Satoshi's coins rights

[DooMAD]

You're trying to obscure your weak strawman, aren't you?

What fucking strawman?

The one where I say "it's about the weak security of P2PK", then you say "stop trying to steal individuals coins!".


That strawman

Yeah, see, that's not a strawman, ya fruitloop.  No wonder I'm having trouble figuring out what the hell you're talking about.  It's clearly not a strawman if your proposal to "fix" the "weak security of P2PK" is to deny access to the coins that are on those addresses.  This is throwing fungibility out the window, stating unequivocally that coins on one format of address are not equal to those on a more secure format.  Effectively blacklisting the unsecured coins to protect the value of the secured ones.  I'm just not okay with that idea.  I sincerely doubt consensus would ever enforce that.  Keep crying strawman if you think it'll help your case, but I'm not seeing much support for the notion.

You're putting words in my mouth, and trying to pretend we're having a different discussion. That's called a "strawman argument", and people that use that tactic are trying to disrupt sensible debate, not take part in it honestly.

Try arguing about the actual issue, instead of using lame tactics

I'd love to argue about the actual issue, but you still haven't answered whether you support blacklisting P2PK coins or not.  Try being honest, answer the goddamn question and maybe we can have a conversation.  Or will you find a new and novel way to weasel your way out of answering a simple question?

One last time before I declare you a lost cause:  Do you think there should be a cut off point where coins not moved to a quantum proof key are frozen by the network?

[1715175961]

1715175961

[1715175961]

1715175961

[1715175961]

1715175961

[1715175961]

1715175961

[1715175961]

1715175961

[franky1]

One last time before I declare you a lost cause:  Do you think there should be a cut off point where coins not moved to a quantum proof key are frozen by the network?

dont bother talking to CB.
he loves to meander the topic off topic. poke the bear, get you to reply and then poke some more until you bite and then claim he is the victim.

he is just tryng to derail topics and meander into making him a victim so he can then try play a victim card to make people think he deserve sympathy. although his point has no facts, data, stats, info.
he just wants sympathy and then use that sympathy to get people on his side.

he abuses emotion to win people. not using data or facts. just emotion
just ignore him he is a well trained troll


back to the topic on hand
new keytypes should be added. and people can voluntarily move their funds.
those that dont can continue using old keytypes. and be at risk of having their funds stolen

in no way should old keys be destroyed or have funds moved by some 'manager' to be redistributed.
in short being punished by centralists at blockstream.

instead the coins should remain part of circulation. and if a hacker was to QC bruteforce. then those coins can be stolen.

end result is temporary price drama but no death to fungibility or coin cap limiits

unlike the proposal to destroy coins which does destroy fungibility and destroy the coincap limit and permanently causes issues for the whole economy

[fortunecrypto]

This is just there way for the real Satoshis to come out,and this is not right,Satoshis have given us Bitcoin and this is the way to repay him ,stealing his money,it will have a serious tragedy if they touch satoshis' bitcoin,if they can do it to Satoshi they can do it to anybody. 

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not going to enter into any kind of discussion with someone who's demonstrated to be acting maliciously and/or subversively. That goes for everyone behaving that way, wouldn't want to get accused of singling out individuals again, lol

[DooMAD]

I'm not going to enter into any kind of discussion with someone who's demonstrated to be acting maliciously. That goes for everyone behaving that way, wouldn't want to get accused of singling out individuals again, lol

You say you want an honest discussion, but you can't even bring yourself to outline your own argument.  I'm merely asking you for your stance on this matter.  Why even bother entering into the discussion to begin with if you're too afraid to speak your damn mind and tell us what you think?  "Oh, I'm not answering that question, people might not like my answer".  Pathetic.

Rightly or wrongly, I've happily stated my case.  Coins should not be locked just because they are perceived as insecure.  It's not difficult for me to state that because I honestly believe it.  People can volunteer to move their funds to a more secure format, but shouldn't be locked out if they don't.  If someone disagrees, they're welcome to.  I can have a discussion about it with them, as long as they explain to me what they're actually trying to say before they try to accuse me of putting words in their mouth like some vague and slippery politician, sniping from the sidelines while contributing literally nothing to the conversation. 

If you can't honestly state your case, then fine, lost cause.  So be it.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not going to enter into any kind of discussion with someone who's demonstrated to be acting maliciously. That goes for everyone behaving that way, wouldn't want to get accused of singling out individuals again, lol

You say you want an honest discussion, but you can't even bring yourself to outline your own argument.  I'm merely asking you for your stance on this matter.  Why even bother entering into the discussion to begin with if you're too afraid to speak your damn mind and tell us what you think?  "Oh, I'm not answering that question, people might not like my answer".  Pathetic.

You're strawmanning yet again, aren't you? So who's pathetic, exactly lol?

Every instance of "You say...", or "you're too..." or "You don't want..." in the quoted post are things you invented, so that you can criticise me about things I didn't even say at all.



Again, who's pathetic, exactly?

[michkima]

On OP's first argument, you're the one that's an idiot here. Without a government you will not have the freedom to do anything really. Governments bring order and society to establish. Without one there would be utter chaos and nothing will be established. Regards, the other points, I think they are correct.

[Kprawn]

I would answer this with a question : " What do you think will happen with the value of Bitcoin, when people can simply "code" out your

coins. "? We cannot even reach consensus on SegWit, how are we ever going to reach consensus about this? A lot was done with the protocol,

to keep people honest. {They act in a way, to protect their own interest} Doing this, would be like pissing on someone's face.  ... Today it

is Satoshi's coins and tomorrow it is Roger Ver.... etc. etc.. 

[franky1]

I would answer this with a question : " What do you think will happen with the value of Bitcoin, when people can simply "code" out your

coins. "? We cannot even reach consensus on SegWit, how are we ever going to reach consensus about this? A lot was done with the protocol,

to keep people honest. {They act in a way, to protect their own interest} Doing this, would be like pissing on someone's face.   ... Today it

is Satoshi's coins and tomorrow it is Roger Ver.... etc. etc..  

agreed
the best solution is have a new keypair type. but have it voluntary. all keypair types are always accepted. then let people voluntarily move them or not.

at worse (the doomsday of QC) people funds get stolen out of old keys. temporary price drama when theives, steal and cashout. but then it stablizes when those coins circulate into the new secure keypairs. thus retaining fungibility and the drama surpasses like a bad episode we dont watch again.

the coins stay in circulation and people learn their lesson.

however destroying old coins or getting a 'manager' to decide to take the coins and redistribute/destroy them (as he deems fit) purely using the fear of a theft /destruction as an excuse to allow him to thieve/ destroy. is stupid

[manselr]

I guess it's best to sacrifice those coins in the possibility of a quantum computing attack. We are going to sooner or later be facing that problem, we must be prepared, but those that didn't took the time to move their coins ito QC proof addresses must suffer the consequences. I doubt anyone that cares about their bitcoin will not have enough time to get it sorted.

If satoshi doesn't move the coins in time, it's safe to assume that he is dead, or he doesn't care about his coins getting stolen.

[Carlton Banks]

I would answer this with a question : " What do you think will happen with the value of Bitcoin, when people can simply "code" out your

coins. "? We cannot even reach consensus on SegWit, how are we ever going to reach consensus about this? A lot was done with the protocol,

to keep people honest. {They act in a way, to protect their own interest} Doing this, would be like pissing on someone's face.   ... Today it

is Satoshi's coins and tomorrow it is Roger Ver.... etc. etc..  

Not a very pertinent question. No-one has suggested targeting the BTC of individuals. What makes you think specific people are being targeted with this proposal?

[Cereberus]

The one who have suggested such ideas are not very smart and we all can agree with that. Beside that I never heard of many people suggesting such things. I too think that Satoshi himself is alive and well and is his decision to do whatever he likes with his coins, even to never use them, just as is anyone of us decision what we do with our coins. I don't really understand such suggestions.

[Carlton Banks]

The one who have suggested such ideas are not very smart and we all can agree with that. Beside that I never heard of many people suggesting such things. I too think that Satoshi himself is alive and well and is his decision to do whatever he likes with his coins, even to never use them, just as is anyone of us decision what we do with our coins. I don't really understand such suggestions.

How can you dismiss the proposal as "not smart" while simultaneously claiming that you don't understand it?

[BellaBitBit]

Satoshi's coins are such an interesting topic but it is preposterous to think that they should be hardforked out.  It is very mysterious as to why they have never been touched as Satoshi would have many reasons to do something with them, but at the end of the day they are Satoshi's and no one else's business.

[Carlton Banks]

Satoshi's coins are such an interesting topic but it is preposterous to think that they should be hardforked out.  It is very mysterious as to why they have never been touched as Satoshi would have many reasons to do something with them, but at the end of the day they are Satoshi's and no one else's business.

*sigh*

No-one has suggested targeting the BTC of individuals. What makes you think specific people are being targeted with this proposal?

[charmingfreddie]

I cant believe this is even being discussed because it is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Let him manage his own coins for goodness sake.

[RealBitcoin]

"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?

In most of EUROPE and other socialist countries.

It's actually well over 80% if you add inflation together and indirect taxes like VAT and others.

Yeah fuck it, you are clearly clueless.

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)

What if you are just misunderstanding the concept?

Because if this is true, then why are you the only one talking about this.

I only see you constantly criticizing Core, and only you. You are like 1 person against the whole BTC forum.

Is there nobody else here citicizing Core, because if 99.9% of people here agree, and you don't then maybe the problem is not with us, but with you?

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.

Then why is nobody else forking the BTC source code and creating alternative clients.

Bitcoin classic to my understanding has only 1 dev.

Where are the other million of enthusiasts who would save Bitcoin with the perfect code that you desire? Are they just sitting on their dick, or maybe they are not even needed.