You will just be losing them to thieves.
Those coins belong to the owner. They do not belong to you and they do not belong to the collective. It is solely the owner's prerogative to manage the risk of theft. Your initiative to steal them is no more justified than the other thief you postulate. Thank you for exposing yourself as totally bereft of any moral principles. Incidentally, BurtW has already fully explained the real risk to overall network value, which is that people will not trust a network that has demonstrated the will to render private keys meaningless. eta: apostrophe, spelling |
|
|
|
...
Thanks. I'm sure I've got an ancient, already-dented SM58 around here somewhere...
That stuff clogging the windscreen? Yeah, that's vomit  Unless you've run a for-hire sound co, you have no idea how bad it can actually get. |
|
|
|
Isn't Moy the guy that was on the panel with Craig S Wright, Joseph VaughnPerling, Nick Szabo, and others hosted by Bitcoin Belle end of last calendar year - at the first outing of CSW? Despite the claim of first Bitcoin IRA, Broad financial has been working this space for some time. https://www.broadfinancial.com/self-directed/bitcoin-ira/ |
|
|
|
But in the actual example, the only coins affected are those that have been for all practical purposes abandoned - and WILL be stolen.
Bull-fucking-shit. You ('you' being anyone or any group of people) have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not those coins are abandoned. You also have no way of knowing when or even if they will be stolen. Again, in case you are still blind to the moral principle, the only person who has a legitimate claim on managing the risk is the owner of the coins themselves. Any lesser standard is simply theft. If you have a mic, it needs to be dropped. Thanks. I'm sure I've got an ancient, already-dented SM58 around here somewhere... |
|
|
|
But in the actual example, the only coins affected are those that have been for all practical purposes abandoned - and WILL be stolen.
Bull-fucking-shit. You ('you' being anyone or any group of people) have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not those coins are abandoned. You also have no way of knowing when or even if they will be stolen. Again, in case you are still blind to the moral principle, the only person who has a legitimate claim on managing the risk is the owner of the coins themselves. Any lesser standard is simply theft. |
|
|
|
You mean they take away your money and you can't get it back? How long is "long enough"?
Yes. I forget the specifics, but I seem to recall it being somewhere in the 3-5 year range. |
|
|
|
his suggestion is certainly not as evil as the article make it sound.
It is absolutely evil. It proposes that the collective has a greater claim on one's bitcoin than the owner himself. If there is a risk of early hashless-address bitcoin being stolen by advances in cryptanalysis, the only party that has a legitimate right to manage that risk is the owner of those bitcoins. Fucking period. I can hardly believe all y'all covetous crass craven cretins are even entertaining the notion. Or publicly admitting to such an offense. The problem is you are responding to the bogus OP, while the rest of us are, more or less, dealing more accurately with theymos' position: When this topic first came up I assumed it was a prank or vicious smear against Theymos or something.
It is... The bitcoin.com article is full of lies, and the headline quote is a complete fabrication. I really dislike the idea that a bitcoin investor has to keep up to speed with changes in the protocol or risk losing their investment. That's just the nature of Bitcoin. It's pretty experimental still. Everyone's always known that Bitcoin's ECDSA will be utterly broken if anyone builds a sufficiently large quantum computer. When/if that happens, people who aren't paying attention are either going to have their coins stolen, or (as I did propose) the coins will be destroyed slightly before they would've been stolen if the owner fails to secure them. (I absolutely did not propose targeting Satoshi's coins in particular, and my proposal would be a one-time response to the unusual and very serious issue of millions of coins becoming insecure at the same time.) Maybe if I repost this a dozen more times people will stop reacting to the OP? Your assertion is absolutely FALSE. I am responding directly to theymos' evil proposition - that coins legitimately belonging to someone -- or with no way of knowing whether or not they legitimately belong to someone (which from an ethical standpoint is exactly the same thing) -- should be stolen and burned by the collective at some (unknowable) time before some nefarious actor manages to steal them for his/her own. Why don't *you* read what *I* wrote, eh? Did you somehow miss this little bit that theymos has re-asserted? Even though you yourself quoted it? (as I did propose) the coins will be destroyed slightly before they would've been stolen
Nobody has a right (and the collective is just another nobody) to destroy coins they do not themselves own. Fucking period. The fact that they are subsequently destroyed does not magically render it 'not-theft'. I can hardly believe all y'all covetous crass craven cretins are even entertaining the notion. Or publicly admitting to such an offense. |
|
|
|
If anything like this did happen AND coconscious implemented it (no chance), once the media got ahold of it, bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general is done for.
Reuters - 2021:
"Bitcoin, a virtual currency known to use cryptography to protect users funds, has now officially been broken. Thousands of users lost over 15 billion USD in funds when a Quantum Computer broke the ECDSA scheme which is used for the public/private key pairs. Bitcoin core developers were unable to comment at the time of the hack".Having every mainstream news saying bitcoin was broken and people are losing money is worse than a 2mn coin hack-and-dump (whether slow or fast dump). Compared to the above scenario, being prepared to move coins to safe addresses, giving a long time to do so and then taking other measures like freezing pubkey coins, is not a bad alternative. You are asserting a false equivalency. We can indeed move those willing onto a new cryptographic underpinning without stealing the funds from those who would prefer not to move their coins. |
|
|
|
In fiat world, if you forget about an account, and haven't touched it in a while, you can still retrieve it. Money in "lost accounts" is yours by law no matter how many years you have waited to claim it.
That is by no means universal. 'Round these parts (CO, USA), if your bank account sits dormant long enough, agents of the state show up at your bank and confiscate its contents. They claim this is a legitimate power of the state. Or, The State. This is only one of the many ways in which bitcoin _should_ distinguish itself from fiat. |
|
|
|
his suggestion is certainly not as evil as the article make it sound.
It is absolutely evil. It proposes that the collective has a greater claim on one's bitcoin than the owner himself. If there is a risk of early hashless-address bitcoin being stolen by advances in cryptanalysis, the only party that has a legitimate right to manage that risk is the owner of those bitcoins. Fucking period. I can hardly believe all y'all covetous crass craven cretins are even entertaining the notion. Or publicly admitting to such an offense. |
|
|
|
Do you really think that ... most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.
You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness. |
|
|
|
@jbreher
you are 100% right, ... Why did I speak about MrCoins? ... what did he do? He came and replied, didnt he? There is no question if he was shilling or not, he was but he wasnt the only one, there is huge bunch of people who did the same and nobody talks about them, some are even here bashing over others.
From my standpoint, it seems many are rightly derided for their role. Your statement that "nobody talks about them" is simply false. I don't see your whiteknighting target MrCoins treated any worse than any number of other offenders. Why is MrCoins then so much worse then all people on bitcointalk that got btc for an banner in their signature.
See sig for my position on that issue. I am open for discusion.
I frankly have no interest in discussing it further. My point was that, in all the whinging posts you've made, each a huge wall'o'text, the only thing remotely on-topic I detected was whiteknighting for MrCoins. Have a good day! |
|
|
|
You do recognise that you all came here after ganza let you fall down
Well, no. I never dealt with a Garza-affiliated company. Indeed, I publicly proclaimed 'likely scam' in one of the first threads discussing the hosted mining idea. But that is kind of beside the point. @boki15, you seem to be upset about something. But all I've been able to discern, for all your walls of text, is you seem to think that MrCoins is being treated unfairly in this thread. From my perspective, MrCoins deserves every bit of derision heaped upon him. I've been following this thread since inception, have read every bit of it, and have followed a lot of links to referenced conversations on other sites. There is no question that MrCoins fits the textbook definition of 'shill' when it comes to Garza scams. the more you know |
|
|
|
Speaking of original investors, you suppose we'll have to hardfork bitcoin to take away satoshi's booty,
Not just no, but hell no. or maybe we can just sneak it into a softfork/core 0.12.2?
I expect the chance of such an effort would be positively correlated with the appearance of any new evidence supporting the CSW==SN hypothesis. Cause rabies. |
|
|
|
How do you account for the fact that CSW was able to sign a message from block 1 for Gavin? Have we explained that part away yet? How?
<<gratuitous pik removed>> What is it? Here in the Kore Ekko Khchamber, the obvious answer is that Gavin is simultaneously: a) duped, as he is the stupidest person who ever figured out how to make a transaction; and b) lying, because he needs to make a case for 320 GB blocks - like rightfuckingnow - and will breach any ethic to do so ...take your pick. I personally don't think the last card has been played. We shall see. |
|
|
|
....
You'd need a plausible explanation for the discrepancy in last name - Kleiman/Kleinman. Motherfucker! How the hell did I not see that? I'm gonna do some double checking, but I'll offer up an earnest apology beforehand. It was not my intent to mislead in this regard. No worries... I never question your intent, b. Yeah... not trying to claim anything, I just found it curious. Frankly, by the time you spool up on a topic, you're typically finding all sorts of connections that I can't tell are related or absolute coincidence. I just scratch my head, wondering where the thread is to be found. |
|
|
|
Sounds something like " ...and will be releasing some papers next year." |
|
|
|
....
You'd need a plausible explanation for the discrepancy in last name - Kleiman/Kleinman. |
|
|
|
Reordered ... Fascinating interviews indeed. I'm a little worried here.
I'm worried that the blockchain will be put into the service of "the man"/corporations. I'm uneasy that everything that can be known about me and my interaction with the world will be quantified and registered. I'm a little concerned that Satoshi's vision (and thats who we are talking about here) is politically naive.
Is perfect competition the answer to everything ? Is it really the answer to the inequalities in the distribution of wealth, power and opportunity in this world ?
No need to worry. As he pointed out in the interview itself, what could possibly be the harm? Indeed, the only fair way to distribute goods and services is through the markets themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
