[POLL] Moral dillema. Satoshi's coins. VOTE

[pawel7777]

Let's do a little rehash of previous discussion about what to do with the risk of Satoshi's coins being stolen. But let's change the narrative a little bit.

Scenario:

The rise of powerful quantum computers is inevitable. All Bitcoin users will have to upgrade to a new quantum-resistant algo, or have their funds stolen.

The question is, what to do with Satoshi's coins:

1 - give Satoshi a 'notice period' (i.e. 1 year time to upgrade) after which, the coins will be destroyed. (vote 'Yes' in the poll)

2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground. (vote 'No' in the poll)

3 - there's a third way (describe in reply). (vote '3rd option' in the poll)

This is meant to be a question about ethics, not about likelihood of QC being a threat or what would be the real impact on the market. So let's assume the scenario as real.

Ps. Vote changing allowed.

[1714161073]

1714161073

[1714161073]

1714161073

[1714161073]

1714161073

[1714161073]

1714161073

[springgers]

For me, Bitcoin is just a great example of blockchain power and use, actually 10 billions is nothing compared to economy.

Let the future say what will happen.

[Carlton Banks]

Trying to create a rift in the community by only providing 2 credible options? Remember when you tried to convince me you weren't trolling, lol

[calkob]

i voted no, but to be honest i dont really no what you are getting at,  what would he have to upgrade??  if his coins are at a certain address and every node upgrades to said QC resistant algo than his coin should still be at them addresses

[isen]

I voted 2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground.
No one has the right to destroy someone else's coins,I understand that this is a special case and a move like this may prevent a possible deflation but I am sure that Satoshi knows better than anyone else how to protect them and what is the best for Bitcoin.
They only thing that worries me and makes me think it again is if he is still alive or not,it would be great if he shows signs of life until then.

[gentlemand]

Do zilch. Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone else what to do with their coins? And aside from a handful, how do we know which blocks were Satoshis? Some very early miners might well have stayed under the radar. I think this million coin figure is a long way from reality.

[jertsy]

There's no need for a third way, Satoshi's coins are already safe from quantum computer attacks.

Quantum computers can't calculate a Bitcoin private key from an unspent bitcoin wallet, so Satoshi's coins are safe from quantum computer attacks. He never moved any of his coins. If he had moved some he would have revealed a public key which a quantum computer needs to calculate the private key.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshis-genius-unexpected-ways-in-which-bitcoin-dodged-some-cryptographic-bullet-1382996984

Quantum computers are capable of breaking elliptic curve DSA (ie. given a public key, a quantum computer can very quickly find the private key), but they cannot similarly reverse hash algorithms (or rather, they can, but it would take one 280 computational steps to crack a Bitcoin address, which is still very much impractical). Thus, if your Bitcoin funds are stored in an address that you have not spent from (so the public key is unknown), they are safe against a quantum computer - at least until you try to spend them. There are theoretical ways to make Bitcoin fully quantum-safe, but the fact that an address is simply a hash of a public key does mean that once quantum computers do come out attackers will be able to do much less damage before we fully switch over.

[pawel7777]

i voted no, but to be honest i dont really no what you are getting at,  what would he have to upgrade??  if his coins are at a certain address and every node upgrades to said QC resistant algo than his coin should still be at them addresses

As per Bitcoin Wiki, user action would be required:

A new public-key algorithm can be added to Bitcoin as a softfork. From the end-user perspective, this would appear as the creation of a new address type, and everyone would need to send their bitcoins to this new address type to achieve quantum security.

[DannyHamilton]

Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.

SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.

If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.

He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.

[Yakamoto]

I personally think that there is no reason to destroy Satoshi's coins, that is a shitty idea and I think that a majority of investors already account for those coins, meaning that they know they likely won't ever circulate. Because of this, the price of Bitcoin more than less represents the value of circulating Bitcoin, to a decent extent.

Destroying Bitcoin to stop a market crash is just a bad idea.

[RealBitcoin]

Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.

SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.

If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.

He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.

Best argument ever, I have also known that unspent addresse are quantum resistant but failed to make the connection.

Yes it is true, unspent addresses should stay as they are, and nobody should have the right to spend/lockout any address unless they have the private key as well.

[shinratensei_]

Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.

SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.

If the current address is already having a quantum resistant but, some times are not be able for btc be hardfork into the another or new algorithm?

[Carlton Banks]

Has anyone bothered to consider that we're not just living in one long unchanging moment, but a succession of continuous moments often referred to as "time"?




Just because the public keys Bitcoin uses today are quantum resistant, there is no guarantee that innovations in the field won't be capable of that in future.

The point is this: if one attacker could steal Satoshi's coins, even if it were 500,000 BTC, don't you think that's *ahem* somewhat of an issue? If we can do something before it happens, that would be preferable.

Maybe it'll never be possible, but you're all making one hell of an assumption. If the right thing to do is to protect Satoshi's money, doing nothing might not be an option.

[RocketSingh]

Apart from genesis block 50 coins and a few known others, u never know for sure, which coins actually belong to Satoshi.

[shinratensei_]

Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.

SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.

If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.

He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.

Best argument ever, I have also known that unspent addresse are quantum resistant but failed to make the connection.

Yes it is true, unspent addresses should stay as they are, and nobody should have the right to spend/lockout any address unless they have the private key as well.

I just learning and understanding about the quantum computers are not resolving SHA 256 for immediately but just trying for downgrading into the SHA128 runtime.... and what the solution of this? SHA512? But the crack will always there and everytime the quantum computers will always get any improvements.

[Shiroslullaby]

Its a dilemma for sure.
I consider them "sacred" and people should respect them. But, if given the chance, I can't say that I wouldn't take them myself.
So I guess I vote "give notice" then they are up for grabs to anyone who has the ability to access them.

[RealBitcoin]

Current addresses are already Quantum Resistant.

SHA256 and RIPEMD160 are both resistant to being reversed through any currently known Quantum algorithms.

If Satoshi were to try to spend his bitcoins, he would then have to reveal his public key (which would not be quantum resistant), but as long as his coins aren't being spent by him, there is no concern.

He could still safely spend his bitcoins by contacting a miner (or pool) that he trusts directly and only sending his transaction to them instead of broadcasting it across the entire network.

Best argument ever, I have also known that unspent addresse are quantum resistant but failed to make the connection.

Yes it is true, unspent addresses should stay as they are, and nobody should have the right to spend/lockout any address unless they have the private key as well.

I just learning and understanding about the quantum computers are not resolving SHA 256 for immediately but just trying for downgrading into the SHA128 runtime.... and what the solution of this? SHA512? But the crack will always there and everytime the quantum computers will always get any improvements.

 I am not a cryptographer but from what i have researched, the quantum computer makes the keysize half strenght, so a 256 key is only 128 bit security, and quantum makes it only 64 bit security which is very weak.

[Carlton Banks]

Apart from genesis block 50 coins and a few known others, u never know for sure, which coins actually belong to Satoshi.

This is an excellent point.

By bringing Satoshi into this, it becomes emotionally/politically charged. All we know is that all coins are inherently in danger because of the incentive to try and hack the protocol. That means taking any prudent steps to keep everyone's coins safe, not just Satoshi's.


When we have to move to QC resistant algos, for instance, if there is a danger that huge numbers of early coins that never moved could be stolen by one person, something should be done. But that could take god knows how long, and all the early coins might become more mobile before then, even shortly before any algorithm change has been made.



I'm not saying "definitely do it, yesterday", that's not the risk. The risk is some future unknown scenario, so if we're dealing with pure hypotheticals anyway, why is anyone contemplating ruling anything out!?

[MingLee]

Let's do a little rehash of previous discussion about what to do with the risk of Satoshi's coins being stolen. But let's change the narrative a little bit.

Scenario:

The rise of powerful quantum computers is inevitable. All Bitcoin users will have to upgrade to a new quantum-resistant algo, or have their funds stolen.

The question is, what to do with Satoshi's coins:

1 - give Satoshi a 'notice period' (i.e. 1 year time to upgrade) after which, the coins will be destroyed. (vote 'Yes' in the poll)

2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground. (vote 'No' in the poll)

3 - there's a third way (describe in reply). (vote '3rd option' in the poll)

This is meant to be a question about ethics, not about likelihood of QC being a threat or what would be the real impact on the market. So let's assume the scenario as real.

Ps. Vote changing allowed.

No point in doing this, as there are so far no ways to access the coins, and at the same time destroying ~1m BTC is a bad idea and creates a precedent for the future where the same sort of operation might be used again. Even if a fork is used to avoid any "hacking" issues, morally it is not a right choice, and it likely isn't ethical either.

[ebliever]

As I envision it, let's say that at some point in the future an imminent risk develops requiring a hard fork, and action is required on the part of each bitcoin owner to keep up to date and compatible with the new fork. In this case any coins not owned by someone who is paying attention and acting to keep their coins would lose them.

For example, Piggycoin in 2014 went from POW to POS by switching to a new coin and requiring that all old coins be replaced with new ones. Anyone who failed to act has effectively lost their coins (27 million out of ~485 million were not exchanged). In a similar scenario here, if Satoshi were dead/comatose/didn't care, his coins would be left behind and lost.

But in this case Satoshi isn't being singled out. And I think that's key. If the community acts by concensus similar to how it has been run all along, then I would not see the problem with his coins being lost due to inaction on his part. The community should not single him out to destroy his coins, but neither is it obligated to make special efforts to keep his coins safe forevermore in some kind of sacred temple of bitcoin.

[pooya87]

You must read the previous topic about this matter and find "Theymos"'s reply about the matter (it was his proposal in the first place) and see what this is all about and realize that this is for a very far far future that has not yet came.

and by the way it has nothing to do with morality.

[gmaxwell]

The poll text doesn't really jive with the message text.

What does Bitcoin's creator have anything to do with this? For all we know all of Satoshi's coins are happily in regular circulation.

The poll asks, "Is it morally justified to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins to prevent market crash?"

but the text of the message makes it clear the real subject is:

"If ECC is cryptographically broken, is it okay to have a finite deadline for all coins to move to non-ECC keys in order to prevent millions of coins from being stolen including long lost coins?"


These are pretty distinctive discussions... in particular, targeting a specific person is quite different from targeting vulnerable keys generally. And "to destroy" sure doesn't sound like something with ample opportunity to move them first.

[Kakmakr]

The Devil's advocate in me, wants the option where Satoshi is given 1 year to spend his coins or to move it. This will take a lot of uncertainty away, if people knew that these coins are still under the control of someone or a group of people.

The supposed millions of Satoshi coins have been casting a cloud of doubt with many investors, who seem to fear a price collapse, if these coins ever enters back into circulation some day. Possibly causing a Bitcoin market crash as a result.

I am still undecided on the ethics of such a move. It is Satoshi after all. ^hmmmmmm^

[davis196]

Let's do a little rehash of previous discussion about what to do with the risk of Satoshi's coins being stolen. But let's change the narrative a little bit.

Scenario:

The rise of powerful quantum computers is inevitable. All Bitcoin users will have to upgrade to a new quantum-resistant algo, or have their funds stolen.

The question is, what to do with Satoshi's coins:

1 - give Satoshi a 'notice period' (i.e. 1 year time to upgrade) after which, the coins will be destroyed. (vote 'Yes' in the poll)

2 - do nothing, Satoshi's coins are sacred, even if this leads to market crashing to the ground. (vote 'No' in the poll)

3 - there's a third way (describe in reply). (vote '3rd option' in the poll)

This is meant to be a question about ethics, not about likelihood of QC being a threat or what would be the real impact on the market. So let's assume the scenario as real.

Ps. Vote changing allowed.

I don`t know how destroying Satoshi`s bitcoins will prevent a market crash?

I think that he owns about 2% of all bitcoins.

Quantum computers are coming ,but there is still time.

[Senor.Bla]

satoshi would not be the only one in danger. since this move or x would result in a panic, many would just take their money somewhere else. an altcoin.
also giving him one year and hoping that this would mean we are safe for one year is a stupid assumption. since an earlier attack with the quantum computer would be possible. or satoshi could move his coins earlier. you could tell the difference? anyway in both cases a panic would be the result. so the intelligent people would money their money someplace else.
but also they know this is a made up bs scenario. FUD. 

[ObscureBean]

I would go with the first option so yes. Bitcoin has been bigger than Satoshi for a while now and if risk exists, measures should be taken to address them. Satoshi's coins are not only his property but also his responsibility. If we move to a different algo, everyone, including Satoshi, will need to either move their coins or forfeit them for the sake/safety of the network.  

[clickerz]

I would go with the first option so yes. Bitcoin has been bigger than Satoshi for a while now and if risk exists, measures should be taken to address them. Satoshi's coins are not only his property but also his responsibility. If we move to a different algo, everyone, including Satoshi, will need to either move their coins or forfeit them for the sake/safety of the network.  

It seems No. 1 choice is my take. But destroying it, will cause the price of bitcoin to go up maybe. If you  leave it here, its just like a ticking bomb, waiting to be stolen? and dump in the market. Just only my opinion.

[frankmb]

I voted no, simply because I don't think it is up to any of us to decide to destroy someone else's coins.

[gadman2]

Satoshi's coins are his greatest trophy to all of us, and even more so right where they are... They show us how secure Bitcoin is. If it is confirmed that the coins have been compromised then it would be the point where bitcoin becomes insecure and at that moment we, as a community, will address the issue. Until then, they sit.

[yayayo]

There is no moral dilemma. Bitcoin never started with any proposition of stability regarding its fiat valuation. Everyone investing in Bitcoin has the possibility to obtain information regarding Bitcoins alleged holding structure prior to buying a single coin. And even after buying Bitcoin, every investor still has the option to divest. Besides that, no big holder of Bitcoin has any motivation to suddenly sell all his/her coins for fiat trash money - it's just irrational. There are a lot of stock companies out there where big holders have a far more dominant position than it is the case for Bitcoin, yet these holders are not throwing their share packages on the market. 

Anybody voting in favor of destroying Satoshi's coins is demanding to force an interventionist monetary policy upon Bitcoin and is therefore perverting the original idea of its creation. The fact that we have such a high number of enemies of Bitcoin (currently ~18%) in this forum is shocking.

If you ask me, anybody voting in favor of destroying coins of any holder out of "market stability" considerations should be excluded from the Bitcoin community forever and have his/her account banned.

ya.ya.yo!

[pawel7777]

If you ask me, anybody voting in favor of destroying coins of any holder out of "market stability" considerations should be excluded from the Bitcoin community forever and have his/her account banned.

How do you exclude someone from community? Are you talking about banning Bitcointalk accounts? That could be tricky, as the idea of destroying Satoshi's coin came from the owner of this forum.

https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/

[bitcointank]

No, satoshi never sold one bitcoin for money, why we sell or destroy his coins? And it is a false assuption because he holds the bitcoin, we can't get his coin to destroy

[amacar2]

Apart from genesis block 50 coins and a few known others, u never know for sure, which coins actually belong to Satoshi.

Yes actually we also have to remember this point, is there any list made by satoshi about the bitcoin address he have ever used to store his bitcoins? If no than all the addresses may be just supposed or predicted addresses of satoshi.

[BitcoinHodler]

anybody voting in favor of destroying coins of any holder out of "market stability" considerations should be excluded from the Bitcoin community forever and have his/her account banned.

anybody who doesn't read this topic and doesn't know what is happening should be executed if you ask me
the topic is a misleading one and the subject at hand was discussed not so long ago here and also gmaxwell explained it a couple of comments above and yet this topic keeps getting bumped with people saying to destroy or not to destroy