We could easily stop the SR auction, would you? - page 2.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: reannypleas on June 26, 2014, 05:28:52 AM

No. Effectively blacklisting coins for whatever reason = bad and most likely end of Bitcoin.

agreed, the whole point of bitcoin is freedom, and by reacting to fed coins, you would break the very thing that makes bitcoin so unique.
we all hate feds, but this wouldnt justify interfering with blockchain.

cheers

reannypleas

full member

Activity: 152

Merit: 100

No. Effectively blacklisting coins for whatever reason = bad and most likely end of Bitcoin.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1073

Does it not harm the currency more, if BTC are taken out of circulation? {More BTC = more transactions.

I'd rather have people spending it, and using it, than having it somewhere, where it's doing nothing. Too many coins are hoarded anyways... And then we have the 1 million Satoshi coins too. Sad

The Fed cleaned them for us, we {BTC community} just borrowed it to them.

The fact of the matter is, the negative publicity of those coins, hurt us as a community more. Reputation is not a cheap commodity.

hashman

legendary

Activity: 1264

Merit: 1008

Quote from: JeromeS on June 25, 2014, 07:01:59 PM

2 - Even if the coins sell at $250 each, the government that basically stole them still gets to be $7 million richer.

"The government" is not a person. It is not even a clear entity of any sort. "The FBI" is also not a person but is at least a slightly more specific moniker that can refer somewhat more easily to the real people involved. The proceeds of the SR theft and coin auction will go one way or another into the pockets of individuals just as they always do when uniformed gang members rob entrepeneurs.

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: ThomasCrowne on June 26, 2014, 03:40:23 AM

Absolutely not! Are you freakin kidding me?! Who the hell thinks like that?!!

Well not sure what planet you're from, but here on Earth, idiots dont think.

ThomasCrowne

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

★☆★ 777Coin - The Exciting Bitco

Absolutely not! Are you freakin kidding me?! Who the hell thinks like that?!!

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Light on June 26, 2014, 03:20:01 AM

Hell no. Assuming you cod accurately identify which coins are under the control of the government (you probably will screw some poor sod on the other side of the world in all likelihood) it sets up an extremely bad precedent that could be abused in the future. For better or for worse these coins have ended up in the hands of the government and you can't do anything about it lest you destabilising Bitcoin in the future. If what you've stated was implemented, the select people who had control over the pools and held a crude could effectively steal someone else's coins with no moral/ethical justification. It gives all that power into the hands of a few.

I swear many of these noobs need to read about currency and its characteristics. One of which is fungible.

Light

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 502

Circa 2010

Hell no. Assuming you cod accurately identify which coins are under the control of the government (you probably will screw some poor sod on the other side of the world in all likelihood) it sets up an extremely bad precedent that could be abused in the future. For better or for worse these coins have ended up in the hands of the government and you can't do anything about it lest you destabilising Bitcoin in the future. If what you've stated was implemented, the select people who had control over the pools and held a crude could effectively steal someone else's coins with no moral/ethical justification. It gives all that power into the hands of a few.

seriouscoin

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: JeromeS on June 25, 2014, 11:06:49 PM

Quote from: seriouscoin on June 25, 2014, 10:11:06 PM

remember noobs, selecting tx based on fees is straight forward.

Other than that, you're just fcking around without knowing jack about TXs.

Actually, I wrote my own python-based bitcoin client a year or so ago. and that's all I have to say about that.

And your python-based client (which is mostly done already on github) does jack shit about what you're proposing.

We've discussed about tainted coin analysis long b4 your "own client" being worked on.

Moving on noob.

jc01480

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Nope..

If there is one thing Bitcoin is not, it's democratic. Don't mess with the B-T-C!

waldox

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

the govt is not really $7 million richer
they can get federal reserve to print up $7 million, 7 mil is a drop in the bucket in their budget
i rather they divest from bitcoin, giving more cheap coins for early adopters

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

This again?

How many times does it need to said?

Fungibility is an essential component of a digital currency, and we reject anything that threatens this.

Cicero2.0

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

★☆★Bitin.io★☆★

The damage to bitcoin would be tremendous. Also what do you say to the people that bought these coins in good faith? Denying them something they purchased would be a form of theft.

lihuajkl

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1000

no. If any pool (gaining most of the hash power) denies any specific amount of Bitcoin to enter the blockchain for any reason, others probably will copy that to do that again using justified reasons for their own interests. It will certainly damage the Bitcon concept. So I don't agree mining pools should play with the protocol to block transactions

cosmicapex

member

Activity: 87

Merit: 10

No, this is potentially much more damaging than the SR coins being released on the market.

Harley997

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Willisius on June 25, 2014, 11:12:10 PM

Even if miners agreed with you (and >50% of the hashrate belongs to miners that don't care about Bitcoin at all), that would be too dangerous a precedent to set.

This is 100% true.

Even if the auction is determined to be illegal or otherwise wrong in the future Ross or the "true owner" of the coins can sue and force the government to give their money back to the rightful owners.

_Miracle

hero member

Activity: 907

Merit: 660

Do due diligence

Even if I wanted to (which I don't) no.
If there were ever any coins that I'd like to control it would be Gox coins, to give back to the owners but still...No.

Any dip in price would be temporary: an opportunity to pick up some coin if you can.

JeromeS

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: Willisius on June 25, 2014, 11:12:10 PM

Even if miners agreed with you (and >50% of the hashrate belongs to miners that don't care about Bitcoin at all),

Maybe, but even those miners care about their mined coins being worth something in $.

Quote

that would be too dangerous a precedent to set.

I get what you're saying, but if it always takes 50%+ of the network to make things like that happen, where's the danger? This is democracy in action.

Willisius

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

I'm really quite sane!

Even if miners agreed with you (and >50% of the hashrate belongs to miners that don't care about Bitcoin at all), that would be too dangerous a precedent to set.

JeromeS

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: seriouscoin on June 25, 2014, 10:11:06 PM

remember noobs, selecting tx based on fees is straight forward.

Other than that, you're just fcking around without knowing jack about TXs.

Actually, I wrote my own python-based bitcoin client a year or so ago. and that's all I have to say about that.

Topic: We could easily stop the SR auction, would you? - page 2. (Read 2762 times)