|
imperi (OP)
|
 |
June 17, 2011, 02:29:35 AM |
|
I was thinking you could hard-code in an array of "illegal" bitcoin addresses (those of the perpetrators) so that no client will invalidate Bitcoins originating from them. Also, you could hardcode in an address that starts with the amount of Bitcoins stolen, and give allinvain the private key. I'm sure it could be done though I don't know the technical specifics.
You could actually turn it into an entire component of the client where you hardcode in reversals of fradulent activity, based on democratic and fair judgements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
Tawsix
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
I have always been afraid of banks.
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:33:27 AM |
|
I was thinking you could hard-code in an array of "illegal" bitcoin addresses (those of the perpetrators) so that no client will invalidate Bitcoins originating from them. Also, you could hardcode in an address that starts with the amount of Bitcoins stolen, and give allinvain the private key. I'm sure it could be done though I don't know the technical specifics.
You could actually turn it into an entire component of the client where you hardcode in reversals of fradulent activity, based on democratic and fair judgements.
I'm sorry but this is an awful idea. Who is going to use a client that allows the community to vote away the bitcoins in wallets? |
|
|
|
|
imperi (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:34:22 AM |
|
I was thinking you could hard-code in an array of "illegal" bitcoin addresses (those of the perpetrators) so that no client will invalidate Bitcoins originating from them. Also, you could hardcode in an address that starts with the amount of Bitcoins stolen, and give allinvain the private key. I'm sure it could be done though I don't know the technical specifics.
You could actually turn it into an entire component of the client where you hardcode in reversals of fradulent activity, based on democratic and fair judgements.
I'm sorry but this is an awful idea. Who is going to use a client that allows the community to vote away the bitcoins in wallets? The legal system does the same thing... and I think it is fair. I would use it. |
|
|
|
|
|
malditonuke
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:38:14 AM |
|
I was thinking you could hard-code in an array of "illegal" bitcoin addresses (those of the perpetrators) so that no client will invalidate Bitcoins originating from them. Also, you could hardcode in an address that starts with the amount of Bitcoins stolen, and give allinvain the private key. I'm sure it could be done though I don't know the technical specifics.
You could actually turn it into an entire component of the client where you hardcode in reversals of fradulent activity, based on democratic and fair judgements.
I'm sorry but this is an awful idea. Who is going to use a client that allows the community to vote away the bitcoins in wallets? The legal system does the same thing... and I think it is fair. I would use it. then use the legal system. what you propose opens the door for chargebacks. then bitcoin would suck worse than paypal. |
|
|
|
|
|
dust
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:42:05 AM |
|
This is an extremely bad idea. Who decides which coins are banned or redistributed to another address? As a simple way to exploit this system, scammers could send some coins to another one of their addresses and claim they were hacked.
|
|
|
|
itsagas
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:44:19 AM |
|
I was thinking you could hard-code in an array of "illegal" bitcoin addresses (those of the perpetrators) so that no client will invalidate Bitcoins originating from them. Also, you could hardcode in an address that starts with the amount of Bitcoins stolen, and give allinvain the private key. I'm sure it could be done though I don't know the technical specifics.
You could actually turn it into an entire component of the client where you hardcode in reversals of fradulent activity, based on democratic and fair judgements.
I'm sorry but this is an awful idea. Who is going to use a client that allows the community to vote away the bitcoins in wallets? The legal system does the same thing... and I think it is fair. I would use it. then use the legal system. what you propose opens the door for chargebacks. then bitcoin would suck worse than paypal. Yes, no chargebacks. No democratic or "fair" processes or features are needed either. It is up to the user to protect their wallet. Also with the new planned encryption features in the bitcoin wallet (and future security features I am sure), it will be safer for the average user. But still their responsibility in the end though... |
|
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:47:10 AM |
|
1) Develop decentralized, pseudonymous, irreversible currency system.
2) Someone loses lots of said currency.
3) Turn developers into centralized arbitrators in an attempt to reverse one particular transaction.
Brilliant!
|
^_^
|
|
|
allinvain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1080
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:49:19 AM |
|
As much as I wold be happy to receive the coins back I highly doubt this idea will EVER be implemented. The only way I see this being possible is somehow in cases such as this the rate of bitcoin inflation gets sped up and the person who had his coins stolen is given a special mining client which has an artificially lower difficulty rating that expires after a set amount of coins have been minted. This would be something that the rest of the miners would have to agree upon somehow. Maybe like a bitcoin court or something like a voting system.
But then again like I said this is never going to happen.
I should note that existing coins should not be invalidated or redistributed.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:55:15 AM |
|
Let's Joe Jr. loses his wallet on a school bus. He had all of his birthday money in there. At least $900. So, he goes to the police and they search for his wallet but the money is nowhere to be found. In fact, it probably was already spent into the world beyond. So, a large group of people get together and decide to let the Federal Reserve print Joe 900 more dollars at the expense (devaluation) of everybody elses money, which quite a few had no say in or inherently disagree.
Is this really your idea of justice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
imperi (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:57:25 AM |
|
Let's Joe Jr. loses his wallet on a school bus. He had all of his birthday money in there. At least $900. So, he goes to the police and they search for his wallet but the money is nowhere to be found. In fact, it probably was already spent into the world beyond. So, a large group of people get together and decide to let the Federal Reserve print Joe 900 more dollars at the expense (devaluation) of everybody elses money, which quite a few had no say in or inherently disagreed.
Is this really your idea of justice?
Yes, if they can also remove $900 from the perps. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 17, 2011, 02:58:28 AM |
|
Let's Joe Jr. loses his wallet on a school bus. He had all of his birthday money in there. At least $900. So, he goes to the police and they search for his wallet but the money is nowhere to be found. In fact, it probably was already spent into the world beyond. So, a large group of people get together and decide to let the Federal Reserve print Joe 900 more dollars at the expense (devaluation) of everybody elses money, which quite a few had no say in or inherently disagreed.
Is this really your idea of justice?
Yes, if they can also remove $900 from the perps. They can't. If we could, we wouldn't be discussing changing the software. It would eliminate all need to print more Bitcoins. Addendum, an address isn't a person. |
|
|
|
|
|
imperi (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:00:14 AM |
|
Let's Joe Jr. loses his wallet on a school bus. He had all of his birthday money in there. At least $900. So, he goes to the police and they search for his wallet but the money is nowhere to be found. In fact, it probably was already spent into the world beyond. So, a large group of people get together and decide to let the Federal Reserve print Joe 900 more dollars at the expense (devaluation) of everybody elses money, which quite a few had no say in or inherently disagreed.
Is this really your idea of justice?
Yes, if they can also remove $900 from the perps. They can't. If we could, we wouldn't be discussing changing the software. Changing the software is part of "could", since it is feasible to change it and test it. I'm not entirely behind this idea but it is a suggestion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:01:10 AM |
|
Let's Joe Jr. loses his wallet on a school bus. He had all of his birthday money in there. At least $900. So, he goes to the police and they search for his wallet but the money is nowhere to be found. In fact, it probably was already spent into the world beyond. So, a large group of people get together and decide to let the Federal Reserve print Joe 900 more dollars at the expense (devaluation) of everybody elses money, which quite a few had no say in or inherently disagreed.
Is this really your idea of justice?
Yes, if they can also remove $900 from the perps. They can't. If we could, we wouldn't be discussing changing the software. Changing the software is part of "could", since it is feasible to change it and test it. I'm not entirely behind this idea but it is a suggestion. No, you can't fully tie an address to an individual. Especially if the money is spent into the economy beyond. |
|
|
|
|
N12
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1010
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:01:40 AM |
|
It’s impossible to prove that allinvain has indeed lost his money and not just moved it himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
imperi (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:04:05 AM |
|
No, you can't fully tie an address to an individual. Especially if the money is spent into the economy beyond.
You could invalidate addresses containing the fradulent funds, and generate Bitcoins from nothing into a new address, so for example block 5000_from_now puts 20k BTC into a particular address, and the private key for this address (the wallet) is given to allinvain. Mining creates BTC from nothing so you could use a similar mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:08:22 AM |
|
So you want to (a) freeze the coins and (b) create a new block reward to replace them? You'll need 100% of the miners or (a) won't happen and (b) will fork the chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
imperi (OP)
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:09:39 AM |
|
So you want to (a) freeze the coins and (b) create a new block reward to replace them? You'll need 100% of the miners or (a) won't happen and (b) will fork the chain.
You could make the generation happen 6 months from now so everyone would have updated versions by then. Hypothetically I mean, I said I'm not necessarily behind this but just presenting it as an idea, maybe as a special exception since it is 0.3% of the entire economy stolen. |
|
|
|
|
Tawsix
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
I have always been afraid of banks.
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:11:05 AM |
|
No, you can't fully tie an address to an individual. Especially if the money is spent into the economy beyond.
You could invalidate addresses containing the fradulent funds, and generate Bitcoins from nothing into a new address, so for example block 5000_from_now puts 20k BTC into a particular address, and the private key for this address (the wallet) is given to allinvain. Mining creates BTC from nothing so you could use a similar mechanism. What are you supposed to do with people who have traded with the person who stole the coins? Invalidate their coins while their products have already sold? What if those coins were laundered? |
|
|
|
Ruxum
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:12:12 AM |
|
No, you can't fully tie an address to an individual. Especially if the money is spent into the economy beyond.
You could invalidate addresses containing the fradulent funds, and generate Bitcoins from nothing into a new address, so for example block 5000_from_now puts 20k BTC into a particular address, and the private key for this address (the wallet) is given to allinvain. Mining creates BTC from nothing so you could use a similar mechanism. How would anyone prove any particular address contains "fraudulent funds"? And what are "fraudulent funds" ? How are they defined? If I lost my USB stick with a wallet on it and someone found it. Is that fraudulent? Or my stupidity for losing my wallet. If I lost my real physical wallet, I would never expect to get the fiat money back, why should BTC be different? |
|
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
June 17, 2011, 03:13:11 AM |
|
So you want to (a) freeze the coins and (b) create a new block reward to replace them? You'll need 100% of the miners or (a) won't happen and (b) will fork the chain.
You could make it happen 6 months from now so everyone would have updated versions by then. Hypothetically, I mean, I said I'm not necessarily behind this but just presenting it as an idea, maybe as a special exemption since it is 0.3% of the entire economy stolen. This is simply not going to happen. If someone wants to transfer 25,000 coins, they can either do it themselves or pay a 1000 coin transfer fee and most miners will gladly process the transaction. And if you start creating new block rewards for anyone who allegedly loses their coins, you will have a fork, because I know there are miners who won't stand for such silliness. |
|
|
|
|
|
