Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”

[andulolika]

Color me naïve then as I believe it is in the best long term interest of Bitcoin to just let the coins be stolen and placed back into circulation.  Everyone will know they were vulnerable, being stolen just proves that, having them stolen will wake eveyone up and get them to move the rest of the vulneralbe coins.  Short term buying opportunity on the dip.  Recovery, etc.

Hmm, this position literally encourages folks to strive to steal them.  Do we actually need to have them stolen to gain the benefits of waking everyone up?  You, I, and some others are already awake before they are stolen.  Can't we gain the benefits any other way?  If not (and I do respect your opinion/thoughts) then I do see your point.  Suppose we compromise and allow some to be stolen (eventually) and render the rest useless.

What you dont understand is that we are no one to render them, neither i understand whats the difference between the coins of satoshi or the prolly hundreds of thousands that are in physical coins, addresses which went thru printers and such.
If bitcoin were weak in some way it would evolve, it is not, not yet atleast, also its funny to see dudes fearing the 1m coins because of the wright dude claiming he is sato.

[David Rabahy]

the guaranteed 21mill coin cap and fungibility DOES MATTER.

I sincerely hope the cap stands forever.

I sincerely wish Bitcoins were truly fungible but clearly they aren't (yet).  The growing toolset of taint analysis makes this obvious.  Mixing services help a ton but are at risk.  If Bitcoin is fungible then how do we know which are in Satoshi's stash?  No, fungibility is an illusion for now.

Taking/Destroying/Stealing coins would lead to a mass exodus to a coin that does not do that.  Long term destruction of Bitcoin value, values and ideals.

I see your point; I suggest a compromise; allow some to be stolen (for the good of the community) (eventually) and burn the rest.  We only touch non-hashed coinbase coins.

It is almost garanteed that this idea (destroying coins) will never be implemented so I would invite you to cash in now and leave.  Everyone else that wants this idea will also be disappointed.

I stand down from my position; even if the non-hashed coinbase coins are all allowed to be stolen I will stick with Bitcoin.  I am prepared for a roller-coaster ride.

[The00Dustin]

If Bitcoin is fungible then how do we know which are in Satoshi's stash?

While I agree with you on the unquoted portion of this post to the extent that some strive to destroy the fungibility of bitcoin, I feel it is important to point out two things:
1) Just because there are some threats to fungibility doesn't mean that additional threats such as this should be considered acceptable.
2) We don't know which coins are in Satoshi's stash; anything beyond the genesis block could have been mined by anyone, and we don't know who mined which blocks beyond a few blocks where it was publicly announced by Satoshi that coins were being sent (for instance, the famous transaction to Hal Finney that was publicly announced does tell us that the block the coins came from was awarded to Satoshi's address and the address the coins were sent to went to was Hal Finney's, but we don't know who mined any other given early block unless someone has said something to indicate it was theirs).

I know you know better, but when suggesting we know which coins are Satoshi's, I can only assume you fell back to the poorly chosen and inaccurate title of this thread (and the article on which it was based).

[David Rabahy]

... say coins in blocks 1-21000 should be destroyed simply because they are old.. is something that makes no sense at all

Only non-hashed coinbase coins that haven't moved through to a hashed address are at risk.  There is some sense to it; the sense of the community to reduce the roller-coaster ride.  Large fluctuations in exchange rates scare some common people off from adopting Bitcoin.  If we actively choose to allow the non-hashed coinbase coins to be stolen and the resulting financial turmoil then ok but at least we are going in eyes open.  Ah, the Bitcoin community should press to get the at-risk coins stolen as soon as possible to get the turmoil behind us.  It is possible the earliest thieves might altruistically use some to pay themselves back and then burn the rest for the good of the rest of the community.

My apologies; I didn't know consecutive posts weren't allowed.  How is one suppose to know?

Edit:  I was pointed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.msg7955645#msg7955645.

[BurtW]

Color me naïve then as I believe it is in the best long term interest of Bitcoin to just let the coins be stolen and placed back into circulation.  Everyone will know they were vulnerable, being stolen just proves that, having them stolen will wake eveyone up and get them to move the rest of the vulneralbe coins.  Short term buying opportunity on the dip.  Recovery, etc.

Hmm, this position literally encourages folks to strive to steal them.  Do we actually need to have them stolen to gain the benefits of waking everyone up?  You, I, and some others are already awake before they are stolen.  Can't we gain the benefits any other way?  If not (and I do respect your opinion/thoughts) then I do see your point.  Suppose we compromise and allow some to be stolen (eventually) and render the rest useless.

Actually I think this statement shows that you finally "get" Bitcoin!  Maybe if someone had pointed this out a long time ago then we could have brought you around a lot sooner.

What makes Bitcoin different it that we basically put something of value right there and "encourage" bad actors to try and steal them.  This tests Bitcoin and is part of what gives it value.  Bitcoin is constantly under attack.  From external hackers and internal forces trying to "fix" it.  This has been going on 24/7 for years.  It is this constant attack on all fronts that makes it what it is and gives it value to those that appreciate exactly what it is.

Sorry, I meant to tell you to stop that multiple posting but forgot to mention it.

EDIT:  See, I just thought of something else and just used the edit button to add it to this post   Also, you can go back and delete those posts that do not really add much to the conversation and/or delete some of posts but add the content to other posts you keep, thus reducing the number of consecutive posts.

[BurtW]

Speaking of encouraging people to steal coins, I participated in a very interesting couple of threads a while back in which I was accused of encouraging people to steal coins.  Not only did I encourage them to steal the coins I posted an idea showing the fastest way to go about stealing them.  Someone has placed a "puzzle" in the blockchain to see how safe Bitcoins are.  What they did is summarized by Danny in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg13382914#msg13382914

I agree with his assessment of the transaction.

The transaction is here:

https://blockchain.info/tx/08389f34c98c606322740c0be6a7125d9860bb8d5cb182c02f98461e5fa6cd15

It shows that currently 51 bits is still pretty good security since nobody has take the 51 bit private key.

 Others in the thread were very desperate to assume that there was a sequence they could figure out and thus steal all the coins in the puzzle (about 32 coins). Some of the addresses have been solved and the BTC have been taken.  If you read through both of the threads there was the usual technical posts, the outrage posts, the morality discussion (is it wrong to take BTC that are vulnerable) and of course the f@#$ing signature spammers.  Interesting read if you skip over all the stupid signature spammers and it is a study in how the title of a thread affects the entire discussion (sound familiar?)

First thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305887.0

Starts off badly due to the title of the thread and gets more technically interesting toward the third page where I am accused of encouraging people to try and steal the coins (I was).  Second thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.0

much more technically satisfying after a better thread title and everyone calmed down.

Check them out, they are worth a complete read.

[zimmah]

Worst idea ever.

QFT

coins in cold wallets should just stay in the cold wallet until the owner decides to move them.

The coins belong to the owner, nobody can tell the owner what to do with his coins except the owner.

Bitcoin is how money should be.

There will be no inflation, because we all know these coins can be spend.

[Syke]

I see your point; I suggest a compromise; allow some to be stolen (for the good of the community) (eventually) and burn the rest.  We only touch non-hashed coinbase coins.

So you think if someone leaves their car door unlocked too long that gives you the right to light the car on fire to prevent the car from being stolen? That's madness!

No, you don't burn anything. Those coins belong to their owners exclusively and it's their responsibility to keep them safe. Not yours, not the community's, not anyone else's.

[franky1]

Hmm, this position literally encourages folks to strive to steal them.  Do we actually need to have them stolen to gain the benefits of waking everyone up?  You, I, and some others are already awake before they are stolen.  Can't we gain the benefits any other way?  If not (and I do respect your opinion/thoughts) then I do see your point.  Suppose we compromise and allow some to be stolen (eventually) and render the rest useless.

bitcoins main basis of trust is that they cannot be easily stolen.. thats what makes bitcoin great.
if someone was to steal them (temporary drama of old insecure keys) and then moves them to a more secure private key system then the coins as a whole become more secure..

however. saying to destroy coins purely of fear of theft. is bad.. whats next:
destroy coinbase's coldstore purely incase hackers steal it.
destroy every silk road deposited coin incase it ends up in some government auction
destroy any address with more then 25btc. because that is a temptation to a d-wave business to try cracking the key to
destroy all keys because some people are spitting out their dummies that they are not millionaires after spending just $20 and hoping for massive returns

no no no no

keep the 21mill cap, even if governments steal silk road coins and auction them off for pennies to the dollar.. it means nothing long term.
keep the 21m cap. even if d-wave cracks a few private keys and sells the bitcoin off for pennies to the dollar.. it means nothing long term.

if all you care about is some temporary price crash drama due to theft.. then tweak your mindset from negative to positive and think about it..
a price crash is not a bad thing to scare people into selling quick and losing.. its a positive thing to buy coins dirt cheap and win when the drama passes.

[BurtW]

destroy every silk road deposited coin incase it ends up in some government auction

Every time .gov ends up with BTC in their slimy pockets someone will always suggest "let's stick it to the man and blacklist those coins - that will show them".

Obviously I disagree with them every time this happens because blacklisting any coins or destroying any coins in any way will hurt Bitcoin in the long run.

I believe so strongly in maintaining and increasing the fungibility of Bitcoin I will fight against blacklisting even when Homeland Security takes my coins and still holds them in the Homeland Security and "Justice" Department federal asset slush fund here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1182005.msg12437626#msg12437626

https://blockchain.info/address/1Eu38i1DkRAPAJhSqbseVroJDpMRfJbAx3

[franky1]

I sincerely wish Bitcoins were truly fungible but clearly they aren't (yet).  The growing toolset of taint analysis makes this obvious.  Mixing services help a ton but are at risk.  If Bitcoin is fungible then how do we know which are in Satoshi's stash?  No, fungibility is an illusion for now.

u may know your maths but here is some fundementals of economy
intrinsic. that is a buzz word for the commodities market (meat, wheat, oil gold).. not the asset/currency market. though gold is both an asset and commodity. the buzzword intrinsic should be only used in the context of commodity. EG its the golds intrinsic commodity attributes that makes it a good asset.. but never its intrinsic asset value that makes it a good commodity

fungibility: has nothing to do with knowing who owns what..
eg donald trumps bank notes in his safety deposit box are no different then bill gates's,
eg a $10 in the cash register at starbucks has no different value then a $10 in mcdonalds..
fungibility is not about knowing who owns it or where it currently sits.
even a drug dealers $12,000 illicit stash that they cross the border with, is still the same as the $12,000 value that eventually is handed out to officers for christmas bonus/retirement funds

fungibility is about messing with/ treating one as good and one as bad.. EG accept this coin because X destroy that coin because Y.
moving funds due to hacks/thefts/bad management/mistakes/government seizure. does not affect fungibility.. because eventually they are put back into circulation. but destroying funds out of circulation without replacing an equal amount. is bad

50btc in satoshi's addresses has no fungible difference to 50btc in coinbase. or 50btc in my address... 50btc is 50btc... and thats how it should remain.

[Swimmer63]

I sincerely wish Bitcoins were truly fungible but clearly they aren't (yet).  The growing toolset of taint analysis makes this obvious.  Mixing services help a ton but are at risk.  If Bitcoin is fungible then how do we know which are in Satoshi's stash?  No, fungibility is an illusion for now.

u may know your maths but here is some fundementals of economy
intrinsic. that is a buzz word for the commodities market (meat, wheat, oil gold).. not the asset/currency market. though gold is both an asset and commodity. the buzzword intrinsic should be only used in the context of commodity. EG its the golds intrinsic commodity attributes that makes it a good asset.. but never its intrinsic asset value that makes it a good commodity

fungibility: has nothing to do with knowing who owns what..
eg donald trumps bank notes in his safety deposit box are no different then bill gates's,
eg a $10 in the cash register at starbucks has no different value then a $10 in mcdonalds..
fungibility is not about knowing who owns it or where it currently sits.
even a drug dealers $12,000 illicit stash that they cross the border with, is still the same as the $12,000 value that eventually is handed out to officers for christmas bonus/retirement funds

fungibility is about messing with/ treating one as good and one as bad.. EG accept this coin because X destroy that coin because Y.
moving funds due to hacks/thefts/bad management/mistakes/government seizure. does not affect fungibility.. because eventually they are put back into circulation. but destroying funds out of circulation without replacing an equal amount. is bad

50btc in satoshi's addresses has no fungible difference to 50btc in coinbase. or 50btc in my address... 50btc is 50btc... and thats how it should remain.

+1  Yeppers.

[cjmoles]

Speaking of encouraging people to steal coins, I participated in a very interesting couple of threads a while back in which I was accused of encouraging people to steal coins.  Not only did I encourage them to steal the coins I posted an idea showing the fastest way to go about stealing them.  Someone has placed a "puzzle" in the blockchain to see how safe Bitcoins are.  What they did is summarized by Danny in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg13382914#msg13382914

I agree with his assessment of the transaction.

The transaction is here:

https://blockchain.info/tx/08389f34c98c606322740c0be6a7125d9860bb8d5cb182c02f98461e5fa6cd15

It shows that currently 51 bits is still pretty good security since nobody has take the 51 bit private key.

 Others in the thread were very desperate to assume that there was a sequence they could figure out and thus steal all the coins in the puzzle (about 32 coins). Some of the addresses have been solved and the BTC have been taken.  If you read through both of the threads there was the usual technical posts, the outrage posts, the morality discussion (is it wrong to take BTC that are vulnerable) and of course the f@#$ing signature spammers.  Interesting read if you skip over all the stupid signature spammers and it is a study in how the title of a thread affects the entire discussion (sound familiar?)

First thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305887.0

Starts off badly due to the title of the thread and gets more technically interesting toward the third page where I am accused of encouraging people to try and steal the coins (I was).  Second thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.0

much more technically satisfying after a better thread title and everyone calmed down.

Check them out, they are worth a complete read.

Good points....I haven't read the cited threads yet but that is on my todo list....they sound like enjoyable reads.

I just wanted to reinforce the concept behind this post with my own citation that illustrates the utility of encouraging the community to test the security of a platform's encryption....it has been an invaluable tool and is a method that has been used by cryptologists for many years.

http://www1.distributed.net/RC5

[David Rabahy]

Ok then, the sooner the non-hashed coins are taken/won the happier I will be.  Perhaps it was/is the intent of the original owners to have this happen; we can't know.  Perhaps it was/is a deliberate reward designed to encourage folks to probe.  Mining is rewarded since it helps secure the network.  Probing non-hashed coins generates interest and can lead to a stronger Bitcoin.  The original owners have had plenty of time to move their coins through to hashed protected addresses; that they haven't is pretty strong evidence that they don't care to (or can't).

[BurtW]

Ok then, the sooner the non-hashed coins are taken/won the happier I will be.  Perhaps it was/is the intent of the original owners to have this happen; we can't know.  Perhaps it was/is a deliberate reward designed to encourage folks to probe.  Mining is rewarded since it helps secure the network.  Probing non-hashed coins generates interest and can lead to a stronger Bitcoin.  The original owners have had plenty of time to move their coins through to hashed protected addresses; that they haven't is pretty strong evidence that they don't care to (or can't).

I really like Theymos.  Over the years I have had a few interactions with him and he has always treated me well and I find him to be and upstanding guy.

I have made many mistakes including some very large expensive ones, just take a look at my history, those mistakes are all there for anyone who knows how to Google.  Many times I have started out with one opinion in a thread or on a subject and after discussions and careful consideration I have changed my stance.  Several times I held my ground to my financial detriment.  That is the learning process.

Now, if we could only convince Theymos of the danger of this idea that would be a real coup

Until them I respectfully disagree with him on this topic.

[David Rabahy]

I pride myself on having an open mind; which does not mean I switch positions trivially.  If something makes sense in plain speaking terms then that means a lot (many thanks to those with the patience to explain their viewpoints).  I do tend to express a position more strongly than I might actually feel about it in order to learn more (my apologies to those offended by such tactics) although sometimes my position truly will swing.  Precision and accuracy are highly valued during the process of debate.

I sincerely appreciate Theymos' position; if/when non-hashed protected coins are taken then the market reaction will probably be strongly negative.  But now it seems to me the reaction will likely be much the same if the proper original owners of long idle coins move them.

In the long term, e.g. decades and beyond, I believe Bitcoin will be a foundational technology despite (because of?) the roller-coaster ride it will likely take along the way.

[thoth-Atlantian]

Those coins sitting there is the nature of BTC, we all knew it when buying it....


Leave it be

[jacobmayes94]

I see your point; I suggest a compromise; allow some to be stolen (for the good of the community) (eventually) and burn the rest.  We only touch non-hashed coinbase coins.

So you think if someone leaves their car door unlocked too long that gives you the right to light the car on fire to prevent the car from being stolen? That's madness!

No, you don't burn anything. Those coins belong to their owners exclusively and it's their responsibility to keep them safe. Not yours, not the community's, not anyone else's.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

[Karasugoi]

If Satoshi wants his coins so badly, then he can move them himself before they are destroyed.

What?
Course he want's them.
They are his.
Leave them alone.

That right if he wants them he can move them to prevent their destruction.It is better to destroy them than those coins falling in wrong hands.Since these coins are not in circulation,their disappearance would not make any difference

How can you support the idea that "coins not in circulation disappearing would not make any difference"?  Many bonds do not circulate but you sure as hell can bet that the people who loaned the money decades ago expect their principle and interest 20 years down the road.
 
Many people stored BTC into casascius coins, if you move your coins from those you destroy a valuable wallet.  I don't intend on moving my coins from my paper and brass wallets every five years, that is a waste of time and mining fees will add up.   So there are at least 24267 reasons to leave old address the fuck alone.   https://casascius.uberbills.com/

[AlexGR]

Many people stored BTC into casascius coins, if you move your coins from those you destroy a valuable wallet. 

Didn't these come after the hashed addresses? If so they should be using hashes, not pubkeys.