Bitcoin Forum

I don't understand that list, can anyone kindly elaborate.  Deeply appreciated.

As far as I understand it, someone sent money to an "address" that wasn't properly formatted. As such, the money is sent, but never arrives anywhere. Most likely this was done by someone with a non-standard client, because the standard client can't do this. So it's either someone messing around with modifying the standard client code, or someone with custom code altogether (think exchanges etc).

What, the network (the miners) accepts transactions with malformed destination addresses?

[03:01] <Glyph-Minus-229> the protocol doesn't prevent sending to invalid addreses?
[03:02] <gmaxwell> No, the protocol makes MANY things possible.
[03:02] <gmaxwell> The transactions are little programs that govern their redemption.
[03:03] <gmaxwell> There is probably no polynomial time that can identify all unspendable transactions.

@theymos, nope. It has no destination pubkey.

Ah, hash160 will always produce 20 bytes, and with equalverify leading zeroes matter. So it can't be spent.

@theymos, how do you get that number? I get: 1FYMZEHnszCHKTBdFZ2DLrUuk3dGwYKQxh

It seems that coins were sent to the address "0", which is obviously not a valid address. This is impossible with the standard client, and as such was done by someone running custom code.
About the network accepting it, I'll quote a bit of IRC conversation:
So basically, it's not really possible to check for all things that go wrong. The bitcoin protocol supports a lot more than just sending coins from A to B, even though that's mainly what you see in the normal client nowadays. The miners need to accept "unusual transactions" though, as long as they adhere to the bitcoin protocol.

That's as far as I understand it. Is that layman-approved?

<MagicalTux> that's a problem, but not the worst problem we ever faced
<MagicalTux> all the broken withdraws have been re-issued
<MagicalTux> just spent one week of BTC-only income

Maybe this helps.
It seems MtGox made a mistake somewhere.
MagicalTux is a dev of MtGox.

Damn.  A quick peek at bitcoincharts and back-of-the-envelope calc after my above note lead me to believe that they could make it back in a week.  More luck than any real understanding though.

2-3k of bitcoins is big for us, but I guess nothing to a sizable exchange.

MagicalTux is a dev of MtGox.

< genjix> guys, in block 150951 there is 2609.36304319 BTC of irretrievable money: http://privatepaste.com/fba4dd1f44
< genjix> someone fucked up and lost ALOT of money
< joepie91> how come it's irretrievable?
< shockdiode> was just checking that out
< genjix> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50206.0
< shockdiode> http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000000449ee5b94ba7a051caffff5c23d6a03335f6e20e3985b5ffa61
-!- abstinence [~abstinenc@gateway/tor-sasl/abstinence] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
-!- da2ce7 [~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< necrodearia> genjix, interesting.  In what way is it irretrievable?
< genjix> you cant spend them?
< shockdiode> this seems like a real flaw in the protocol
< shockdiode> those are basically just not getting sent to any address - no address/pubkey in the output
< shockdiode> so it seems it should be designed so that the sender is able to recover those
< genjix> shockdiode: no it isn't
< shockdiode> i know it isn't
< shockdiode> i'm saying it seems like it should be that way to me
< shockdiode> seems like an oversight
< genjix> i disagree though
< shockdiode> oh?
< genjix> someone was using a hacked/custom version of bitcoin
< shockdiode> reasoning? i'm sure you've thought this out much better than i have so am genuinely curious
< genjix> they messed up their output script and lost
< joepie91> shouldn't this have been rejected by the rest of the network as an invalid transaction?
< joepie91> seeing as it doesn't have a recipient
< shockdiode> right that's basically what i'm saying
< genjix> well output scripts are supposed to give you the power to make many different special transactions
< genjix> but it's a sharp knife
< genjix> someone just put their address as 0 in the standard tx type
< genjix> joepie91: no it doesnt fail because it's a perfectly valid tx :)
< joepie91> what is the purpose of sending a transaction without a recipient?
< joepie91> why is it?
< genjix> ok do you think they should make programming languages where you cannot have a logic error?
< da2ce7> lol
< da2ce7> genjix you should quickly spend em'
< da2ce7> then give them back to mtgox ;P
-!- abstinence [~abstinenc@gateway/tor-sasl/abstinence] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< genjix> :(
< shockdiode> so basically looks like someone (gox afaik) screwed up on their output scripts...
< joepie91> if there is no purpose for a transaction without recipient, and the only effects it can have appear to be negative effects
< joepie91> then why should it be considered a valid tx?
< genjix> shockdiode: seems so.
< genjix> joepie91: because the scripting facility is a near full fledged programming language where you can do many things but the bitcoin protocol doesn't tell you what you can or cannot do
< genjix> albeit it is largely disabled for security reasons (checksig ddos) but that's the idea.
< shockdiode> hrm... but shoudn't anything with outputs to address 0 be considered invalid?
< joepie91> ^
< joepie91> I know that it CAN be done
< joepie91> but should it be ALLOWED to be done?
< joepie91> I mean, in most languages you cannot multiply a string either
< genjix> there's tons of shit you can do that isnt valid
< genjix> why try to ban it
< joepie91> then why is it not considered invalid?
< genjix> what about if i try to send to 000000000000000000000000001
< joepie91> because that prevents issues like these?
< joepie91> seems like a pretty good reason
< joepie91> to try and implement safeguards/checks against it
< genjix> nope bad idea
< joepie91> why?
< joepie91> why would you NOT implement it?
< genjix> scripting system is supposed to be basic, simple and highly flexible
< genjix> if you want to implement a type safe language on top then go ahead
< joepie91> that does not answer my question
< joepie91> why would you not implement it?
-!- copumpkin [~pumpkin@unaffiliated/pumpkingod] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< genjix> bitcoin scripting = assembly language
< joepie91> that still does not answer my question
< genjix> pointless. you cannot protect against every strange thing people want to do
< genjix> it is folly
< joepie91> this is about one of the most obvious mistakes
< joepie91> that can be made
< joepie91> there is all reason to at least implement basic protections against things like these
< joepie91> and no reason not to
< joepie91> your arguments so far come down to "it's the law because it's the law"
< genjix> im totally against adding any restrictions to the scripting language
< joepie91> _why?_
< genjix> no rules
< joepie91> come up with a concrete reason
< genjix> because you start piling on lots and lots of rules to muddy the standard and then somewhere down the line you wonder how you got into this bureaucratic mess
< joepie91> this is more a bureaucratic mess than anything
< joepie91> "it's not like that because it's not supposed to be like that"
< genjix> a good standard is simple and elegant. it's not the job of the standard to try to protect people by implementing safeguards
< genjix> that's the job of the application developer
< joepie91> lolno
< genjix> HTML does not legislate rules to protect web servers
< joepie91> it is the job of the standard if that standard is responsible for collective bookkeeping that affects other users
< joepie91> and not just itself
< genjix> that's the job of the web server software themselves to not have flaws.
< joepie91> implementing a disapproval of miners of transactions without a recipient has ZERO negative consequences
< joepie91> NOT implementing it DOES have consequences
< joepie91> as we can see here
< joepie91> genjix: bad analogy
< genjix> someone misused bitcoin. not our fault.
< shockdiode> eh, well he's got a good point
< joepie91> HTML has zero to do with webservers
< joepie91> whatsoever
< joepie91> HTML is fully client-side interpreted
< shockdiode> it is up to the developer to check their shit
< joepie91> the webserver just sends out data, it doesn't give a shit whether it's XML, HTML, text, or an MP3
< joepie91> shockdiode, the issue here is that the implementation does NOT only affect those that use that specific implementation
< joepie91> but the entire network
< genjix> i dont want people stuffing crap into bitcoin. if gavin wants to implementing scoring for disconnecting nodes, i might not like that but it's ok since i don't have to do it.
< joepie91> also those that do NOT choose to use said implementation
< joepie91> and that is where the problem lies
< genjix> he thinks it makes the network more secure. i disagree
< genjix> but if that was a standard.
< genjix> then fuck me.
< joepie91> genjix: that can have negative consequences
< joepie91> the change I proposed does not
< joepie91> if it does, feel free to point out a concrete negative consequence
< genjix> yes it does have negative consequences.
< genjix> maybe not today.
< joepie91> ok, point it out
< joepie91> point it out
< joepie91> point out a negative consequence
< joepie91> a concrete negative consequence
< genjix> read this article: http://www.aosabook.org/en/bdb.html
< joepie91> that is not an answer to my question
< genjix> take it from someone who has worked on projects with millions and millions of lines of code
< joepie91> I don't care
< joepie91> name. a. concrete. negative. consequence.
< genjix> you don't tack shit on mindlessly *right* now
< joepie91> I value what people say, not who they are
< genjix> it is purely reactionary.
< joepie91> name a concrete negative consequence.
< joepie91> name one.
< genjix> that it is stopping me using the scripting system how *I* want to use it
< joepie91> how is that a negative consequence if you doing so would hurt the network as a whole?
< genjix> there are a near infinite number of different variations of scripts that can cause me to put my bitcoins into a black hole
< genjix> we cannot legislate to protect everybody
< joepie91> sure, and this one is so obvious it would be trivial to protect against it
< genjix> which this essentially is.
< joepie91> it's not a valid argument
< genjix> rules to try to coddle bad developers.
< joepie91> name a negative consequence - and I am talking about negative consequences for the network as a whole, not one individual user
< genjix> or well developers mistakes (we all make mistakes :)
< genjix> negative consequences - a hugely muddled and bloated standard
< joepie91> you're avoiding the point and have still not named a negative consequence that affects the network as a whole
< joepie91> that is not a concrete negative consequence
< genjix> yes it is
< joepie91> 'do not accept transactions without a recipient' is one line of text
< joepie91> that's it
< genjix> and 8 lines of code
< joepie91> calling that 'hugely muddled and bloated' is a MASSIVE exxaggeration
< genjix> now add another 100 of those
< joepie91> we are talking about this specific change
< genjix> 1000 lines of code and an extra month of work
< joepie91> not about 100 others
< joepie91> those 100 others only exist on your side of the conversation
< genjix> why are you scriptist?
< joepie91> this discussion is about transactions without a recipient and only about transactions without a recipient
< genjix> all bad scripts are equal
-!- ej_ [~ej@67.224.69.45] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
 * joepie91 sighs
< genjix> we need to try to stop all of them :)
< joepie91> we are talking about ONE SPECIFIC CHANGE right now
< joepie91> not about 235018235601720681203967102936 potential imaginary future changes
< joepie91> name a concrete negative consequence that affects the network as a whole for THAT one specific change
< genjix> poor software
< joepie91> note the keyword concrete
< genjix> you are behaving like people who say X is bad, government needs to ban X
< joepie91> so, we can conclude that there are no concrete negative consequences that affect the network as a whole for that specific change?
< genjix> let people autonomously find their own way to protect against it
< joepie91> so, we can conclude that there are no concrete negative consequences that affect the network as a whole for that specific change?
< genjix> it only affects developers not users (ideally)
< genjix> your words, not mine.
< joepie91> yes or no?
< joepie91> it was a question
< genjix> yea-no.
< joepie91> seriously, stop dancing around it
< joepie91> if you cannot come up with a concrete consequence then just say you can't come up with one
-!- ej__ [~ej@67.224.69.45] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
< joepie91> I've been asking you for what? 15 minutes now?
< genjix> miners set policy about what they accept
< joepie91> and you have not been able to give even ONE concrete negative consequence that fits the description I gave
< genjix> there is no rules on what they can put in the blockchain
< joepie91> and yes, you can trail off on another discussion now and try to divert the subject
< joepie91> to not have to admit that you cannot name a negative consequence
< genjix> and the software currently does NO checking of scrpts
< genjix> scripts
< joepie91> but I'm not going to bite into tjhat
< joepie91> that*
< genjix> you want to change ALL of that
< joepie91> are you even reading what I am saying/
< joepie91> ?*
< genjix> reshape the network. have a gigantic overhaul to implement a new standard.
< joepie91> I guess not then.
< genjix> ok.
< joepie91> did you read what I said above?
< genjix> the bad thing is that it compromises network architecture and the very foundation and ideas of bitcoin itself as well as being bureaucratically infeasible and a path towards a complicated and bloated standard (which is not what we want).
< joepie91> .......
< genjix> if i want to write to address 0 in c++ then I can
< genjix> the program doesn't try to stop me.
< genjix> and why should it? it's MY code. i do wateva the f i want
< genjix> bitcoin script IS code
< joepie91> it does not 'compromise network architecture', does not compromise the idea of bitcoin (this is a solely technical limitation, not a usage limitation), I cannot see how it would be bureaucratically infeasible, and 'towards a complicated and bloated standard' is a slippery slope fallacy.
< genjix> yes it does. how do you want to enforce all the miners to accept this new rule?
< joepie91> you don;t
< joepie91> you don't*
< genjix> then how can you make it invalid
< joepie91> did you see me say anywhere <joepie91>at all costs every single miner HAS to adopt this method or be kicked from the network
< joepie91> ?
< joepie91> because I didn't
< genjix> yeah that's how you enforce rules
< joepie91> because if it is a standard and is implemented over time, that will naturally happen
< joepie91> I never said ANYTHING about enforcing rules
< joepie91> anywhere
< joepie91> whatsoever
< genjix> umm bitcoin is a set of rules
< joepie91> every miner for himself can decide whether he wants to accept those transactions or not
< joepie91> with no address
< joepie91> I do not see any issue with that
< genjix> which is what has happened now
< genjix> im cool with that
< joepie91> yet, noone seems to have implemented it
< joepie91> because it isn't put down anywhere
-!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< ThomasV> genjix: it wasn't me!!
< ThomasV> (re: someone fucked up)
< genjix> heh ThomasV
< genjix> ThomasV: you missed the heated discussion :)
< ThomasV> what was it ?
< ThomasV> I bet it was about whether miners should accept that
< genjix> yes exactly
< genjix> guess which side i was on
< ThomasV> oh no idea
< genjix> pro-everything goes in script. no checks.
< ThomasV> checks seem to be difficult indeed
< ThomasV> pro-choice
< genjix> yep about a bazillion things you can do to cut yourself
< genjix> not a standards responsibility to protect implementations
< ThomasV> people should have the right to kill their bitcoins
< ThomasV> but hell, why did this guy play with 2600 coins? maybe he believed he was on testnet?
< genjix> no idea. so strange huh
< necrodearia> <joepie91> name a concrete negative consequence. - broken record ftw.  how about naming an abstract, ideal, immaterial or intangible, careless, faulty, inaccurate, lax, vague, counterfeit, false, fictitious, imaginary, legendary, pretended, unreal, diluted, dissolved, melted, opened, thinned, unclotted, liquified, separated, waterproof, loose, slack, flexible, soft, supple, weak, yielding, implicit and/or unclear consequence?
< joepie91> necrodearia, did you just smack me with a dictionary? D:
< necrodearia> no, a thesaurus
< joepie91> close enough
< necrodearia> although, I wasn't smacking you
-!- Mqrius [Mqrius@forecast.student.utwente.nl] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< necrodearia> hi Mqrius
< shockdiode> "this guy" was tux...
< genjix> shockdiode: really?
< ThomasV> shockdiode: huh?
< shockdiode> yeah, he said as much in #mtgox
< shockdiode> [18:08] <MagicalTux> that's a problem, but not the worst problem we ever faced
< shockdiode> [18:08] <MagicalTux> all the broken withdraws have been re-issued
< genjix> :o
< shockdiode> [18:10] <MagicalTux> just spent one week of BTC-only income
< necrodearia> heh, one week
< OneFixt> his tx had too many inputs
< necrodearia> again, us$100,000+/year profits
< shockdiode> yeah
< genjix> OneFixt: explain?
< shockdiode> [18:14] <MagicalTux> I need to limit the number of inputs in a tx, seems that normal bitcoind don't like a tx with 293 inputs
< OneFixt> ^ that
< ThomasV> this is another blow to mtgox's tech reputation
< genjix> smells like bullshit
< shockdiode> oh yeah?
< genjix> there is no limit on the number of inputs
< shockdiode> intredasting
< shockdiode> wasn't aware of one myself
< genjix> and the maximum number of inputs on his transactions is 4
< OneFixt> isn't it 255?
< genjix> no
< genjix> anyway his max number of inputs was 4
< ThomasV> tux said a few days ago that he's not using bitcoind anymore
< ThomasV> bitcoinj instead
< genjix> damn
< OneFixt> i thought he was using something custom and not bitcoinj
< genjix> why?
< shockdiode> hrm, yeah does seem that max number of inputs was 4
< OneFixt> maybe it shows up as 4 because the other tx wouldn't show up in block explorer?
< genjix> nope
< genjix> i have a custom bitcoin version myself
< genjix> SQL database
< OneFixt> ok, i'd like to see more details on the error in that case
< OneFixt> looks like shockdiode brought it up
< genjix> if anyone wants a dump of the sql database ask me.
< OneFixt> i need to get around to writing one of those
< genjix> libbitcoin.org in case you didnt see it :)
< OneFixt> ah, thanks =)
< genjix> anyway it's still pre-alpha
< OneFixt> rally time
< genjix> 01:50 < graingert> just use Python
< genjix> 01:50 < graingert> and get on with your life
< genjix> 01:50 < gmaxwell> I like writing software that actually runs in realtime.
< genjix> laughed hard
 * necrodearia rallies with OneFixt
< OneFixt> hehe
< necrodearia> excitebike world rally, right?
< OneFixt> bitcoinworld rally!
< genjix> sorry guys
< genjix> not going to happen
< OneFixt> you don't like rallies?
< genjix> why would a loss of 2k btc make a difference
< OneFixt> oh, it's unrelated
< genjix> ohh ok
< OneFixt> hehe just looking at my charts
< ThomasV> ping me when it reaches $30
< ThomasV> good night
-!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
-!- SomeoneWeird [~SomeoneWe@unaffiliated/someoneweird] has quit [Excess Flood]
-!- Guest59589 [~SomeoneWe@unaffiliated/someoneweird] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy

All these bitcoins, can they be retrieved or is it "Sayonara" for them?  That's really a lot of money!

There is some discussion about having miners reject bad transactions.  Wouldn't that just cause a huge split in the network if only half the people upgraded the client and then that happened?

- can someone reach MagicalTux via irc and link him to this?

OTOH, he just helped me identify a bug in my code:  it chokes when it receives an OP_0 where it expects to find an address...

at the moment he stands 100% behind the bitcoin.

since the 17.000 Bitomat.pl story i trust mtgox deeply.
nobody asked him to pay the 17k. but he did. because he ownes and earns a lot of btc. and he is obviously looking long term.

so i dont see him running away with my mtgox balance.

i deleted my post because i cant help you.

you trust a free service a lot of coins, then wondering what happend.

but you dont trust a hard working man fighting agains powerfull enemys (banks) and taking high fees from us for that.

well do what you do, i do what i do.

It seems he's more close to LOSE the mtgox balance than run away with it.

Who would you rather trust for exchanging bitcoins?  Bitomat (all lost, saved by MtGox)?  Bitcoin7 (most lost, can get some back by revealing all possible details about your self and submitting naked photo)?  Tradehill (endorses spam, reveals your trades to the one who referred you)?

Or it sounds like the mainline client does validation of the protocol message.  Perhaps this could be broken out into a library that everyone could use to validate the protocol message before it was sent?

No, it's not a flaw. You can read the chatlog I pasted on page 2 for more information why.

Wasn't the idea of destroying bitcoins by spending to a provably non-redeemable address floated somewhere around here before? It was part of one proposed mechanism of migrating value to a new blockchain I think.
It seems to me that scripts such as this (sharp and pointy as they may be) should be allowed.

For the most part I agree with you (I hate bloat as much as the next guy).

As I understand it mtgox sent a transaction with an obviously invalid protocol message.

If someone screws up with bitcoin and sends 2 million coins into the darkness, that affects us all.  That can only happen so many times before bitcoin is no longer worth anything to anyone in its current form.

@worldinacoin

yes of course. but i dont see somthing like that. tradehill dont come over 5%


i think what will happen is -

bitcoin someone leaving the niche, than the big onlinebrokers start offering bitcointrading next to their stocks/gold etc. than mtgox is the small plattform, tradehill maybie survive far away and the other exchanges decease.

I read most of the post as it was very long.

For the most part I agree with you (I hate bloat as much as the next guy).  However, most of the examples you quoted were for things like web servers, HTML, (perhaps I'm missing one).  All of these protocols have no consequences for the entire body of people using these protocols.  If a web server in china screws up, it doesn't affect me at all.  If someone screws up with bitcoin and sends 2 million coins into the darkness, that affects us all.  That can only happen so many times before bitcoin is no longer worth anything to anyone in its current form.  It would be nice to be able to run a message through a validator to get some indication of _major_ screw ups.  This would not have to be part of your script language.

It would be nice to be able to run a message through a validator to get some indication of _major_ screw ups.  This would not have to be part of your script language.

If anything, create a toolkit outside the main client that tells you whether a transaction conforms to a handful of explicitly defined transaction types.  This is what mtgox should have had in place in their system (and ideally written by someone other than the person that built the code to produce their transactions).

import BitcoinDotNet 

BitcoinNetworkStream stream = new BitcoinNetworkStream()

SimpleTransaction t = new SimpleTransaction()
t.Amount = ....
t.Destination = ....
t.Sign(myWallet)

try
{
  stream.SendTransaction(t)
}
catch (InvalidDestinationException e)
{
/// oops we tried to send it somewhere invalid

}

We're the only long running exchange that hasn't been compromised

If this is a case of "bad datatype" then rather than just "extremely unlikely success" then it seems like it could be mechanically verified as impossible to complete.  I know there are an infinite number of possible transaction scripts, but they should be able to match parameters to function calls and do basic type checking...

But the only reasonable behavior to the protocol is to accept them all.

It would be nice if there was something that let novice bitcoin programmers know if they were doing something (possibly) stupid.  I know, I know, don't hire stupid programmers, but let's step into the real world.  Not everyone is going to be a bitcoin pro from the offset.  There's no need to punish users of a poorly programmed service if we can do something to help these programmers learn...

It would be nice if there was something that let novice bitcoin programmers know if they were doing something (possibly) stupid.

i added an explanation to the op. basically OP_0 is defined, but there is no op that pushes a 0 to the stack. Instead it's actually interpreted as push 0 bytes to the stack. See script.h GetOp2

enjoy using custom clients   ;D

also do this every single day  ;D ;D ;D

BlockExplorer currently describes this as "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG" (http://blockexplorer.com/rawblock/0000000000000449ee5b94ba7a051caffff5c23d6a03335f6e20e3985b5ffa61).

I was just thinking today about resetting the -testnet with new rules to make it more stable/useful...

These abstract script descriptions are produced by Bitcoin's CScript.ToString(). It's a Bitcoin bug if they are incorrect.

It looks like OP_0 was intended to push a numerical 0. It's probably a bug if it doesn't push anything. (The script in this case is broken either way, though.)

It would be nice if there was something that let novice bitcoin programmers know if they were doing something (possibly) stupid.  I know, I know, don't hire stupid programmers, but let's step into the real world.  Not everyone is going to be a bitcoin pro from the offset.  There's no need to punish users of a poorly programmed service if we can do something to help these programmers learn...

I understand the level some of you guys are at, but not everyone starts there.

Client doesn't have anything to do with miners.
Miners already can include or reject any transaction for any reason.

Each miner (or pool) decides which transactions (if any) to include in the block they are hashing.

All Turing-complete scripts must be invalid...

Also, (reading the same webpage I saw the OP_FALSE on) I do see that a number of commands were disabled "for security reasons", so there already are plenty of eyes ensuring that malicious scripts can't crash the blockchain.  The disabled commands are described as: 4 commands to split or combine strings, 4 bitwise operations, and 7 commands that multiply or divide numbers.

No, it's not a flaw. You can read the chatlog I pasted on page 2 for more information why.

Ultimately these coins are gone. Since more coins have been mined since then, any work to evict the transaction from the blockchain would do more damage to miners.

Imagine this were 500000 BTC and every MtGox user were at risk of a major loss. (which would certainly hit the news and damage the community).

A feature that allowed a miner to vote out a block or a transaction would be valuable. If 50%+ did it, the error would simply vanish. Democracy at work. But it would only work if that 50% voted immediately.

Thanks for the excellent insight on this, genjix. Deflation through attrition.

...
So people might come up with the idea of proxying this decision-making. This might put the decision-making into too few hands, of course, and all the decentralization is down the drain.

I don't think this is a good idea, therefore.
...

In a way, this has already happened.  Surely the three (or so) largest pools already constitute exactly what you have described.

Maybe MagicalTux should try to get some insurance against fuckups like this. Might be expensive and put a lot of hassle on him by ways of auditor wanting to see all code pre-production ;)

500k BTC are uninsurable, because it is practically impossible to replace them once lost.

500k BTC are uninsurable, because it is practically impossible to replace them once lost.

Maybe this helps.
It seems MtGox made a mistake somewhere.
MagicalTux is a dev of MtGox.

In light of recent developments at Mt. Gox, this thread is worth a revisit.  How many more coins were lost this way?

Maybe MagicalTux should try to get some insurance against fuckups like this. Might be expensive and put a lot of hassle on him by ways of auditor wanting to see all code pre-production ;)

I didn't really want to be a thread corpse abuser and bring up this old thread, but I stumbled across it by chance. If you look at the coins that have been consigned to the afterlife

2609.36304319 BTC

it's pretty painful at today's market value.

BTC price
2024, 31th March (Sunday) 18:49 UTC

= 70,498 USD

2609 * 70498 = 183,929,282 USD

They f*cked up over 183 million $
***LOL***  :o 8) ;D :D