Satoshi's coins rights

[RealBitcoin]

I have heard a lot of people who have suggested that Satoshis coins should be hardforked out of of the addresses and sent to quantum proof addresses , in order for not being stolen later.


Alright, now this has to be the most moronic argument that I have ever seen, it is:

• Immoral
• Impractical
• Illogical
• Plus it defeats the philosphy of decentralization = Tyrranical

1) Immoral.

"Ok lets rob 50% of people's income via taxes, in order to hire police officers, to protect them from thieves." 

"Ok lets steal Satoshi's coins in order to protect it from thieves." 

Do you see the irony? If you don't then you are an idiot.



2) Impractical

Even if quantum computers become widespread, and if such risk were to occur, how do we know what address is Satoshi's, or whether satoshi has access to them or not. What if we confuse addresses, that are actually active and the owners are still using them as long term storage.

What if it's actually your address, that we are talking about here. Would you like it if the network would want to steal the coins out of your wallet?



3) Illogical

Well it's satoshi's private property, so what rights do we have to violate that. How do you know whether the person moving the coins is a thief, or it's you (the thief), or it is actually satoshi moving them to a safer place.

For all we know he (SATOSHI) could be moving his coins when quantum computers become threat into a safer quantum proof address, without notifying us. It's not like he is required to keep us updated. He has his coins, it's his property, he can do whatever he wants with them, without requiring to inform us about anything.


4) Tyrranical

The moment we implement censorship, or stealing money out of people's wallets type of patches, that is the moment when Bitcoin will become a tyrannical instrument of the NWO.

Because then everyone could coerce nodes into hardforking people's money out of wallet. Whether they are suspected criminals (not proven in court) or other alleged criminals, it doesn't matter.

Tyranny comes when due process and decentralization stops. This kind of feature would introduce a tyrannical power into the hands of censors and control freaks.

This will be the moment when Bitcoin will die, and will become exactly like a Bank. You will have no more rights over your money.

[franky1]

want to know who is suggesting it most.

yep your favourite team that want to do it as part of a future pruning feature update (not same as current pruning feature)

[RealBitcoin]

want to know who is suggesting it most.

yep your favourite team that want to do it as part of a future pruning feature update (not same as current pruning feature)

Ok show me proof to that, I am tired of you claiming things without showing any actual proof.

And even if what you say is true. I am not a shill, I dont have to agree with everyone all the time.


But I cant really fathom how the core team would be supporting this, where most people there are actually real decentralization advocates.

[Velkro]

I have heard a lot of people who have suggested that Satoshis coins should be hardforked out of of the addresses and sent to quantum proof addresses , in order for not being stolen later.

Your theory ends here for me. I NEVER heard any suggestions like that.
Why would anyone want undermine bitcoin as a store of value tempering with it? Noone with sane mind.

So no, we should never do that, his coins are his no matter how much he have.

[SparkedDev]

Never heard this before, also they're his coin's no ones opinions matter.
He put in the time he awarded him self with a currency that had no value.
So as far as what to do with them its no ones business move on.

[panju1]

Can an address be 'quantum-proof' or would the algo underpinning Bitcoin have to undergo a change? Satoshis coins are as valuable as yours or mine. No point in improving security of just a few coins.

[darkangel11]

I have heard a lot of people who have suggested...
And who might those people be?
I wonder what those people would say if we voted their coins to be frozen, because we, the other holders, are afraid their coins might be stolen. Someone had a similar idea about locking coins that were stolen from exchanges.

[pooya87]

I have heard a lot of people who have suggested that Satoshis coins should be hardforked out of of the addresses and sent to quantum proof addresses , in order for not being stolen later.

a lot of people? really? would you mind linking those lots of people who are talking about this?

maybe other spammers used this to spam or spread some FUD but in fact it was a simple suggestion by theymos (Administrator) about satoshi's coins in the far away future in case of "quantum computing making ECDSA insecure"

and here is his comment on the topic from 7-8 months ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.msg14823504#msg14823504
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.msg14823618#msg14823618

[HabBear]

You don't think that Satoshi would be THE person making the decision on this? What's stealing if the guy decides to do this with his own money?

You think he's dead?

[Kakmakr]

"Ok lets rob 50% of people's income via taxes, in order to hire police officers, to protect them from thieves." 

"Ok lets steal Satoshi's coins in order to protect it from thieves." 

I was just wondering, who would protect you, when there is no police? How much of that TAX is going to the police? Where in the world, do people pay 50% of their income on tax?

How do you compare the two scenarios? Taking 100% of Satoshi's coins, and doing nothing with that? Nope, I do not agree with you that this is a good comparison.

Yes, eliminating Satoshi's coins is a decision that would be made by a dictator, but what if this decision is based on consensus?

[Holliday]

Do we need to rehash this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.0

[thepo1m]

I reading this for the first time and some people are also claiming so, I know for sure some people will be preparing for quatum computer and be looking to protect BTC from the effect it is going to have on BTC, becuase I read one article last year , that says quatum computer is going to put an end to BTC.

[NUFCrichard]

I can't see that Satoshi himself would have been pro hardforking out his coins.
If he set the 21 million limit, he will have known that some addresses will become dormant over time due to lost keys via stupidity and/or death amongst other reasons.

If he decides to sit on his coins and let them essentially rot, that is for him to decide. I personally would like to see them try to steal his coins, only for him to move them in advance!

Hard forks are a nightmare nowadays anyway. Who wants a Bitcoin classic?

[Silberman]

Can an address be 'quantum-proof' or would the algo underpinning Bitcoin have to undergo a change? Satoshis coins are as valuable as yours or mine. No point in improving security of just a few coins.

Not only that but treating someone else's coins differently than the coins of others could lead to the lose of fungibility of bitcoin which will be an enormous problem in itself.

[franky1]

want to know who is suggesting it most.

yep your favourite team that want to do it as part of a future pruning feature update (not same as current pruning feature)

Ok show me proof to that, I am tired of you claiming things without showing any actual proof.
And even if what you say is true. I am not a shill, I dont have to agree with everyone all the time.
But I cant really fathom how the core team would be supporting this, where most people there are actually real decentralization advocates.

mimblewimble.

easy term to google

randomly grabbing other peoples transactions without needing their interaction*. to mix them together (part of a coinjoin) and then put the funds back into addresses of who is owed what.

Blockstream mathematician Andrew Poelstra is working on it now.
*the concept is to bypass and strip away the old scripts that check signatures (violating bitcoins current security) and instead replace signatures with a CSV revoke code. where mimblewimble can grab unspents.. coinjoin them and put them into new blocks thus able to prune away old blocks because they no longer contain unspents.

at the moment they are playing around with it on a altcoin but conceiving doing it on bitcoin. basically ruining peoples personal security of their own funds purely so some mimble manager can move funds about at will..
but yea blockstream will say you can trust them to repay people..(facepalm, infact double facepalm)


as for me claiming things without showing any actual proof. lol i spend alot of time showing proof and even ELI-5 (explaining like your five) the rational logistics of how things work in realistic scenarios. i try to get passed all the convoluted buzzword and sweeping under the carpet of blockstream hype


as for saying the majority of people are decentralists.. your right there are millions... but blockstream devs are not decentralists. they are centralists. 12 main devs and 90+ of their unpaid interns (out of millions of users)

remember the devs of 2009-2013 are different to 2013-2017
remember bitcoin core brand took over bitcoin qt - they chose the word 'core' because they want to be at the core(center) of bitcoin. the engine of bitcoin
remember people who now have employment contracts also have employment terms
remember peoples ethics and morals can be tweaked for a price.

so dont trust a dev because of their history.. instead only understand a dev based on current actions.

[jyakulis]

The people that want this are motivated by their own greed, plain and simple.

It's so annoying when people try to offer altruistic reasons for being a greedy POS. Just be honest with everyone and yourself.

Frankly, it's a bit scary that a group has so much power for this to be a consideration. It defeats the intended purpose of this type of money. But it could be a possibility. What would stop miners from approving this if it meant they're coins may be worth more? Socialism in its most gross and rawest form in bitcoin :BARF:

It would be kind of entertaining to see all these fanbois that talk Satoshi up turn on him. Money is truly the root of all that is evil.

[MicroGuy]

You don't think that Satoshi would be THE person making the decision on this? What's stealing if the guy decides to do this with his own money?

You think he's dead?

This is correct. Most likely, Satoshi Nakamoto is still alive and if he was concerned about the safety of this loot he could always move the coins or make some other sort of provision.

This thread topic has inspired me to post a poll on my twitter account and so far everyone thinks he's alive and well.




https://twitter.com/realmicroguy/status/820823365770498048

~~

I think tampering with Satoshi's coins would be in "grave" error and insult, completely undermining his goals, his dreams, and the protocol he invented that makes possible the trustless bitcoin system.

[Xester]

This post is hilarious but it is the truth. People are suggesting many options even if they own the coins as if they are the owner. If I were them I will leave those coins behind and mind the coins that I have in my wallet. Instead of thinking how to get satoshis bitcoin to safety why secure your own bitcoins. Big bitcoin earners are just quiet but small time earners such as myself are very noisy when it comes to this things.

[pawel7777]

OP, you're very concerned about Satoshi's property being infringed. But what about peoples' right to "fork off"? You want to disallow others from creating/choosing their own forks?

That's exactly what would happen. Satoshi (and anyone else) would still be free to stay on the old (non quantum-resistant) fork and still have his stash (unless already hacked). Have you considered it?

To be clear, I'm also leaning against that, but you seem to be operating under simplified black/white logic, without proper understanding of the reasoning behind that idea.

[coolcoinz]

Satoshi's coins are Satoshi's coins, period. Why would you do anything with his stash, if you wouldn't be able to have your own without it?
This is the same shitty prevention rule the police is always quoting. "We're taking away your firearms because you might decide to kill someone one day." "We are taking Satoshi's coins because somebody might steal them."