thus, so long as the private key was not compromised when I set it up (and I'd likely know that by now), it will remain safe so long as I don't make any transactions (or otherwise lose my private key). I'd really prefer to keep my risk to a minimum by NOT being forced to move my bitcoin on some periodic basis.

3. I really dislike the idea that a bitcoin investor has to keep up to speed with changes in the protocol or risk losing their investment. It shouldn't be a requirement that we have to check in and read up on version changes or whatnot on some periodic basis, just to keep our coins safe. Granted it is a good practice to keep up to speed with things so we can be aware of changes in how we use bitcoin, but our coins themselves should be safe so long as they are just sitting there.

All that can be done with them is to be dropped to the market. Since the amount is huge, the price will plummet for a (short?) while.


The wallet cannot be cracked. But the computer that held the private keys may get on wrong hands and the private keys used to.. make a random person rich.


Nicely said

This is one thing that Theymos will have to respectfully disagree about. I can't support any activity that allows control over another persons coins. To me, this is antithetical to the unassailable ownership of bitcoin.

Let's just stay out of each others cool-aid. 

Yeah...no.  This goes against everything that bitcoin is about to dictate what will happen with certain bitcoins.  This is a decentralized situation and should remain so by people minding their own business with their own bitcoins.

OP_LAMPORT seems the only acceptable way to protect satoshi's coins while the other solution is very dangerous and devs could use it to destroy someone's else bitcoin.

I might have missed something here.  How would already existing coins somehoe result in a large inflation?
There have been around for ages, they are a known quanitity, they have nothing to do with inflation.

Also how are they going to get stolen, is he saying that a persistent thief can crack a bitcoin wallet?

It is actually sad that this needs saying - and in the bitcoin community of all places.

There were a lot of "good reasons" publicized behind stealing the property of the other during history. Whatever good were or not those reasons, I still call it stealing.

I'm sure that plenty of people has various "alarms" that'll "ring" if any coin is moved away from Satoshi's wallets. The ones fearing a dump, will dump. The rest will continue buying, holding or spending their BTC as usual. The price will be affected only for short term. So the price is not a good reason. It's a greedy reason.
Others fear those wallets will be hacked. Hmm.. the consensus was that Bitcoin is safe from hacking.

So, back to the subject. There are no valid reasons to steal (and dispose) somebody else's property. None at all.