Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”

[SotoshiWizz]

BTC.  Thanks Theymos, I just love ya. Good question, wrong answer. My 1M coins should never be destroyed! They are mine, for giving the world open source blockchain and bitcoin. Thousands of new companies have been created and also boosting the economy of the fiat world. Innovation Economy! I have given a lot that I could have designed a different platform with a closed source and really profited in billions if not trillions, based on my research, as the light bulb lit when i found a discovery in 2006.  Being run by my crew completely, leaving you in the dark. I could have dictate my project selfishly. I will remember you when i finnish the bloody 2nd part to Bitcoin someday. What do you think is the reason I have never moved my Satoshi's?  As a word from the mastermind behind the project who is alive and reads and trolls the various comment sites when I am bored.  In 1989, my family lost a few million in the Lincoln Savings Keating bank thefts in El Toro, CA.  Don't be a charlie Keating 5! Federal Regulators who didn't do their job, just like recently again in 2008 and Altcoins (B). Bitcoin is built so people like you, can't touch my money in SAVINGS. What is the whole point of saving if you are stealing my money? Why even use Bitcoin? Stay on the current system. Not any different. I still have not come out fully yet and explained the reason why I had Bitcoin built.  Mr. Wright has done enough damage now! The keys/Satoshi's are in a new innovation near the blockchain, built because of the danger brought on by the newsweek show 2 years ago. They have been transfered,hidden from your view on the blockchain of the move  I am holding for the SUCCESS of BITCOIN in 15Years automating on a new invention built to "Cash Out".... If it fails because of fucked up reasons of others, then bitcoin was just a risky experiment and digital crptocoins does not work and really it can never work as CODE CAN ALWAYS BE HACKED BY SOMEONE!  Also we are seeing if consensus can work? So far good and bad points, but much work to be done. Same with Ethereum! Leave my code coins alone!

[the_poet]

Am I the only one who thinks that the idea of destroying someone's money is frightening? Just imagine all the huge negative exposure Bitcoin would attract.

[iv4n]

Am I the only one who thinks that the idea of destroying someone's money is frightening? Just imagine all the huge negative exposure Bitcoin would attract.

You are not only one. I see many agree with that and its topic we don't need to open at all, cause it will lead us in wrong way.

So there is two possibilities here:

1. To stay in that wallet locked forever?

2. Or to be stolen?

In both cases I think there is no reason for fear. In first case it can be considered like there will be 20 mil. coins not 21. In second one what can thief do? Spent it in some casino or open one? Cash it out? Someone will buy that coins and they will be in safe hands... Its a lot of money but someone will need to spent it I guess.

Few days ago I was reading here in some thread how many people are involved in bitcoins and how many of them are active. Someone said 2 - 3 million people and I don't remember how much active, around 30 %. So Theymos can share on equal parts. Almost everyone will get 1 btc.

[Lauda]

So there is two possibilities here:
1. To stay in that wallet locked forever?
2. Or to be stolen?

That are the two end options, so the lesser 'evil' has to be chosen. However, people can just move their coins in time to a secure address.

Cash it out? Someone will buy that coins and they will be in safe hands... Its a lot of money but someone will need to spent it I guess.

He can manipulate the price easily with that huge 'stash' that could be acquired (at least for a while).

So Theymos can share on equal parts. Almost everyone will get 1 btc.

Theymos can't share anything besides his own coins.

[franky1]

seems lauda and theymos both want satoshi' stash to disapear.. lets all propose that we ask theymos and lauda to destroy their own coins first

[whored]

Cash it out? Someone will buy that coins and they will be in safe hands... Its a lot of money but someone will need to spent it I guess.

He can manipulate the price easily with that huge 'stash' that could be acquired (at least for a while).

How would that be any different from "legitimate" owners being able to manipulate the price? Help me understand.

seems lauda and theymos both want satoshi' stash to disapear.

No. Theymos wants satoshi's stash to disappear. Lauda just wants whatever theymos wants.

[Lauda]

How would that be any different from "legitimate" owners being able to manipulate the price? Help me understand.

Exactly why would a longtime 'legitimate' owner want to get rid of all of their Bitcoin in a hurry?

No. Theymos wants satoshi's stash to disappear. Lauda just wants whatever theymos wants.

Bullshit. I never said that I agree with the idea, I said that I understand all of the viewpoints. You would have known this had you read the whole thread.
Update: Trolling is not the right answer.
Update 2: Sigh.

[whored]

How would that be any different from "legitimate" owners being able to manipulate the price? Help me understand.

Exactly why would a longtime 'legitimate' owner want to get rid of all of their Bitcoin in a hurry?

And why would a hacker?
Because he wants pennies on the dollar for his loot?
Because he wants to get snared by KYC/AML regulations?
Because multimillion-dollar transactions happen all the time and never raise any flags?
Or is it because Bitcoin is useless as a store of value, especially for those who don't like intrusive government intervention, so selling it for pennies on the dollar makes total sense, as long as it's turned into actual folding money?

No. Theymos wants satoshi's stash to disappear. Lauda just wants whatever theymos wants.

Bullshit. I never agreed to this idea.

You're defending the soundness of "let's destroy early coins" idea purely as an intellectual exercise, to practice your sophistry chops?

[Syke]

You're defending the soundness of "let's destroy early coins" idea purely as an intellectual exercise, to practice your sophistry chops?

No, he's doing it to spam threads with his sig campaign.

[franky1]

You're defending the soundness of "let's destroy early coins" idea purely as an intellectual exercise, to practice your sophistry chops?

No, he's doing it to spam threads with his sig campaign.

yep anyone with a sig campaign should never have a say in big things. after all if they are penny pinching by making a below minimal income from sig campaigns then they obviously have no large stash themselves. so to even suggest that they should burn someone elses million coins is more of a jealous attitude then a logical attitude.

until there is actually a QC protected algo, there is no point even talking about moving or destroying coins.so i see the only motivations theymos and lauda have are pure jealousy of those richer than themselves

[ebliever]

How would that be any different from "legitimate" owners being able to manipulate the price? Help me understand.

Exactly why would a longtime 'legitimate' owner want to get rid of all of their Bitcoin in a hurry?

No. Theymos wants satoshi's stash to disappear. Lauda just wants whatever theymos wants.

Bullshit. I never said that I agree with the idea, I said that I understand all of the viewpoints. You would have known this had you read the whole thread.
Update: Trolling is not the right answer.
Update 2: Sigh.

I haven't read the full thread, but in case Theymos has not been active here (and I'm guessing not or the thread should have taken a totally different turn), let me share a few things he sent to me in a PM in response to a post I made on this thread:

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.

(snip)

...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.)

[Ultrafinery]

^^ So the inaccuracy in the article is that theymos want to destroy everybody's old coins, not just Satoshi's?
That certainly sounds more reasonable

[cjmoles]

You're defending the soundness of "let's destroy early coins" idea purely as an intellectual exercise, to practice your sophistry chops?

No, he's doing it to spam threads with his sig campaign.

yep anyone with a sig campaign should never have a say in big things. after all if they are penny pinching by making a below minimal income from sig campaigns then they obviously have no large stash themselves. so to even suggest that they should burn someone elses million coins is more of a jealous attitude then a logical attitude.

until there is actually a QC protected algo, there is no point even talking about moving or destroying coins.so i see the only motivations theymos and lauda have are pure jealousy of those richer than themselves

Wow!  See, I disagree here.  I think that logic should be the prevailing standard of consideration.  If an argument is valid and sound, then the opinion should be published for consideration.  However, if a person displays a tendency to rely upon faulty reasoning (for example: hasty generalizations, argumentum ad hominem, bandwagoning...et cetra), then the opinion should be ignored.

However, burning other peoples property to maintain the value of our own property should not be an option because it goes against the fundamental principles of the project.  The integrity of the block chain ledger should be preserved as originally intended.

[GreenBits]

You're defending the soundness of "let's destroy early coins" idea purely as an intellectual exercise, to practice your sophistry chops?

No, he's doing it to spam threads with his sig campaign.

yep anyone with a sig campaign should never have a say in big things. after all if they are penny pinching by making a below minimal income from sig campaigns then they obviously have no large stash themselves. so to even suggest that they should burn someone elses million coins is more of a jealous attitude then a logical attitude.

until there is actually a QC protected algo, there is no point even talking about moving or destroying coins.so i see the only motivations theymos and lauda have are pure jealousy of those richer than themselves

Maaan, I get so tired of folks hating on post because there is a signature attached to the bottom of it. For those that this truly bothers (why someone else earning income is a bother is beyond me), simply press the "ignore " button on those "poor quality posts" that stick so deeply up your collective butts.

And consider a job as a meter maid or a tow truck driver. Noble professions, not knocking them, but you guys would be perfect for the work.

Thank you, Franky. That needed to be said. Although I think Theymos has been extremely misunderstood /misquoted in this. I must say, I agree with the concept (securing legacy coins via some protocol should the security paradigm change). But I never agree with fooling with other people's shit, which isn't the deal here once you get past the misquote.

[Syke]

But I never agree with fooling with other people's shit, which isn't the deal here once you get past the misquote.

There's no misquote here.

I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins

Nor here.

old coins should be destroyed

[coinzat]

how can these coins be destroyed ? the only one who can do that is satoshi only. So it depends on what he wants not what we want to happen.
satoshi did not spend a single satoshi even when btc reached 1000$. why should we expect a big dump ? I think he do not want to hurt bitcoin

[franky1]

how can these coins be destroyed ?

methods of doing it (but not good idea)
1. change the algo.. such as sha 3 Schnorr. then warn everyone that in 1 year sha 256 will not be recognised by pools. so shift funds to a sha3 address or lose it

2. prune certain blocks

3. blacklist transactions from inputs before block 105,000

[BurtW]

Since it has been a while and we are kind of off track again, here is a summary of the actual proposal by Theymos (yes he did join this thread briefly - you can see his comments by searching the thread):

When/If QC becomes a reality (this is a big When/If) and

After QC becomes a viable threat to Bitcoin and

After we have already replaced the QC vulnerable algorithms in Bitcoin with QC safe algorithms which means

After a highly publicized, bitter, drawn out, drama about the "death of Bitcoin" because of QC in every news outlet everywhere and

After a majority of new addresses and transactions are using the new QC safe algorithms which means

After a vast majority of all Bitcoin users have heard about the issue, the solution and the consequences of not moving their coins

Then and only then, maybe, we should consider possibly blacklisting older coins that are not covered by the QC safe replacement algorithms, especially the more highly vulnerable very early coins.

This only makes sense after we have transitioned to new QC safe algorithms

Note that at the rate QC is progressing those of us alive right now really don't have to worry about this.  Perhaps our grandchildren or maybe our children.

Now my opinion.  Yes I have one too.

Assuming that most of the 21M coins have been mined by the time this happens and assuming there are about 1M highly vulnerable coins in the blockchain then don't worry about it at all.  In other words just let those 1M coins, the most highly vulnerable coins, the easy pickings, be stolen by the people with the QC.  The worst case scenario is that the brilliant people who have access to the most advanced technology are also the stupidest people or are a nefarious actor and they dump the entire 1M coins on the open market.  Two things will happen:

1) The price will go into the toilet for a while, those that don't panic will get to buy up a bunch of cheap coins and make a fortune when the price recovers, those that panic will lose everything.  In other words business as usual in Bitcoin land.

2) We will know this has happened as soon as it happens so everyone that has their coins on the remaining vulnerable addresses will immediately move their coins to the new QC safe addresses - problem solved.

[franky1]

In other words just let those 1M coins, the most highly vulnerable coins, the easy pickings, be stolen by the people with the QC.  

you do know (i think someone with your history should) that the satoshi stash is not stored on a single address..

so think of it this way.. would a QC owner use his system to attack an address with just 50btc.. and then once attacked move onto another address and repeat this thousands of times..

or

would a QC owner go after an exchanges large hoard or a mining pools hoard where usually hundreds/thousands of coins are all in one address..

to me satoshi's stash is not a QC system target. but exchanges/mining pools where large funds are linked to a single address. so even debating satoshi stash is just the same as debating any random addresses with 50btc or less..

so in my opinion if satoshi stash is a risk then that is as similar as saying any and all addresses holding 50btc or more in a single address is a threat. and then you have to ask.. where would these dumb asss numbskulls who want to destroy coins decide enough is enough

[spazzdla]

Poor idea, disables the ability to hold wealth for your own for generations.