Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”

[BurtW]

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.

I don't think he read\understood the whole thread.  You are correct the physical coins would not be affected under the proposal.

[bitboy11]

I have a great idea...Theymos should be destroyed!
If someone had my coins destroyed for any reason, I would try my best to seek and destroy them!

[BurtW]

I have a great idea...Theymos should be destroyed!
If someone had my coins destroyed for any reason, I would try my best to seek and destroy them!

Did you read the thread?  No.
Do you have any idea what is being discussed?  No.
Are you just another lazy ass signature campaign spammer with a purchased account?  Looks like it.

[bitboy11]

I have a great idea...Theymos should be destroyed!
If someone had my coins destroyed for any reason, I would try my best to seek and destroy them!

Did you read the thread?  No.
Do you have any idea what is being discussed?  No.
Are you just another lazy ass signature campaign spammer with a purchased account?  Looks like it.

Sure I read the thread and I disagree with Theymos proposal. In my opinion, if Satoshi's coins became threatened by QC in the future and he does not move them, then they should be stolen. Whoever steals them to sell them will temporarily crash the market BUT it WILL rebound! (even if it takes a few years)

It will also be good thing as more bitcoins will be redistributed to the masses.

Now let's do a checklist of everything you said earlier.

Did you read the thread?  YES!
Do you have any idea what is being discussed?  YES!
Are you just another lazy ass signature campaign spammer with a purchased account?  Looks like it. NO!

As far as my account is concerned, you are dead wrong BurtW!
Do you have any idea what a signature campaigner is...Doesn't look like you do!

The site in my signature is a now defunct site...it is still online but has been abandoned for months.
There is certainly no campaign on BitcoinTalk for the promotion of such site.
Have you seen how often I have posted in the past couple of months...probably 1 post per week on average.

Stop making stupid assumptions BurtW...you look like an idiot.

[BurtW]

You realized that even if implemented the proposal would not affect your coins at all (unless you personally have coins on a pay to public key address), right?

So, your statement:

If someone had my coins destroyed for any reason, I would try my best to seek and destroy them!

makes no sense in the context of the proposal being discussed in this thread.

Sorry, but it looked like you jumped into the thread, read only the title and then left a comment.  If you actually read the thread then I apologize.  Can you see that in light of the fact your coins are not affected even if the proposal is implemented it appears that you did not read the thread and you do not understand the proposal?

[bitboy11]

For some reason there is hostility developing towards Satoshi. Which is incredible because without him, there would be no cryptocurrency.

Makes you wonder what would happen if Christ returned - I expect he'd be lynched and crucified in a jiffy by all his loyal supporters.

Lol...I've been saying the same thing for years.

[Hugroll]

i feel like the coins are already destroyed. its not satoshi is gonna show up any time soon. for all we know hes already dead. really though he hasnt shown himself in the last couple of years. he couldve said something anonymously.

[ndnh]

Don't know what Lamport is, but I think this one is a better option than the other:

One implementation would introduce OP_LAMPORT-protected addresses, which adds another layer of security to ensure the encryption cannot be broken.

I generally do not agree that Satoshi's coins should be destroyed.
May be doing that will make another person who hold a lot to dump in the market, because.. well, he is next.
(no, really, he will just split it among a couple of addresses he hold*)

If we do come across a technology that could crack a private key soon, it wouldn't really matter if that funds are stolen or not. Suppose we do destroy them, it would only make the attack more sneaky, can't say which is worse. Only solution I see is, to keep improving security.



*Don't bother if that is wrong.

[Swimmer63]

i feel like the coins are already destroyed. its not satoshi is gonna show up any time soon. for all we know hes already dead. really though he hasnt shown himself in the last couple of years. he couldve said something anonymously.

A couple years is not a long time for a project that was designed to span decades.  Who's to say what his intentions are for the coins, if any.  Maybe his kids inherit them.  No one has a right to mess with them but him.

[hermanhs09]

i feel like the coins are already destroyed. its not satoshi is gonna show up any time soon. for all we know hes already dead. really though he hasnt shown himself in the last couple of years. he couldve said something anonymously.

Well, why do we need satoshi to do anything?

If he's dead, great, because we don't need to worry about his coins anymore. However, this is probably not the case right now. He is probably just hiding under an alt account lurking on the forum.

[smoothie]

i feel like the coins are already destroyed. its not satoshi is gonna show up any time soon. for all we know hes already dead. really though he hasnt shown himself in the last couple of years. he couldve said something anonymously.

Well, why do we need satoshi to do anything?

If he's dead, great, because we don't need to worry about his coins anymore. However, this is probably not the case right now. He is probably just hiding under an alt account lurking on the forum.

If he was dead that doesn't change the fact that he could have given access to the private keys to someone he knew or trusted.

Private keys and bitcoin don't care if you are alive or not. Only if someone alive who has access to them.

[Nouelle-Hunter]

NO it shouldnt be  the idea of destroying bitcoins is not appropriate .. why? first a lot of people get used to it and  the things they should od is to increase the security of bitcoins not to destroy what already there and start a new one...  thats not a good idea

[ebliever]

Observation: All of a sudden the theoretical discussions we've been having here look like they are getting a lot less theoretical over in The DAO and Ethereum. Many of the same principles and arguments apply. Will be _very_ interesting seeing how that pans out.

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this. If we all knew beforehand that coins would be burned, or that there would be a drive to do a rollback in specific situations, or some other course, even if we didn't agree with the policy at least it would be a lot more fair to know it beforehand. Everyone would know what they are getting into, instead of this "make it up as we go along" approach that we are seeing with Ether.

[GreenBits]

Observation: All of a sudden the theoretical discussions we've been having here look like they are getting a lot less theoretical over in The DAO and Ethereum. Many of the same principles and arguments apply. Will be _very_ interesting seeing how that pans out.

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this. If we all knew beforehand that coins would be burned, or that there would be a drive to do a rollback in specific situations, or some other course, even if we didn't agree with the policy at least it would be a lot more fair to know it beforehand. Everyone would know what they are getting into, instead of this "make it up as we go along" approach that we are seeing with Ether.

Pride, is always the last sin you see before they fall   there was entirely too much investment into something so unproven, if they had righteous intentions they would have capped the funding at something reasonable (could have still been a ground breaking amount). But you are right, it is quite funny how things come to pass.

[jbreher]

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.

First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.

More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.

[ebliever]

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.

First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.

More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.

I didn't say it was an existential thread to bitcoin. That's silly. It was an existential threat to the entity in question, The DAO. Given that the head of Slock.it is now saying it's dead regardless of what happens, I'd say that's pretty existential.

If they engage a hard fork it will require widespread consensus among the miners involved to pull it off. There is no contradiction between decentralization and getting something done. I think the muddled point you are trying to make is that if they bail out The DAO investors, people will expect it again in the future. That risk exists both in a mob rule and a dictatorship. That, not decentralization or centralization, is the real issue at hand.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.

First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.

More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.

I didn't say it was an existential thread to bitcoin. That's silly. It was an existential threat to the entity in question, The DAO. Given that the head of Slock.it is now saying it's dead regardless of what happens, I'd say that's pretty existential.

If they engage a hard fork it will require widespread consensus among the miners involved to pull it off. There is no contradiction between decentralization and getting something done. I think the muddled point you are trying to make is that if they bail out The DAO investors, people will expect it again in the future. That risk exists both in a mob rule and a dictatorship. That, not decentralization or centralization, is the real issue at hand.

As long as they can do it with a soft fork it will be OK.

Same thing for deleting satoshi's coins, if theymos and mining pools can do it with a soft fork (i.e. not changing the codes of Bitcoin, which is immutable.), than is OK.

[ebliever]

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.

First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.

More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.

I didn't say it was an existential thread to bitcoin. That's silly. It was an existential threat to the entity in question, The DAO. Given that the head of Slock.it is now saying it's dead regardless of what happens, I'd say that's pretty existential.

If they engage a hard fork it will require widespread consensus among the miners involved to pull it off. There is no contradiction between decentralization and getting something done. I think the muddled point you are trying to make is that if they bail out The DAO investors, people will expect it again in the future. That risk exists both in a mob rule and a dictatorship. That, not decentralization or centralization, is the real issue at hand.

As long as they can do it with a soft fork it will be OK.

Same thing for deleting satoshi's coins, if theymos and mining pools can do it with a soft fork (i.e. not changing the codes of Bitcoin, which is immutable.), than is OK.

I disagree. If an action is immoral, it doesn't matter whether it is done with a soft fork or a hard fork. That's like saying that murder with a knife is different from murder with a gun.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

I do think it would be constructive for dev teams to take these situations into consideration and have a plan and/or stated policy in place for how to cope with "existential threat" hacks like this.

First, there is no existential threat. At least not to Bitcoin. If Ethereum ends up voting to NOT invalidate the event (remember - it was clearly stated that the only binding terms were the code, which makes the 'heist' actually a legitimate action), then it may yet recover. If they do invalidate the recent event, nobody will ever trust again that it is decentralized.

More importantly, Bitcoin already has a policy. You make a stupid investment, it's on you. Don't expect the system to bail out your ignorant ass.

I didn't say it was an existential thread to bitcoin. That's silly. It was an existential threat to the entity in question, The DAO. Given that the head of Slock.it is now saying it's dead regardless of what happens, I'd say that's pretty existential.

If they engage a hard fork it will require widespread consensus among the miners involved to pull it off. There is no contradiction between decentralization and getting something done. I think the muddled point you are trying to make is that if they bail out The DAO investors, people will expect it again in the future. That risk exists both in a mob rule and a dictatorship. That, not decentralization or centralization, is the real issue at hand.

As long as they can do it with a soft fork it will be OK.

Same thing for deleting satoshi's coins, if theymos and mining pools can do it with a soft fork (i.e. not changing the codes of Bitcoin, which is immutable.), than is OK.

I disagree. If an action is immoral, it doesn't matter whether it is done with a soft fork or a hard fork. That's like saying that murder with a knife is different from murder with a gun.

I have to humbely disagree. The murderer using a knife is not forced to upgrade to a gun. It is backwards compatable.

Let he who is without sin (the soft forker), cast the first stone.

[bitcoineverything]

No one has the right to destroy some one else's bitcoins. Bitcoins supply is limited that is why it is deflationary and finding old coins is not inflation.

if it happens, it violates the most important rule of Butcoin that it is immutable.