Bitcoin Forum

I have heard a lot of people who have suggested that Satoshis coins should be hardforked out of of the addresses and sent to quantum proof addresses , in order for not being stolen later.


Alright, now this has to be the most moronic argument that I have ever seen, it is:

• Immoral
• Impractical
• Illogical
• Plus it defeats the philosphy of decentralization = Tyrranical

---

1) Immoral.

"Ok lets rob 50% of people's income via taxes, in order to hire police officers, to protect them from thieves."  :D

"Ok lets steal Satoshi's coins in order to protect it from thieves."  :D

Do you see the irony? If you don't then you are an idiot.



2) Impractical

Even if quantum computers become widespread, and if such risk were to occur, how do we know what address is Satoshi's, or whether satoshi has access to them or not. What if we confuse addresses, that are actually active and the owners are still using them as long term storage.

What if it's actually your address, that we are talking about here. Would you like it if the network would want to steal the coins out of your wallet?



3) Illogical

Well it's satoshi's private property, so what rights do we have to violate that. How do you know whether the person moving the coins is a thief, or it's you (the thief), or it is actually satoshi moving them to a safer place.

For all we know he (SATOSHI) could be moving his coins when quantum computers become threat into a safer quantum proof address, without notifying us. It's not like he is required to keep us updated. He has his coins, it's his property, he can do whatever he wants with them, without requiring to inform us about anything.


4) Tyrranical

The moment we implement censorship, or stealing money out of people's wallets type of patches, that is the moment when Bitcoin will become a tyrannical instrument of the NWO.

Because then everyone could coerce nodes into hardforking people's money out of wallet. Whether they are suspected criminals (not proven in court) or other alleged criminals, it doesn't matter.

Tyranny comes when due process and decentralization stops. This kind of feature would introduce a tyrannical power into the hands of censors and control freaks.

This will be the moment when Bitcoin will die, and will become exactly like a Bank. You will have no more rights over your money.

want to know who is suggesting it most.

yep your favourite team that want to do it as part of a future pruning feature update (not same as current pruning feature)

Ok show me proof to that, I am tired of you claiming things without showing any actual proof.

And even if what you say is true. I am not a shill, I dont have to agree with everyone all the time.


But I cant really fathom how the core team would be supporting this, where most people there are actually real decentralization advocates.

Your theory ends here for me. I NEVER heard any suggestions like that.
Why would anyone want undermine bitcoin as a store of value tempering with it? ;) Noone with sane mind.

So no, we should never do that, his coins are his no matter how much he have.

Can an address be 'quantum-proof' or would the algo underpinning Bitcoin have to undergo a change? Satoshis coins are as valuable as yours or mine. No point in improving security of just a few coins.

I have heard a lot of people who have suggested...
And who might those people be?
I wonder what those people would say if we voted their coins to be frozen, because we, the other holders, are afraid their coins might be stolen. Someone had a similar idea about locking coins that were stolen from exchanges.

a lot of people? really? would you mind linking those lots of people who are talking about this?

maybe other spammers used this to spam or spread some FUD but in fact it was a simple suggestion by theymos (Administrator) about satoshi's coins in the far away future in case of "quantum computing making ECDSA insecure"

and here is his comment on the topic from 7-8 months ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.msg14823504#msg14823504
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.msg14823618#msg14823618

You don't think that Satoshi would be THE person making the decision on this? What's stealing if the guy decides to do this with his own money?

You think he's dead?

I was just wondering, who would protect you, when there is no police? How much of that TAX is going to the police? Where in the world, do people pay 50% of their income on tax?

How do you compare the two scenarios? Taking 100% of Satoshi's coins, and doing nothing with that? Nope, I do not agree with you that this is a good comparison.

Yes, eliminating Satoshi's coins is a decision that would be made by a dictator, but what if this decision is based on consensus?

Do we need to rehash this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.0

I reading this for the first time and some people are also claiming so, I know for sure some people will be preparing for quatum computer and be looking to protect BTC from the effect it is going to have on BTC, becuase I read one article last year , that says quatum computer is going to put an end to BTC.

I can't see that Satoshi himself would have been pro hardforking out his coins.
If he set the 21 million limit, he will have known that some addresses will become dormant over time due to lost keys via stupidity and/or death amongst other reasons.

If he decides to sit on his coins and let them essentially rot, that is for him to decide. I personally would like to see them try to steal his coins, only for him to move them in advance!

Hard forks are a nightmare nowadays anyway. Who wants a Bitcoin classic?

Not only that but treating someone else's coins differently than the coins of others could lead to the lose of fungibility of bitcoin which will be an enormous problem in itself.

mimblewimble.

easy term to google

randomly grabbing other peoples transactions without needing their interaction*. to mix them together (part of a coinjoin) and then put the funds back into addresses of who is owed what.

Blockstream mathematician Andrew Poelstra is working on it now.
*the concept is to bypass and strip away the old scripts that check signatures (violating bitcoins current security) and instead replace signatures with a CSV revoke code. where mimblewimble can grab unspents.. coinjoin them and put them into new blocks thus able to prune away old blocks because they no longer contain unspents.

at the moment they are playing around with it on a altcoin but conceiving doing it on bitcoin. basically ruining peoples personal security of their own funds purely so some mimble manager can move funds about at will..
but yea blockstream will say you can trust them to repay people..(facepalm, infact double facepalm)

---

as for me claiming things without showing any actual proof. lol i spend alot of time showing proof and even ELI-5 (explaining like your five) the rational logistics of how things work in realistic scenarios. i try to get passed all the convoluted buzzword and sweeping under the carpet of blockstream hype

---

as for saying the majority of people are decentralists.. your right there are millions... but blockstream devs are not decentralists. they are centralists. 12 main devs and 90+ of their unpaid interns (out of millions of users)

remember the devs of 2009-2013 are different to 2013-2017
remember bitcoin core brand took over bitcoin qt - they chose the word 'core' because they want to be at the core(center) of bitcoin. the engine of bitcoin
remember people who now have employment contracts also have employment terms
remember peoples ethics and morals can be tweaked for a price.

so dont trust a dev because of their history.. instead only understand a dev based on current actions.

The people that want this are motivated by their own greed, plain and simple.

It's so annoying when people try to offer altruistic reasons for being a greedy POS. Just be honest with everyone and yourself.

Frankly, it's a bit scary that a group has so much power for this to be a consideration. It defeats the intended purpose of this type of money. But it could be a possibility. What would stop miners from approving this if it meant they're coins may be worth more? Socialism in its most gross and rawest form in bitcoin :BARF:

It would be kind of entertaining to see all these fanbois that talk Satoshi up turn on him. Money is truly the root of all that is evil.

This is correct. Most likely, Satoshi Nakamoto is still alive and if he was concerned about the safety of this loot he could always move the coins or make some other sort of provision.

This thread topic has inspired me to post a poll on my twitter account and so far everyone thinks he's alive and well.

https://puu.sh/todM0/7153d94032.png
 (https://twitter.com/realmicroguy/status/820823365770498048)

https://twitter.com/realmicroguy/status/820823365770498048

~~

I think tampering with Satoshi's coins would be in "grave" error and insult, completely undermining his goals, his dreams, and the protocol he invented that makes possible the trustless bitcoin system.

This post is hilarious but it is the truth. People are suggesting many options even if they own the coins as if they are the owner. If I were them I will leave those coins behind and mind the coins that I have in my wallet. Instead of thinking how to get satoshis bitcoin to safety why secure your own bitcoins. Big bitcoin earners are just quiet but small time earners such as myself are very noisy when it comes to this things.

OP, you're very concerned about Satoshi's property being infringed. But what about peoples' right to "fork off"? You want to disallow others from creating/choosing their own forks?

That's exactly what would happen. Satoshi (and anyone else) would still be free to stay on the old (non quantum-resistant) fork and still have his stash (unless already hacked). Have you considered it?

To be clear, I'm also leaning against that, but you seem to be operating under simplified black/white logic, without proper understanding of the reasoning behind that idea.

Satoshi's coins are Satoshi's coins, period. Why would you do anything with his stash, if you wouldn't be able to have your own without it?
This is the same shitty prevention rule the police is always quoting. "We're taking away your firearms because you might decide to kill someone one day." "We are taking Satoshi's coins because somebody might steal them."

what about decentralization?

/sigh... Most people are missing the point entirely.

If the cryptography protecting Bitcoin becomes vulnerable, every coin on the block chain will be vulnerable until it's moved to a new non-vulnerable address.

Assuming that this happens well into the future, suddenly a bunch of coins which were basically lost forever (and no longer part of the market) would once again be available on the market. This would shock the market in a major way (a lot of coins are considered lost). It would be like there was a once-off block reward of 1 million+ coins.

If nothing is done, people with fast computers would gain access to everyone's coins.

So... the fix would be to set a date (probably by block height) that everyone would need to transfer their coins to a new non-vulnerable address. If you don't transfer your coins by that date, they are considered lost forever, and would be locked (not transferred) by the protocol.

Bitcoin is a new form of money that comes with new challenges. One of those challenges might end up to be that you need to "update" your money to protect it. Expecting users to upgrade to prevent unauthorized access to private keys is not theft.

The economic majority decides which changes will be made to the protocol through it's ability to render the coins valueless. The economic majority will choose it's own self-interest.

...

If the launch codes for the world's nukes were vulnerable to unauthorized access due to broken cryptography, would the world say, "Oh, we can't force an upgrade because that is theft from the original nuke owners! We must let the chips fall where they may and let those codes end up in the hands of whoever can crack them first!"

No... that would be ridiculous.

Yes, that is true, but Satoshi's coins would be specially vulnerable because most coins are on pay-to-pk-hash addresses, and can only be cracked in the brief time between broadcast and confirmation (hash reversal is much more quantum hard than elliptic curve reversal), while Satoshi's coins are on pay-to-pk addresses, and hackers don't have to hurry to hack them.

In my opinion it would be completely wrong to remove coins from any address without having the keys to that address.  so only the owner can move them.  if bitcoin ever went down the road of even suggesting such a thing i would sell everything i have and move on..... i i bet there would be alot of people doing the same.

Please don't wait, sell your BTC to someone who is willing to even attempt to understand the issue (which you have demonstrated you are unwilling to do).


Sell, preferably quickly. I and others want more BTC, and we will be wanting them to be resistant to QC bruteforcing, whether Satoshi decides to protect his/their stash or not.

If there was a general agreement that those 1 mil coins are "lost" there would be no controversy. There's still uncertainty, which is likely factored in the price (to some degree).


It all boils down to whether such deadline should be set or not. The moral dilemma is to whether it's OK to cut-off anyone from their coins in order to protect the market cap. You can never be sure whether those coins will be 'hacked' or whether the 'rightful' owner will manage to transfer them in the last minute.


It's not theft, but it's ethically ambiguous. You can 'update' your own money and leave the option open to others without a deadline. If they don't transfer on time and get their funds stolen - so be it. The price would get (badly) hit, but it'd all come back to normal eventually.


Of course. But 'disabling' the coins stolen in any of the major exchanges hacks would also be in the economic majority's best interest (hacker can't dump them on the market + your share in total supply increases), but rarely anyone was taking such idea seriously, as it wasn't in line with Bitcoin's principles.


To me, it's not all black/white and I could defend both positions here.

While I'm sure most people would hastily transfer their own coins to a non-vulnerable address, I'm still not convinced that a sufficient majority of the network would be on board with setting a cut off date or block height that would render other peoples' coins useless.  It's something that could prove equally as contentious as scaling.  Securing your own property is obvious and no one will have any objections with that part.  It stands to reason that the majority of coins will be moved to quantum resistant addresses.  But beyond that, what you're proposing in the rest of your post is making decisions on what to do with property that doesn't belong to you in an attempt to bolster the value of your own property.  I tend to believe most people wouldn't opt to run code that could lock someone's coins without their permission.  It's a hugely ethical quandary.

Also, with regard to market shocks, who's to say the market won't react badly to the news that coins might be "stolen" (even if you don't personally agree with that interpretation) via a protocol change?  We could even end up with a split like ETH/ETC if some people won't budge on their stance.  There's bound to be some instability and uncertainty either way, really.

Here's your problem: focusing on Satoshi, or any other individual.

The issue is not Satoshi's coins. It's that those coins are coincidentally all held at Pay-to-Public key addresses. It's not even certain that Satoshi definitively owns those coins, just a very informed guess.

Other people, who are not Satoshi, own or owned coins in P2PK addresses, it's got nothing to do with specific people at all,

You're throwing the gasoline of argument conflation on this proverbial fire (strange how you only ever appear in topics to perform this same act)



Not in the actual scenario given, but you're not really interested in that, are you?

come on people, wise up
some people need to think rationally, instead of thinking all of blockstreams idea's are perfect. purely because they trust blockstream. think rationally, think logically and think beyond your personal "i hope to get rich if i circlejerk blockstream"

just think about it..
obliterating coins out of fear of obliterating coins..!!!

thats like running infront of a car tomorrow, on purpose.. out of fear one day in the next few decades you might be in a car accident.
thats like smoking 200 cigarates a day to get cancer out of fear one day you might get cancer.

we should have an OPTION of a new keypair type. and let people FREELY and VOLUNTARILY move THEIR OWN funds across.. but not to forcibly obliterate any coin that doesn't personally volunteer to move their own coin. as that's foolish

instead of destroying old coins simply because they are p2pk how about leave them to stay where they are and if some hacker steals them and moves them then that would be the old coins punishment.

but intentionally obliterating the coins (remove from circulation) is not ethical and not in any way good for anyone. and affects fungibility if its made ok to destroy coins on a whim of fear. especially if the act they are performing out of fear is the same/worse act as they are fearing.

I would quit bitcoin if a hard fork to invalidate coins ever happens.

If the coins are dumped on the market, that should, in theory, reduce the price by 5%, fluctuations of this size are quite commonplace.
However, the resulting FUD and panic would probably dump the price much more than that, I think bitcoin would still survive.
If Satoshi voluntarily burned the coins, this problem would be solved, but this seems unlikely.

Except for the part where you're clearly talking about everyone who misses the cut off date.  I absolutely agree it has nothing whatsoever to do with specific people at all.  Hence my use of the words "someone's coins" and not even mentioning Satoshi.  How am I focusing on Satoshi when you're the one arguing about them?  

Shuffle the words around any way you like, you are talking about making private keys that don't belong to you non-functional because you care rather strongly about the fiat value of your own holdings.  All I'm saying is some people are going to take issue with that.  Don't expect an easy ride on this issue.  Definitely don't expect me to be the only one questioning it.

 

More strange is how it's only ever pouring gasoline on the fire when someone disagrees with you.  It's never controversial if you personally think it's a good idea.  Clearly everyone else is just overreacting and it's quite trivial to potentially render millions of bitcoins worthless because you only care about your own.   ::)

Uh, who's shuffling words around here, exactly?


You mentioned a "someone". Not me. It's written in your quoted text, the text you wrote. 20 minutes ago. Can you not remember what you did 20 minutes ago, even when it's written down?



Nope. That's not what I'm talking about.

You're deliberately trying to twist my position, and that is the entire substance of your post: twisting. Is that because you're not interested in an honest argument?

I don't know how to phrase it any more simply.  My post was not about Satoshi and you open your reply by saying that my problem is I'm focusing on Satoshi.  Clearly there has been a misunderstanding.  What I'm saying is, this could affect any number of someones.

Maybe this will help:

someone
ˈsʌmwʌn/

    1.    an unknown or unspecified person; some person.


That's what I mean by "someone".  Any random person using Bitcoin who might not be looking too closely and miss a rather important deadline that's being proposed by some people in this thread.  Stop jumping to conclusions and assuming I'm talking about a specific individual.  If I change the word to "anyone", will that cease your mindless pedantry and get you to focus on the actual point of the post?  Which is, nullifying other peoples' property could be considered immoral.  


That's peoples'.  i.e. more than one person and not a specific individual.  Is that clear now?



Okay then, what are you talking about?  It sounds like that's what Holliday was talking about and you seemed to agree with it.  If you don't, feel free to outline your stance on the matter.  Do you think there should be a cut off point where coins not moved to a quantum proof key are frozen by the network?  Personally, I don't.

If you really wanted to "phrase it simply" as you say, you wouldn't write multiple paragraphs replete with strange looking phonetic characters from dictionary quotes. Way to make it simple, lol


You're trying to obscure your weak strawman, aren't you?

What fucking strawman?  Talk sense you raving crackpot.  Whatever.  I'm happy to let others decide for themselves what I meant.  Are you going to answer the damn question or not?  Do you think there should be a cut off point where coins not moved to a quantum proof key are frozen by the network?

I was convinced that if quantum computing will become a real threat to existing cryptography solutions, then bitcoin protocol will be automatically updated to reflect that.
Do I really would have to move my coins to another quantum proof address in that happen as many of you suggesting? There is no feasible automatic way to prevent that?
Need of manual update (in this case moving coins by hand) seems like huge security threat for every abandoned/lost coin - many BTC users might leave because of that.

Would you burn your coins to solve that 'problem'?

well if you want to use segwit for instance, you will need to move over to new private/public keys. so we shall see what a realistic user adoption of new keys would occur.

if segwit activates. we can look at how much of the community move coins into segwit transaction types.

my opinion we wont ever see the full ~4500tx/block (2.1x) one time boost of segwit because that 2.1x is based on 100% of people using segwit transactions.
but atleast we can see how many people adopt the new keytype to be able to look at the possible scenarios of a QC doomsay of stealing funds. basing that far future doomsday on the stats of segwit adoption.

and no segwit is not QC resistant. im just talking about statistics of adoption rate to later have some adoption stats to let analysts look at how many possible bitcoin thefts could occur if QC was going to bruteforce and steal funds.

The one where I say "it's about the weak security of P2PK", then you say "stop trying to steal individuals coins!".


That strawman

Yeah, see, that's not a strawman, ya fruitloop.  No wonder I'm having trouble figuring out what the hell you're talking about.  It's clearly not a strawman if your proposal to "fix" the "weak security of P2PK" is to deny access to the coins that are on those addresses.  This is throwing fungibility out the window, stating unequivocally that coins on one format of address are not equal to those on a more secure format.  Effectively blacklisting the unsecured coins to protect the value of the secured ones.  I'm just not okay with that idea.  I sincerely doubt consensus would ever enforce that.  Keep crying strawman if you think it'll help your case, but I'm not seeing much support for the notion.



Or another great analogy could be if you haven't seen your neighbour for a few years and thought there was a chance they might be dead and their possessions were vulnerable to unauthorized access because your home security system is newer than theirs.  So you decide the best solution would be to burn their house down so that no one can steal their stuff.  Problem solved.   ::)

You're putting words in my mouth, and trying to pretend we're having a different discussion. That's called a "strawman argument", and people that use that tactic are trying to disrupt sensible debate, not take part in it honestly.

Try arguing about the actual issue, instead of using lame tactics

I'd love to argue about the actual issue, but you still haven't answered whether you support blacklisting P2PK coins or not.  Try being honest, answer the goddamn question and maybe we can have a conversation.  Or will you find a new and novel way to weasel your way out of answering a simple question?

One last time before I declare you a lost cause:  Do you think there should be a cut off point where coins not moved to a quantum proof key are frozen by the network?

dont bother talking to CB.
he loves to meander the topic off topic. poke the bear, get you to reply and then poke some more until you bite and then claim he is the victim.

he is just tryng to derail topics and meander into making him a victim so he can then try play a victim card to make people think he deserve sympathy. although his point has no facts, data, stats, info.
he just wants sympathy and then use that sympathy to get people on his side.

he abuses emotion to win people. not using data or facts. just emotion
just ignore him he is a well trained troll

---

back to the topic on hand
new keytypes should be added. and people can voluntarily move their funds.
those that dont can continue using old keytypes. and be at risk of having their funds stolen

in no way should old keys be destroyed or have funds moved by some 'manager' to be redistributed.
in short being punished by centralists at blockstream.

instead the coins should remain part of circulation. and if a hacker was to QC bruteforce. then those coins can be stolen.

end result is temporary price drama but no death to fungibility or coin cap limiits

unlike the proposal to destroy coins which does destroy fungibility and destroy the coincap limit and permanently causes issues for the whole economy

This is just there way for the real Satoshis to come out,and this is not right,Satoshis have given us Bitcoin and this is the way to repay him ,stealing his money,it will have a serious tragedy if they touch satoshis' bitcoin,if they can do it to Satoshi they can do it to anybody. 

I'm not going to enter into any kind of discussion with someone who's demonstrated to be acting maliciously and/or subversively. That goes for everyone behaving that way, wouldn't want to get accused of singling out individuals again, lol

You say you want an honest discussion, but you can't even bring yourself to outline your own argument.  I'm merely asking you for your stance on this matter.  Why even bother entering into the discussion to begin with if you're too afraid to speak your damn mind and tell us what you think?  "Oh, I'm not answering that question, people might not like my answer".  Pathetic.

Rightly or wrongly, I've happily stated my case.  Coins should not be locked just because they are perceived as insecure.  It's not difficult for me to state that because I honestly believe it.  People can volunteer to move their funds to a more secure format, but shouldn't be locked out if they don't.  If someone disagrees, they're welcome to.  I can have a discussion about it with them, as long as they explain to me what they're actually trying to say before they try to accuse me of putting words in their mouth like some vague and slippery politician, sniping from the sidelines while contributing literally nothing to the conversation. 

If you can't honestly state your case, then fine, lost cause.  So be it.

You're strawmanning yet again, aren't you? So who's pathetic, exactly lol?

Every instance of "You say...", or "you're too..." or "You don't want..." in the quoted post are things you invented, so that you can criticise me about things I didn't even say at all.



Again, who's pathetic, exactly?

On OP's first argument, you're the one that's an idiot here. Without a government you will not have the freedom to do anything really. Governments bring order and society to establish. Without one there would be utter chaos and nothing will be established. Regards, the other points, I think they are correct.

I would answer this with a question : " What do you think will happen with the value of Bitcoin, when people can simply "code" out your

coins. "? We cannot even reach consensus on SegWit, how are we ever going to reach consensus about this? A lot was done with the protocol,

to keep people honest. {They act in a way, to protect their own interest} Doing this, would be like pissing on someone's face.  ::) ... Today it

is Satoshi's coins and tomorrow it is Roger Ver.... etc. etc..  >:(

agreed
the best solution is have a new keypair type. but have it voluntary. all keypair types are always accepted. then let people voluntarily move them or not.

at worse (the doomsday of QC) people funds get stolen out of old keys. temporary price drama when theives, steal and cashout. but then it stablizes when those coins circulate into the new secure keypairs. thus retaining fungibility and the drama surpasses like a bad episode we dont watch again.

the coins stay in circulation and people learn their lesson.

however destroying old coins or getting a 'manager' to decide to take the coins and redistribute/destroy them (as he deems fit) purely using the fear of a theft /destruction as an excuse to allow him to thieve/ destroy. is stupid

I guess it's best to sacrifice those coins in the possibility of a quantum computing attack. We are going to sooner or later be facing that problem, we must be prepared, but those that didn't took the time to move their coins ito QC proof addresses must suffer the consequences. I doubt anyone that cares about their bitcoin will not have enough time to get it sorted.

If satoshi doesn't move the coins in time, it's safe to assume that he is dead, or he doesn't care about his coins getting stolen.

Not a very pertinent question. No-one has suggested targeting the BTC of individuals. What makes you think specific people are being targeted with this proposal?

The one who have suggested such ideas are not very smart and we all can agree with that. Beside that I never heard of many people suggesting such things. I too think that Satoshi himself is alive and well and is his decision to do whatever he likes with his coins, even to never use them, just as is anyone of us decision what we do with our coins. I don't really understand such suggestions.

How can you dismiss the proposal as "not smart" while simultaneously claiming that you don't understand it?

Satoshi's coins are such an interesting topic but it is preposterous to think that they should be hardforked out.  It is very mysterious as to why they have never been touched as Satoshi would have many reasons to do something with them, but at the end of the day they are Satoshi's and no one else's business.

*sigh*

No-one has suggested targeting the BTC of individuals. What makes you think specific people are being targeted with this proposal?

I cant believe this is even being discussed because it is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Let him manage his own coins for goodness sake.

In most of EUROPE and other socialist countries.

It's actually well over 80% if you add inflation together and indirect taxes like VAT and others.

Yeah fuck it, you are clearly clueless.


What if you are just misunderstanding the concept?

Because if this is true, then why are you the only one talking about this.

I only see you constantly criticizing Core, and only you. You are like 1 person against the whole BTC forum.

Is there nobody else here citicizing Core, because if 99.9% of people here agree, and you don't then maybe the problem is not with us, but with you?






Then why is nobody else forking the BTC source code and creating alternative clients.

Bitcoin classic to my understanding has only 1 dev.

Where are the other million of enthusiasts who would save Bitcoin with the perfect code that you desire? Are they just sitting on their dick, or maybe they are not even needed.