X
Topic: Victim Reward Notices - page 2. (Read 2802 times)
That will never be acceptable because that is messing with a key point of bitcoin, fungibility. NOPE
i heard from a moderator on btc-e that someone tried to trade/sell 700 of the stolen coins through their site, but btc-e denied the trade. not sure if btc-e kept the coins and returned them to stamp, or gave them back to the "owner".
If you or your company (I'm talking to YOU, Bitstamp!) has been robbed of bitcoins, please consider proving it by offering a reward for making any effort to add to the thief's concerns.
If you review the history of my posts, you will see that:
In another post, I recommended this public announcement:
When I suggested the idea of taint in the past, blockchain.info added the "taint" feature. Thanks Blockchain! Many in this community balked at the idea of making it difficult to spend coins from any particular address. Their reasons generally fell into three groups:
The first objection, based on fungibility, implicitly introduces the idea that miners should be required to include all transactions that fit the protocol. I don't see how this is feasible, technologically. I suppose the proponents of this ideal of fungibility did not realize that miners already have the choice to exclude whatever transactions they want. That fact seems a much better target for this objection. If you're going to try to convince miners to include transactions they know are related to thefts in order to preserve fungibility, engineer a way for the protocol to prevent them from excluding transactions. One of the beautiful things about Bitcoin, for me, is that the protocol itself encourages freedom and responsibility, so let's keep that going and abandon the idealistic attempt to have miners be willfully blind to property rights violations.
The second objection is much more effectively handled not by blindly including all transactions, but by challenging and ceasing support for tyranny. If you feel a transaction should have been included and was not, then you go do what you need to convince the miner who could have included it to change his mind next time. Just please don't discourage others from using their consciences. As long as individuals are free to mine blocks containing transactions with stolen coins in them, I'm happy. I wouldn't do it, but the last thing I would want is to forcibly prevent others from doing so. My appeal is to the conscience. Reasoned persuasion is the key to human advancement, and coercion is the shit holding it back.
The third objection is a very good one, but everything we do has the potential to hurt innocent people. Due diligence is called "due" for a reason.
So by all means, follow your conscience. If you care enough to do the work required to determine whether or not 1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf actually does contain stolen coins, and you have the opportunity to include or exclude a transaction from that address (or one of the addresses to which its coins have been distributed) in a block you're solving, think about how the respect for property rights has helped humanity in the past and consider keeping that tradition alive.
On the possibility that Bitstamp secretly cooperated with the thief in order to embezzle $5M, consider waiting for them to publish something like what I suggested above.
If you review the history of my posts, you will see that:
- I very much like the idea of taint.
- I very much dislike coercive authority.
- I recommend that people use their consciences and pay attention.
In another post, I recommended this public announcement:
Quote
Dear Thief,
We have allocated 500 BTC as a reward. Every miner who solves a block that excludes a transaction attempting to spend btc from the Bitstamp Hack address will receive 1% of the remaining award (they must sign the excluded transaction with the address to which the block reward goes) until you identify yourself and agree to create a transaction giving Bitstamp back all the bitcoin minus whatever amount of the reward is left. At that time, miners will once again be more willing to confirm your transactions.
We have allocated 500 BTC as a reward. Every miner who solves a block that excludes a transaction attempting to spend btc from the Bitstamp Hack address will receive 1% of the remaining award (they must sign the excluded transaction with the address to which the block reward goes) until you identify yourself and agree to create a transaction giving Bitstamp back all the bitcoin minus whatever amount of the reward is left. At that time, miners will once again be more willing to confirm your transactions.
When I suggested the idea of taint in the past, blockchain.info added the "taint" feature. Thanks Blockchain! Many in this community balked at the idea of making it difficult to spend coins from any particular address. Their reasons generally fell into three groups:
- The fungibility of Bitcoin would be threatened by such practices.
- Blocking transactions is tyrannical.
- Innocent individuals could be negatively affected by attempts to block transactions.
The first objection, based on fungibility, implicitly introduces the idea that miners should be required to include all transactions that fit the protocol. I don't see how this is feasible, technologically. I suppose the proponents of this ideal of fungibility did not realize that miners already have the choice to exclude whatever transactions they want. That fact seems a much better target for this objection. If you're going to try to convince miners to include transactions they know are related to thefts in order to preserve fungibility, engineer a way for the protocol to prevent them from excluding transactions. One of the beautiful things about Bitcoin, for me, is that the protocol itself encourages freedom and responsibility, so let's keep that going and abandon the idealistic attempt to have miners be willfully blind to property rights violations.
The second objection is much more effectively handled not by blindly including all transactions, but by challenging and ceasing support for tyranny. If you feel a transaction should have been included and was not, then you go do what you need to convince the miner who could have included it to change his mind next time. Just please don't discourage others from using their consciences. As long as individuals are free to mine blocks containing transactions with stolen coins in them, I'm happy. I wouldn't do it, but the last thing I would want is to forcibly prevent others from doing so. My appeal is to the conscience. Reasoned persuasion is the key to human advancement, and coercion is the shit holding it back.
The third objection is a very good one, but everything we do has the potential to hurt innocent people. Due diligence is called "due" for a reason.
So by all means, follow your conscience. If you care enough to do the work required to determine whether or not 1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf actually does contain stolen coins, and you have the opportunity to include or exclude a transaction from that address (or one of the addresses to which its coins have been distributed) in a block you're solving, think about how the respect for property rights has helped humanity in the past and consider keeping that tradition alive.
On the possibility that Bitstamp secretly cooperated with the thief in order to embezzle $5M, consider waiting for them to publish something like what I suggested above.
Jump to: