How to kill bitcoin

[ElectricMucus]

1.) Create a cryptocurrency of superior design.
2.) Make it possible to convert bitcoins to a prelocked part of it by sending bitcoins to a bitcoin adress for which it's private key is stored within the new blockchain and can only be done once.
3.)
4.) Profit.

discuss.

[1714038317]

1714038317

[ECore]

no thanks.

[ElectricMucus]

no thanks.

u mad? or scared?

come at me bro.

[Stephen Gornick]

1.) Create a cryptocurrency of superior design.
2.) Make it possible to convert bitcoins to a prelocked part of it by sending bitcoins to a bitcoin adress for which it's private key is stored within the new blockchain and can only be done once.
3.)
4.) Profit.

discuss.

I get #1 but am not sure if I understand your #2.  There's no such thing as having the "private key stored in the new blockchain" as being something that can "only be done once".  Private keys are data and thus can be copied, so there's no way to prove the funds still can't be spent on the bitcoin network.    You could spend them to a black hole (e.g., by sending it to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE) I suppose and that would prove [Edit: eliminate most any remote chance] that they can't [Edit: could] be spent.

But each bitcoin you destroy (e.g., sending it to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE) takes it out of circulation. Because bitcoin is divisible, you simply cause price deflation (fewer coins serving the same size economy).  That doesn't kill bitcoin (though it does increase volatility which introduces challenges).

Now if this cryptocurrency of yours was truly a superior design, people would be trading their bitcoins for this currency with the superior design.

[BoardGameCoin]

Now if this cryptocurrency of yours was truly a superior design, people would be trading their bitcoins for this currency with the superior design.

I disagree with you here sgornick. With things like bitcoin, the value is design * network effects, where design is a value from 0-1 and network effects is a value from 0-infinity. Bitcoin, while it probably does lack in certain design aspects, has a network effect established that makes any other crypto currency need to be either SIGNIFICANTLY better in design or come to the party with its own network effects.

[ElectricMucus]

I get #1 but am not sure if I understand your #2.  There's no such thing as having the "private key stored in the new blockchain" as being something that can "only be done once".  Private keys are data and thus can be copied, so there's no way to prove the funds still can't be spent on the bitcoin network.    You could spend them to a black hole (e.g., by sending it to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE) I suppose and that would prove that they can't be spent.

That's exactly the point. The goal is to make the bitcoins spendable by anybody. This is just a variation of the commonly agreed on hypothetical migration strategy. (Except it would not be voluntary in a sense that bitcoin would remain valuable) It would be the equivalent of throwing bitcoins away in a provable fashion instead of destroying them. The bitcoins would be there for anybody to grab & spend in the bitcoin network, but since bitcoins own network would be used to validate that no adress before in the chain did the conversion.

It could even be assured that the converter has less chance of grabbing the BTC himself by a randomized delay during which the private key is published, tied to the block hashing of the new currency.
That way a positive feedback is assured by early converters putting pressure on late converters since people would get free bitcoins.


Why?
I was inspired by the increasing hostility against alt-coins here to show there is another side of the story, and implying that some may want to play dirty there is a retaliation strategy which actually works.

[Stephen Gornick]

That's exactly the point. The goal is to make the bitcoins spendable by anybody. This is just a variation of the commonly agreed on hypothetical migration strategy. (Except it would not be voluntary in a sense that bitcoin would remain valuable) It would be the equivalent of throwing bitcoins away in a provable fashion instead of destroying them.

But you can't prove that these are thrown away.  You can only prove that they haven't been spent.  Thus they simply are non-circulating coins.

[Edit: In re-reading your answer , the "spendable by anybody" is something I glossed over, but after re-reading that I now am not sure I have any clue what you are talking about.  I'm guessing that the ten minutes you've put into this idea hasn't been enough time to lead you to the flaws in it that others just assume would have been considered.]

[finkleshnorts]

Wouldn't this coin be dependent in on the bitcoin blockchain, since it's in the business of meddling with bitcoin balances?

[ElectricMucus]

That's exactly the point. The goal is to make the bitcoins spendable by anybody. This is just a variation of the commonly agreed on hypothetical migration strategy. (Except it would not be voluntary in a sense that bitcoin would remain valuable) It would be the equivalent of throwing bitcoins away in a provable fashion instead of destroying them.

But you can't prove that these are thrown away.  You can only prove that they haven't been spent.  Thus they simply are non-circulating coins.

[Edit: In re-reading your answer , the "spendable by anybody" is something I glossed over, but after re-reading that I now am not sure I have any clue what you are talking about.  I'm guessing that the ten minutes you've put into this idea hasn't been enough time to lead you to the flaws in it that others just assume would have been considered.]

It is possible to verify that some private key received it isn't it? So if this private key is publicized it would be the equivalent of throwing coins away. Anybody who grabs the key and transfers the coins to his wallet first has them after. Of course it could be possible that this way whoever grabs the coins would forgo the possibility of converting his existing coins in that wallet, but I think that depends on how rigorous the implementation is.
Might be similar to the coloured coins proposal.

Wouldn't this coin be dependent in on the bitcoin blockchain, since it's in the business of meddling with bitcoin balances?

Only the conversion part, and if it is really made to be an assimilating currency (lets call it borgcoin) at some point conversion might not function as well any more at the end.
The effect would probably be increasing block intervals due to a rapid drop out of miners and the increasing computational load to determine the legitimacy of the assimilation. I think determining legitimacy is actual a NP-hard problem most likely to be solved with greedy algorithms. But there could be compromises (maybe even nessecary) of lets say only allowing one conversion per wallet. (So there would be no need to determine how many coins were received from publicized private keys)

[Ignore@YourPeril]

A good defense against your proposed scheme would be to alter the Bitcoin protocol to allow information to be transferred between both blockchains to keep them in sync.  Specifically on the part of bitcoin: The ability to put coins in indefinite escrow pending a signal for release arising from the "borgcoin" blockchain.

The main downside is that miners of both coins then will have to maintain both blockchains for verifications -  a radical change of the bitcoin protocol to the point of creating a new coin.

But this bitcoin 2.0 would have the best chance of any coin to become the coin backing  others. It would be comparable in principle to Gold (bitcoin 2.0) backing of a currency (Borgcoin), but far better as any viable designs would allow reedeming of their Borgcoins into the Bit*gold*coin without having to depend on a counter party or the goodwill of a central authority.

This defense will be a two way bit-alchemy, not only preventing the destruction of bitcoins to make borgcoin: It will peg the two coins together so the value of any remaining bitcoin would rise on the back of borgcoins success. And if borgcoin should fail by some reason, there is always the possibility of re-re-coining them back to bitcoin.

[cunicula]

A good defense against your proposed scheme would be to alter the Bitcoin protocol to allow information to be transferred between both blockchains to keep them in sync.

Defense? The proposal assumes that the new currency is an improvement. Why try to "defend" against improvement?

[Stephen Gornick]

It is possible to verify that some private key received it isn't it? So if this private key is publicized it would be the equivalent of throwing coins away. Anybody who grabs the key and transfers the coins to his wallet first has them after. Of course it could be possible that this way whoever grabs the coins would forgo the possibility of converting his existing coins in that wallet, but I think that depends on how rigorous the implementation is.

Ok, I'm totally not following whatsoever now.   You are babbling nonsense, it appears to me.

Why would a party that receives a payment "give away" their private key to "the public"?

[Bitcoin Oz]

A better bitcoin shouldnt be able to be killed by existing bitcoin miners-otherwise it really isnt better.

[ElectricMucus]

A good defense against your proposed scheme would be to alter the Bitcoin protocol to allow information to be transferred between both blockchains to keep them in sync.

Defense? The proposal assumes that the new currency is an improvement. Why try to "defend" against improvement?

Heh, the borg use similar arguments
The "defence" wouldn't make sense if you are proposing that bitcoin would automatically transfer them back to the original owner. Pretty much defies the purpose of a free currency isn't it?

Mind you: The conversion would be "voluntary". I use quotes because eventual, if successful the immediate inflation (or coins which hit the market for free) would drive holders out of bitcoin eventually. And again this could also work if there is a real benefit for the new currency in the first place.

[cunicula]

Heh, the borg use similar arguments

Thank you. That is the nicest compliment I have heard in a long time. 

[J-Norm]

This is what must ultimately happen.

Bitcoin will not be the last currency of its type, it is just the first.

[cunicula]

This is what must ultimately happen.

Bitcoin will not be the last currency of its type, it is just the first.

That is the spirit. The Borg approve.

[franky1]

i think original post meant
1. create a better blockchain protocol, blah blah
2. allow people to send their bitcoins to this new blockchain but once sent have no ability to send back.
3. once people use the new block and see its advantages they would no longer bother using old bitcoin.
4. bitcoin dies.

[Ignore@YourPeril]

A good defense against your proposed scheme would be to alter the Bitcoin protocol to allow information to be transferred between both blockchains to keep them in sync.

Defense? The proposal assumes that the new currency is an improvement. Why try to "defend" against improvement?

Die hard Bitcoin holders will be the losers if a new and better coin emerges by market competition only. The same group will also be the losers - but then in an even more bitter and dramatic way - if the improved coin gets its initial userbase from the Bitcoin blockchain directly by point 2). Which, BTW, I think franky1 has a better formulation of:

2. allow people to send their bitcoins to this new blockchain but once sent have no ability to send back.

My proposed defense is of those bitcoin users that are bound to lose to a better coin anyway: a defense with the humble objective of making the inevitable loss less bitter. But it might well be so successful as to overshoot this objective and make all winners!

[Ignore@YourPeril]

The "defence" wouldn't make sense if you are proposing that bitcoin would automatically transfer them back to the original owner. Pretty much defies the purpose of a free currency isn't it?

No, there would be no need for that. Bitcoin 2.0 would make a transfer out of any of the eschrow accounts (gold vaults for backing of Borgcoin) to any new bitcoin account now defined in the Borg-blockchain by the transaction that there signals the destruction of Borgcoins to be redeemed for Bitcoin 2.0´s.