I would like to mention in this context something which does not get the attention it deserves.
It is plausible that the currently used version of ECDSA will be broken eventually. When weaknesses start to be found people will start moving their coins to more secure addresses. But the lost coins will remain where they are, and when it is finally broken, whoever does it will find himself with a huge treasure of coins. This isn't stable and is not how Bitcoin is supposed to work.
I think we need to consider agreeing that some time after the signature algorithm shows weaknesses, we will delete all old coins to which the keys were lost. It's either that or have them all suddenly move to one party.
I don't think we need to agree to that at all. Who makes "you" (to mean not just you but anyone who feels they have the authority to control the wealth of others) to decide when wealth should be confiscated in order to protect others. You are the bitcoin "elite" you need to protect others by confiscating their wealth? You are talking about the role of a state. The elite protecting the masses by confiscating wealth through force. Bitcoin is dead if/when the "self proclaimed elites" out of fear decide they need to protect it by confiscating wealth.I think of it more as a community consensus to make sure Bitcoin works the way it was designed to - that lost coins remain lost. I think when the time comes we'll figure out what is a fair solution. That said I understand the issues with this deletion, and hence I will not press this further at this point. I am positive of one thing: if at some point any "self-appointed elite" with commit access manages to sneak in the source code a proviso to steal existing coins -- regardless of the form of this proviso -- I will immediately fork the code, revert the change, and start running nodes to keep the original non-organized-theft code alive. Then we'll see if people choose to stay with a currency paradigm that unilaterally decided to steal from them, or continue using the original paradigm. |
|
|
|
This argument falls on it's face. With BitCoins you CANNOT "clearly" know that they have been "lost." There is no dusty box or other indication besides the last time the address was used. If I have placed some gold in a safe I expect it to stay there. If my great-great grandchildren re-discover and open by old safe with paper bitcoins in it, you want the gold to already be gone.
Of course you can never truly know if they are lost, however if people are given a truly fair window of time to show the network that they aren't lost I fail to see the problem. You could tell your grandchildren to make sure they they enforce their right to the coins before that window expires. And if they also want to put coins in storage for a long period of time and hand them down, they can do the same thing. It's not rocket science, nor some tedious task which needs to be repeated every year. We are talking extremely long periods of time here. ...and you ignored all the rest of my points and replied flippantly to this one. Ignored. But, but, but TRULY! TRULY! TRULY! OUTRAGEOUS! Haha :-) He's clearly not engaged in a conversation with anyone here -- the very second anyone questions his terrible ideas, he immediately regresses to unsubstantiated suppositions, opinions and theories, making his participation here useless, bad and boring. I added him to my ignore list too. |
|
|
|
Of course you can never truly know if they are lost, however if people are given a truly fair window of time to show the network that they aren't lost I fail to see the problem.
Translation from statist codespeak to English: I want to impose on Bitcoin a policy of "Prove to me that you own what is yours, or else I'll pretend it's not yours, steal it from you, and call that 'fair'."The whole point of this is, of course, to impose Keynesian policy by discouraging long-term saving. This is why I just love Bitcoin-the-existing-blockchain: it makes it impossible for misinformed and propagandized fools to impose their terrible cached ideas on everyone else. Adding to ignore list... done. |
|
|
|
The beauty of Bitcoin is that it is voluntary. You can fork it and implement your idea, see how it goes.
I don't want to create a new fork of bitcoin, I have no intention to do so, nor the skills to do so. I want to make bitcoin more economically sound and stable over the very long term. Sure, the network could continue operating with only one BTC, but that is not healthy or sound in the long term. The fact this argument has been turned into some vendetta against a cartel of elite bitcoiners is absolutely ridiculous. You don't want to create an alt coin? Live with the one you got cos you ain't changing the existing one. Or don't use Bitcoin. It bears repeating: unlike government money (which has the properties you seem to want), nobody is forcing you to use Bitcoin. You already have what you want available to use today. Use dollars and stop trying to bring its fucked-up disadvantages to Bitcoin. At any rate, you ain't fooling anyone. This whole 'making Bitcoin more healthy' and 'stable money supply' is statist code speak for imposing your opinion on stealing from existing wealth owners. Perhaps that explains why you annoyingly keep repeating the same nonsensical and absurd conclusions of 'stealing old money is good' like a broken record without actually ever substantiating them. |
|
|
|
|
People wanna steal old money?
Keynesians in my Bitcoin? YOUDONTSAY_NICCAGE.JPG!
Statists gonna state, I guess.
As I said in the other thread: the beauty of Bitcoin is that no one is forced to use it. If you want to invent a Bitcoin competitor where people can steal other people's money under the pretense that it is about 'recovering lost coins' or 'improving the economy', you can. See how well it does against real Bitcoin. But changing the existing Bitcoin to suit your political opinions? Ha, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
The beauty of Bitcoin is that it is voluntary. You can fork it and implement your idea, see how it goes. Like e.g. freicoin. Want taxable Bitcoin? You can just implement it. It won't apply to existing Bitcoin, but if your ideas are sound, others will choose your coin over Bitcoin. Being voluntary, no one can impose new rules after the fact that could damage existing money holders.
I love that.
|
|
|
|
Every $100 you get from welfare, you should have to do 5 hours of community service.
5 hours? That's like double the minimum wage. These people can't get a job to flip fucking burgers because they are less than useless, and you're suggesting to pay them $20 an hour? Holy shit, you're generous! :-) |
|
|
|
Those stats are depressing, my man.  |
|
|
|
In this paper I propose a new way to measure
gun ownership at both the state and county levels on an annual basis.
Specifically, I argue that state- and county-level sales data for one of the
nation’s largest gun magazines, Guns & Ammo, provide a much more
accurate way to measure both the level and the change in gun ownership
within an area.
AH HAHAAHAA! I suppose sales of Hustler indicate the number of people getting laid? "Quality research", from the household name that we all have come to know and trust: cunticula. |
|
|
|
If everyone was armed, shootings would last no more than a few moments.
The Portland mall shooter stopped shooting and offed himself only after a normal person carrying a concealed gun took aim at him. So you are observably correct. |
|
|
|
Your view of morality didn't state anything about girls randomly growing those things.
I didn't say she'd use a penis. Safe for WorkNSFW (Don't say you weren't warned)You, however, did say you would like to forcibly penetrate her. You further said: -> Would I want them to do this to me?
-> Yup.
Therefore, you stated that you would like to be forcibly penetrated. If this is not so, then you might want to retract your statement. "Just for the sake of argument. Just to see how it feels". BAHAH. |
|
|
|
|
Academic papers? Changing the minds of SA goons who vandalize Wikipedia pages?
Luring women into your man cave using Pokemon cards is likely to be more effective than that.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, the biggest reason is simply because it's a powerful hedge against inflation.
|
|
|
|
|
He "disproved" your arguments only in his mind. That's why FirstAsshole doesn't share.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking of getting one of those NORFED coins... I'll meditate more on the topic throughout the week.
|
|
|
|
I think you're severely oversimplifying both concepts.
I respectfully disagree with this opinion of yours. ------------------------------ Both of these things exist because they appeal to certain built-in human qualities.
Welp. I'd like to ask you to reconsider that statement. Beliefs are not "things", and they certainly do not "exist". Telling me "nationalism exists" is like telling me "the number two exists". It is a categorical mistake. The statement "nationalism exists" is not even wrong. This is not a personal criticism. I am simply asking you to be a bit more rigorous so we can talk about the issue. I honestly don't want to be mean, and I've never spoken to you before, yet I feel compelled to share this with you when we think about the issues we discuss, we need to think correctly, first and foremost. Otherwise, our conclusions will most likely be wrong -- or, if they are correct, they will be correct only out of sheer coincidence. |
|
|
|
Disturbing. Safety is never anything more than a pretty illusion for any of us, at any time. We are all just one car accident, one cancer diagnosis, one unimagined catastrophe away from death. But what makes this situation bad—no, intolerable—is that someone, somewhere, for some reason, is actively seeking to destroy me. Paranoid much? Very much so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
