To my knowledge, the last change of the SM trust we know about for sure is the large net sell (-1444 BTC) earlier this month. Everything since then is too small to allow us to conclude with certainty that it represents an actively managed change in the trust's holdings.

Please correct me if the above is wrong, jl2012.

I actually gotta say that seeing the latest version of the graph is rather scary! :/ It isn't unprecedented that we went this far down, yet we're now in a relative state of mainstream adoption and already tapped some of Bitcoin's potential, so I don't hope this means decision time already, and people decided against it...

@jl2012;  @andytoshi



You both are right if there are not many miners and clients. But if you have enough independent clients and miners which send out response requests through the same ports you also use for mining then we have a complete different situation. Yes a miner could slow down the ping response. But it would also effect mining. And I would implement the pattern of the pingresponses into the Blockchain. So it is difficult for an attacker to be able to fake a response pattern. He has to recreate the response pattern which was generated by a lot of clients/miners byte response of him. I hope I made it clear.
But if you feel this is not new please quote a site/forum where it was already suggested? Thank you.

Thanks a lot for the advice - I already read a lot and want also to write a lot But at one point you have to start writing But I am still reading and also want to read a lot.

I know what "fungibility" means, But note the boldfaces in my post.  That is exactly what I wrote.  The court ruled that that physical  banknote was not the victim's property any more.  But of course the 20£ (as abstract amount) that the thief stole remained the victim's property, and the government would take 20£ from the thief and return then to the victim, if they were to identify him and found that he had that much money in his possession or in his bank account.

EDIT: quote markup

Precisely!

One fundamental flaw of  cryptocoins (that supportes consider a feature) is that they are intended to eliminate the notion of "property" for money, and leave only "possession" instead.

You have "possession" of something if you physically can use it or dispose of it as you like.

The thing is your "property" if, and only if, the  government thinks you should have possession of it, and you can get his cops and courts to get it.

If a thief steals your car, it becomes his possession; but it is still your property, because the government thinks so, and is expected to take the car from him and give it back to you, by force if needed, once he is found.  If your tenant stops paying the rent and refuses to leave, the house is still your property because the government thinks so, and will help you get the guy out.    If a hacker empties you bank account, he may get possession of the money, but that money is still your property -- only because the government thinks so.  If you fail to pay taxes by the due date, you retain possession of that money, but it will be property of the government -- just because they think it is.

There is no way to define propeprty without reference to some government.  If there is no government, there is no property, only possession; and when something gets stolen from you, it becomes the thief's possession, and that is it.  YOU (and your friends) may think that it is still your property, but the thief (and his friends) will disagree; what then?  

By design, cryptocoins (as the libertarians see them) are meant to be impossible for any government (or any other entity) to take away from their possessors.  But then, by design, no government (or any other authority) can enforce any property rights on cryptocoins.  (Indeed, early adopters had hoped that the government would be unable even to discover who has possession of the coins; and now that bitcoin has been found to be inadequate in this aspect, they  are turning to more sophisticated "truly anonymous" altcoins.)  

Therefore, there is no concept of "property" in the realm of cryptocoins.  Only "possession".

The notion of "property" as distinct from "possession" is very old; it may have been invented when humans adopted agriculture and settled down, abandoning the "share the catch" economy of nomadic hunter-gatherers.  It has become such a basic feature of society that people seem to forget what makes it work.  

Do we really want to eliminate the concept of "property" with regards to money?
  
(PS. And then there is the misleading use of "possession" instead of "knowledge" when talking about keys; but that is another issue.)

Do you know of any case?

You go to the police and hope that they can catch the thief and get your coins back.
 

Indeed, there seems to be a fundamental dilemma there.  Satoshi solved the problem of secure trustless e-payments, but there is still no solution for the problem of recovering stolen coins without spoiling that primary goal.

If you go to a bank and take out money to buy a car, then when you buy the car you find out the money is counterfeit? What do you do?

First you give me an example of hackers stealing credit card information from a properly secured server.

Stupid for stupid: I propose that you write a malware that can steal a 10$ bill from my pocket.

(And note the word MEASURE.)


Sure.  You scan the QR code on the screen or catalog and send 1 satoshi there.

Then you check the blockchain and see that the satoshi was indeed sent to the address displayed on the screen.

You call the dealer, and Bill from Sales confirms that the satoshi was indeed deposited in their payment address.

You then send the other 999.99999999 BTC to the same address.  So you think.

You check the blockchain and find that the second transaction went to a DIFFERENT address!

You call the store, and Bill says that the second address is not theirs.   

Then what?

OR, TO KEEP THINGS SMPLE:

One day you find that all your bitcoins were stolen from all your paper wallets.

Then what?

(How could that happen? Hint: how did you create the paper wallets?)

All the limits are risks, all complexity— practically every one of them has been implemented incorrectly by one alternative full node implementation or another (or Bitcoin core itself) at some point. They miss them completely, or count wrong for them, or respond incorrectly when they're violated.  E.g. here what happens if you OP_CAT 520 and 10 bytes? Should the verify fail? Should the result be truncated? But even that wasn't the point here.

Point here was that realizing you _needed_ a limit and where you needed it was a risk.  The reasonable and pedantically correct claim was made that OP_CAT didn't increase memory usage, that it just took two elements and replaced them with one which was just as large as the two... and yet having (unfiltered) OP_CAT in the instruction set bypasses the existing limits and allowed exponential memory usage.

None of it insurmountable, but I was answering the question as to why it's not just something super trivial.

<A><B> SIZE ROT SIZE ROT 2DUP <520> LESSTHANOREQUAL VERIFY <520> LESSTHANOREQUAL VERIFY ADD <520> LESSTHANOREQUAL VERIFY SWAP CAT

SIZE ROT SIZE ROT 2DUP <520> LESSTHANOREQUAL VERIFY <520> LESSTHANOREQUAL VERIFY ADD <520> LESSTHANOREQUAL VERIFY SWAP CAT