Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[BitHodlers]

Yes, some hackers could potentially get super-rich, and the price will tank for a while if this happens, but, perhaps, that's the price to pay for preserving integrity.

It is. Many people are so obsessed with the ways that centralized systems solve issues. If we freeze coins we are not going to be any better than PayPal..   

[Hueristic]

[edited out]

We will never know when they are hackable before they are hacked thats the problem.

And once they are hackable with QC they are gone, poof, it will take no time at all.

From your perspective, once QC arrives, all of Satoshi's coins are gone "at once"..  That seems a wee bit fantastical.

I have to agree with Hueristic on this. If (I'm saying if, but it might be rephrased as "if or when") QC gets to the point where bruteforcing an exposed public key is feasible, an intelligent actor wouldn't just hack one address by moving the coins and sit waiting for the community to react. Rather, they'd go through the blockchain and/or their carefully saved snapshots of the mempool to find out which addresses are hackable and deliberately accumulate the derived private keys. Then, all at once - poof! A bunch (a hurricane?) of transactions moving the hacked coins in one fell swoop.

That's why I think once an address is hacked by QC, all of them are bound to be in no time at all.

Right now, there seem to be BIP proposals to make it "acceptable" to be fucking around with private keys of other members through changes in the software, then it does not matter if you hold your keys as brain wallets or whatever or you gave the private keys to your best friend or to the grandchild of your best frienc, since if the address type might meet a certain criteria of having coins inside that had not been moved or whatever might be the criteria, then your coins might get frozen (rug pulled) or maybe reallocated into tail distribution or some other dumb shit like that.  ..so when you wake up from your coma (or the grandchild of your best friend peels the sticker off of the Casacius coins), there won't be any coins in the place where there used to be coins.

This, too, is a fact that can't be disagreed with.

From the point we are at, it's hard for me to take a side. I don't mean JJG vs. Hueristic. I mean it's difficult to form an opinion that takes all the known facts and likely possibilities into account. Until I figure everything out, I am of the opinion that less is more, and inaction is the best course of action. Understating a tad, I feel BIP-361 could be a bit rushed.

I want to make something very clear, BIP-361 is shit and I in no way shape or form support it.

The only good thing about it is that it is sparking the discussion that needs to be had and eventually all coiners are going to have to make a decision and this may lead to the the next Hard fork that we will have to decide which side to support.

I believe the solution is to ONLY deal with satoshi's coins as I believe he cannot do it himself because he is dead.

Lumping in all addresses is a distraction which may be intentional to cause dissent and arguments and fragment the community rather than good faith discussion, not dissimilar to the blocksize issue.

Freezing coins is a distraction, coins should NEVER be frozen, EVER, PERIOD.

Satoshi's coins have been mapped, there is no-one that has disproven that study and the first order of business is for smarter people than use to peer review and make a determination on his mined coins that only existed to bootstap the chain.

The only reason to even discuss this is because of that massive quantity of those coins which will basically chop the value of everyone's coins in half at the least.

I for one doubt that was ever satoshi's intention.

I don't have much time today but luckily this is finally getting some attention and we can address it at out leisure instead of kicking the can down the road as has been happening in the past when this subject comes up.

BIP-361 has done some good in getting this onto the stage long before it is imperative but attaching freezing coins to the conversation and all coins not satoshi's is a false dichotomy which makes me think this is a social attack on the network and not a good faith discussion starter. But be that as it may we need to have this discussion and decide for ourselves what we will support as Consensus is our power and thank you Satoshi for that!!!  We would never have even been allowed in the conversation if this was a fiat thing.

*this is not a disagreement between me and jjg, it is a discussion and we agree on most points, I am of the opinion that this is a time for use to access the problem, think of a solution as a community before arguing about any particulars. We have time, lets take advantage of that fact. Also do not forget the fact even if QC does not crack those addresses, classical will eventually.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[BitHodlers]

I believe the solution is to ONLY deal with satoshi's coins as I believe he cannot do it himself because he is dead.

This is not good either. Just because it is only satoshi does not make it suddenly a good thing. You are still taking away someone's coins, even if they are dead..

[shahzadafzal]

I believe the solution is to ONLY deal with satoshi's coins as I believe he cannot do it himself because he is dead.

v

[philipma1957]

I for one could agree to moving or locking 95% of the first 105,000 untouched blocks. These would be 2009-2010 blocks made with zero withdrawls.

Leave 5% just to see if Q.C. ever cracks them.

I would prefer they are burned into the genesis block.

Maybe tail end in 2056 add .1btc to each block

If we grab 1mill to 2 mill of the 2009-2010 coins

And use 0.1btc per block in 2056 on

2056-2060 21 k coins along with the 1/2 ing coins
2060-2064 21 k coins

This method could fund mining with .1btc for over 200 years.

As 21k x 50 = 1,050,000 coins

 BLocks would be around 0.1 btc for 200 years time and the 1/2 ing effect would be gone.

BTW this was my idea posTed here and there back in 2021

Now we will be lucky that this is all they do.

Satoshi effectively abandoned this project years ago

[cAPSLOCK]

She does not know what to think of this book.  But thats partly because she was reading it upside down for a long while.

Your fairy is getting cuter by the day. She's growing on me.

I am certain that it's driving a certain percentage of people here crazy, but I decided that I'm willing to be this much of a jerk. But thank you!

Sparkle Fairy is not going anywhere.

She's a WOer.

[AlcoHoDL]

If we're so desperate to put all those "lost" coins back into circulation by changing the code (and essentially confiscating those coins from their rightful owners, alive or dead), then what's stopping us adding more new coins, by simply increasing the reward value (again, a code change)? No more 21M BTC limit. Make it 30M, 50M, 100M BTC, or whatever value we want.

I'm not suggesting the above, just using it as an example to show that, once we start tampering with coin ownership, coin emission, etc., there is no ending, and we risk gradually turning Bitcoin into Frankencoin.

Satoshi set the rules in 2009. 17 years have passed. Not a single sat has ever got frozen or confiscated or returned to circulation without the owner's express permission (use of private key).

Call me conservative or purist or stubborn, but I'm not at all comfortable with taking ownership of coins, whomever they belong to, and for whatever reason.

[Hueristic]

I believe the solution is to ONLY deal with satoshi's coins as I believe he cannot do it himself because he is dead.

v

Simple, announce move your coins or they get destroyed, if he's alive he has a choice.

[Hueristic]

If we're so desperate to put all those "lost" coins back into circulation by changing the code (and essentially confiscating those coins from their rightful owners, alive or dead), then what's stopping us adding more new coins, by simply increasing the reward value (again, a code change)? No more 21M BTC limit. Make it 30M, 50M, 100M BTC, or whatever value we want.

I'm not suggesting the above, just using it as an example to show that, once we start tampering with coin ownership, coin emission, etc., there is no ending, and we risk gradually turning Bitcoin into Frankencoin.

Satoshi set the rules in 2009. 17 years have passed. Not a single sat has ever got frozen or confiscated or returned to circulation without the owner's express permission (use of private key).

Call me conservative or purist or stubborn, but I'm not at all comfortable with taking ownership of coins, whomever they belong to, and for whatever reason.

consensus.

[BitHodlers]

If we're so desperate to put all those "lost" coins back into circulation by changing the code (and essentially confiscating those coins from their rightful owners, alive or dead), then what's stopping us adding more new coins, by simply increasing the reward value (again, a code change)? No more 21M BTC limit. Make it 30M, 50M, 100M BTC, or whatever value we want.

I'm not suggesting the above, just using it as an example to show that, once we start tampering with coin ownership, coin emission, etc., there is no ending, and we risk gradually turning Bitcoin into Frankencoin.

Satoshi set the rules in 2009. 17 years have passed. Not a single sat has ever got frozen or confiscated or returned to circulation without the owner's express permission (use of private key).

Call me conservative or purist or stubborn, but I'm not at all comfortable with taking ownership of coins, whomever they belong to, and for whatever reason.

consensus.

If you do it once, then consensus will not be stopping you. You will have many people in the change it camp.


Never ever freeze coins or confiscate under any circumstance, stop making up reasons to do it.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

If we're so desperate to put all those "lost" coins back into circulation by changing the code (and essentially confiscating those coins from their rightful owners, alive or dead), then what's stopping us adding more new coins, by simply increasing the reward value (again, a code change)? No more 21M BTC limit. Make it 30M, 50M, 100M BTC, or whatever value we want.

I'm not suggesting the above, just using it as an example to show that, once we start tampering with coin ownership, coin emission, etc., there is no ending, and we risk gradually turning Bitcoin into Frankencoin.

Satoshi set the rules in 2009. 17 years have passed. Not a single sat has ever got frozen or confiscated or returned to circulation without the owner's express permission (use of private key).

Call me conservative or purist or stubborn, but I'm not at all comfortable with taking ownership of coins, whomever they belong to, and for whatever reason.

This pretty much says it and Bitcoin can survive any of this. Although if we (I feel like I need to say WHEN we) have a chain split again like the last one, the world is going to lose its shit.

Yet Bitcoin will survive. The consensus rules will remain the consensus rules.

I have spent a lot of time thinking through all the lines in the sand arguments and I'm still not completely giving up but I have not been able to steelman to my satisfaction the reason for freezing coins that we don't have the keys to.

And there are interesting middle road ideas too, like feeding those coins back into the coinbase, extending the block reward somehow. Also, I don't believe consensus would settle on that idea.  Because even though it doesn't change the hard cap, it totally changes the economic incentives.

And what Alcohodl said is the real kicker.  It ends up a Pandora's box.

But the thing is, chain splits are going to be part of the protocol. It's actually the way it works as painful as it may be.

One of the most amazing parts of this is in the situation in which we really do need to make a change. Consensus can allow that, which is pretty cool, and also kind of scary.

[BitHodlers]

This pretty much says it and Bitcoin can survive any of this. Although if we (I feel like I need to say WHEN we) have a chain split again like the last one, the world is going to lose its shit.

But the thing is, chain splits are going to be part of the protocol. It's actually the way it works as painful as it may be.

One of the most amazing parts of this is in the situation in which we really do need to make a change. Consensus can allow that, which is pretty cool, and also kind of scary.

Chain splits are good because those that disagree with the reasonable path go away and ruin themselves. It has happened before so it may happen again. One day there may be fork attempts by large entities, banks or ETFs, or some other forces that want to implement some surveillance methods into Bitcoin. Luckily we have good practice already to resist fork attempts and let the forkers ruin themselves.

[hypebrother]

Talking about consensus. BTC off the bat is decentralised. It is pointless to talk about more coins and inflation, economics have both ends which cancels itself out to bring about a common middle ground of consensus for the time being.

21MBTC is the hardcap, i believe.

I was just skim reading through the recent messages.

I am now at Delhi, India. On my way to Kailash mountains and Gauri kund, which is a spiritual energy location.

Tonight's moon
Hangs in the haze
Of eternal spring

#^haiku

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OgNasty]

Bitcoin’s promise of being a p2p currency has already been broken. If we let developers also break the store of value promise by freezing coins, we might as well pack it up and call this experiment a failure. All it proved is that absolute power corrupts absolutely and some of the devs think they have that absolute power.

[BitHodlers]

Bitcoin’s promise of being a p2p currency has already been broken. If we let developers also break the store of value promise by freezing coins, we might as well pack it up and call this experiment a failure. All it proved is that absolute power corrupts absolutely and some of the devs think they have that absolute power.

I use Bitcoin in P2P settings just fine, no idea what you are making up this time..

[fillippone]

If we're so desperate to put all those "lost" coins back into circulation by changing the code (and essentially confiscating those coins from their rightful owners, alive or dead), then what's stopping us adding more new coins, by simply increasing the reward value (again, a code change)? No more 21M BTC limit. Make it 30M, 50M, 100M BTC, or whatever value we want.

I'm not suggesting the above, just using it as an example to show that, once we start tampering with coin ownership, coin emission, etc., there is no ending, and we risk gradually turning Bitcoin into Frankencoin.

Satoshi set the rules in 2009. 17 years have passed. Not a single sat has ever got frozen or confiscated or returned to circulation without the owner's express permission (use of private key).

Call me conservative or purist or stubborn, but I'm not at all comfortable with taking ownership of coins, whomever they belong to, and for whatever reason.

Totally agree.
It's a slippery slope I don't think it's worth going down.
We will survive the tempèorary flush in price, once again. We will stack more sats by then.