Topic: @theymos - Request: Multisig addresses for treasurers - page 3. (Read 3068 times)

I have only one thing to say.... in words of trust MJ is irreplaceable, I would easily send him an amount of BTC knowing they are safe and to be returned when I ask....

If I think trust then I think MJ.

Which has no impact on whether MJ is trusted by the community in large or not, as is shown by the variety of people that left him positive trust ratings.

Which increases the chance of problems to arise should certain keyholders be unable to fulfill their duties.

I can't say that I, or the majority of other community members (probably), would have any issues with any of these users being selected as keyholders along with a few others. One of those others being minerjones, which invalidates the discussion we're having.

As hard as you may try to deny it, minerjones is someone that is trusted at large by the community (bar a few members with questionable histories and motives, such as yourself). As I said, I'm sure that theymos and everyone else involved has done plenty of due diligence before allowing the current keyholders to become such. I'd argue in a much better fashion than you have done yourself.

The trust ratings/lists are manipulated through coercion. If the other keyholders are trustworthy enough to not collude with MJ, then theymos might as well allow there to be only 4 keyholders.

There are unfortunately very few people who even come close to being trustworthy enough to be a keyholder. I presume it was not desired for theymos to be one of the keyholders, and he was one probably because of a lack of trustworthy candidates.

Potential replacements for MJ would include, in no particular order:
Dabs
philipma1957
DannyHamilton
TwinWinNerD
qwk (I am not sure if he has held large amounts of others' money)
smoothie
RHavar

There are drawbacks to a number of the above people, inactivity being one of them.

Considering that minerjones is statistically the most trusted member of the forum, who has escrowed large amounts of BTC for the forum, I'd say that he is a pretty good pick. Regardless of that though, anyone could have been picked in minerjones' place and it wouldn't have made a difference provided that the other keyholders are trusted enough to not conspire with them to steal the coins.

I'm absolutely sure that theymos did his due diligence before picking the keyholders considering the massive amount of money at stake.

To be entirely fair, there is missing money in at least one escrow transaction in which minerjones was a part of.

I don't think it would make much sense to start out with one of the keyholders who has a history I describe.

The beauty of multisig is that you don't have to trust minerjones completely, you just have to trust the others to not conspire with him.

You're being absurd.

Minerjones has been involved in a number of questionable (at best) escrow transactions.
For example here (the original has been edited) of when he very strongly was implying he was holding exactly 1 of 3 keys to a multisig escrow address, and between 10 and ~100 BTC ended up missing after the BCH forked coins were sent to an exchange and it appears even more money may be missing from the conversion of altcoins into bitcoin.

Here is a second example in which it was initially said there would be losses to investors of money the escrow agents should have been holding (I believe in this case the money was eventually recovered from the scammer). In this case I believe minerjones to be one of the escrow agents in the transaction, but I have not immidiately been able to locate a post/signature of his to confirm this. There are posts by others indicating minerjones was acting as one of the escrow agents.

Here is an example of general incompetence in regards to securing his own funds.

Dictionary.com defines auction as:

Merriam Webster defines auction as:
Here are six examples in which minerjones did not honor his auction he listed, either because of his own lack of due diligence, or othersise
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--2080572
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--2056006 (the OP is edited to reflect "closed", but the title indicates there previously was an auction)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2010947.0;all
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--2007260
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21103971
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21104171

In the third auction MJ backed out of, it appears the person he was contracting with never owned what was being sold.

Great choice of treausurers, and an excellent move to keep things safe and have contingencies in place.

Never expected anything different from OG myself.

Indeed! Returning funds is the real test after many years.

I just read the first contract, and want to highlight a few parts:
Shouldn't this mission be highlighted much more prominent on Bitcointalk?

That's a serious burden to carry as a treasurer, most people won't be able to cover the current value of around 4 million dollars.

Wow!
Congrats OgNasty, SaltySpitoon, DarkStar_, and minerjones on your prestigious positions. And good job theymos for your choices! They have all been on my inclusions list..
DarkStar_ is going places..

Especially good job to OgNasty for returning the funds!

Fantastic move theymos, thank you.

Done. I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I started working on it in earnest last month.

I very much appreciate OgNasty's willingness to perform this high-risk role for years! Returning 500 BTC is a more trustworthy action than most people will ever do.


I came to 1.2% yearly by looking at gold storage companies and commodity ETF/ETN fees. GBTC for example charges 2% per year, plus a significant premium, etc. Some past treasurers were paid about the same rate, BTW -- it wasn't just OgNasty. It should be BTC-denominated, since their risk and responsibility varies with the value of what they're protecting. In a multisig any fee should be split several ways, though, not multiplied.

Nowadays the fee should maybe be a little lower, since the ecosystem is more developed/competitive. But mere hundreds of dollars per year for what OgNasty was doing? Anyone who would accept that is either willing to act as an unpaid volunteer, essentially, or they aren't properly considering the risks.


paraipan was the only loss. Past treasurers John K., Garr255, Ian Knowles, Rassah, Ryland R Taylor-Almanza, and now OgNasty all returned the funds with which they were entrusted.

Forum bug bounties are already denominated in XAU but...


Potential treasurers might not care as much to always be around/available and respond within a reasonable time frame if they aren't getting something in exchange. In a scheme involving multiple people, more than one person might start caring less about being available if something takes away their interest from the forum for some time, in the belief that other treasurers are all going to be available.


Multisig can safeguard the money against the treasurer getting hit by a bus, and 1-of-2 multisig is fine for that (bus factor x2 compared to no multisig), but it can also be used to keep money safe in the event that one or more treasurer decides to retire earlier and with more money. The 1-of-2 scheme doubles this risk, so obviously a different one should be employed.

Same goes for the unlikely but possible event that a treasurer gets kidnapped/tortured/extorted. In the cryptoland there have been more than a few instances of violence employed against cryptocurrency owners to get to their money. Also, on this very forum even some of the most trustworthy people have become scammers (or otherwise contributed to the misappropriation of other peoples' money, but if there's a loss, the distinction hardly matters to the victim(s)), and theymos like no one else should be well aware of this fact.

Given the sums involved, a potential for criminal conspiracy between some treasurers is also something to be taken into consideration. All in all, there aren't many highly trusted individuals fit for this long-term arrangement of a job. And among those who are qualified not everyone might be willing to participate. Theymos/the Bitcoin Forum is already out of 250 BTC after paraipan died without leaving a reliable dead-man's switch, so it makes sense to be more cautious when deciding how and to whom the BTC should be sent to for gatekeeping.

e: typo

There is no doubt that OG has been doing a good job keeping those BTC safe.
However, he is not immortal and a car crash or anything could end him (hopefully you have a long and happy  life!)

So it is not about the "trust" it is about the "what if" inherent to us living in a world that is safe but not empty of tragedies.

In that case, why not a 1-out-of-2  multisig option with Theymos and OG having a key.

OG is still in charge of the coins as treasurer, the back-up being Theymos also having a key.
Both could spend the coins if needed.

Everybody would be happy, not need to have 7 members like some of you guys said.

I think now is the peak time to fulfill this as we can see the community is more concern than before.

No disrespect to OgNasty, he has done an excellent job and still doing his job silently but these 500btc are a lot of money now. Especially in the bull run it might worth few 10 millions. That will be a hack lot of money. Let's say we trust OgNasty with whatever amount it becomes but no one can guarantee an accident (physical or any kind of) that might not happen. We will leave out without any option.

It's always better to have options in hand. And a multi sign address is better than anything else that we have now.

I am curious to know what's in theymos's mind.

Thank you.

I was asked a few years ago if I was interested in doing a multi-sig for forum funds by Theymos. I am not sure why it never happened (I was not interested, but there were several people asked IIRC).

I'm pretty sure the head moderators/oldest staff are well capable of taking over. Bitcointalk shouldn't (and isn't) be dependant on one person.

It would make sense if it's some sort of insurance fee: in case the forum's funds are lost, the treasurer has to pay for it out of his own pocket.
However, that only makes sense if the treasurer holds enough coins on his own to easily be able to do that. I read the requirement when theymos was looking for treasurers: they had to have handled much more than the amount they would hold for the forum, but that's also at a time it was worth 99% less in dollar.

Isn't a published signed transaction that can't be broadcasted before (say) block 750,000 a nicer solution than a legal contract? That only requires to move the funds every 150,000 blocks or so.

This leaves a question for me.

What will be in the fate of this forum if any such thing accidentally happen? Is there anyone else well trained to take over the responsibilities or the forum will be gone with him?

Note: Long live theymos, stay in good health.

Thinking about this as its only holding a single key to a multisig wallet, as long as I agreed with the set up (IE not close friends of mine and not QS,thule or any of the nutters) I would happily hold a key for free - its not as if its hard work sticking it in a safe deposit box with stuff is it, my opsec for that is tight enough.