"Deadsite Kill Switch" system.

[kiba]

A "Deadsite Kill Switch" system is frankly a way of refunding balances to owners after a total, complete irreversible shutdown of a website.

All the balance hold by that website operator are automatically refunded. It doesn't matter if the site operator went to jail. There would be no way for anybody to stop the refund of balance.

Anybody want to brainstorm on how to implement this idea?


1. I think a grace period is needed. Let say 15 days. This is so if the site went back up, it would still keep the balance.


----EDIT-----
Uh oh, it should be moved to the Discussion forum.

[ribuck]

You mean a site like MyBitcoin or MtGox?

Hourly backups, encrypted. One half of the decryption key is encrypted with Satoshi's public key, one half with Theymos' public key. Hope that Theymos and Satoshi don't go bad.

[kiba]

You mean a site like MyBitcoin or MtGox?

Hourly backups, encrypted. One half of the decryption key is encrypted with Satoshi's public key, one half with Theymos' public key. Hope that Theymos and Satoshi don't go bad.

We shouldn't rely on trust to do this.

[ribuck]

We shouldn't rely on trust to do this.

Then I think what you seek is impossible.

If you want to do away with trust, you need a distributed solution like ... bitcoin. Not a bitcoin bank. You have to trust your bank.

[kiba]

 Not a bitcoin bank. You have to trust your bank.

Anybody who the balance on behalf of others, really.

But, you won't be able to authorized withdrawal until the grace period is over.

For example, some kind of server check each site if it is down. If the grace over is period and the site is not backup, a person can then go to the server and authorize release.

[Mahkul]

Speaking of websites going down... does anyone have any idea what's going on with http://bitcoinexchange.com?

They have been down for a good few days now. I know it says "down for maintenance", but it just seems a little bit long time now.

[S3052]

I also think a deadsite switch system is deperately needed to enable bitcoin communicty growth.

I know a couple of people personally who would like to buy bitcoins but are afraid that they lose all in case of a shutdown.

I'll pledge 50 BTC for someone who could enable a working deadsite switch system for mayor excchanges including MtGox, etc..

[kiba]

I also think a deadsite switch system is deperately needed to enable bitcoin communicty growth.

I know a couple of people personally who would like to buy bitcoins but are afraid that they lose all in case of a shutdown.

I'll pledge 50 BTC for someone who could enable a working deadsite switch system for mayor excchanges including MtGox, etc..

Time to start a bounty thread, S3052.

[theymos]

You could do it if the transaction locking system was re-enabled. It would work like this:
- MtGox sends everyone's money back to them, but with a lock time 30 days in the future.
- These transactions can't be included in the block chain until the specified lock time has passed. Once the lock time has passed, they will be automatically included in the block chain and irrevocable. To the recipients, they will appear in the client as "Open until 2011-01-05" or whatever, and will not be spendable or reflected in their balance.
- MtGox can "hit the dead-man switch" by revoking these transactions. Only the person who owns MtGox's Bitcoin keys is capable of revoking the transactions.

This is a feature that actually exists in the client right now, but it was "temporarily disabled".

[kiba]

Wow, so we don't need a bounty at all?

[theymos]

Wow, so we don't need a bounty at all?

Well, you can't use the feature until most of the network re-enables it. And even if it is enabled, the UI parts of it probably won't be available immediately.

[caveden]

You could do it if the transaction locking system was re-enabled. It would work like this:
- MtGox sends everyone's money back to them, but with a lock time 30 days in the future.
- These transactions can't be included in the block chain until the specified lock time has passed.

Interesting. How does this work?
What stops a generator from including the transaction before its time? The signed transaction contains the date in it, in a way that it can't be separated?
And how does the cancel message makes sure no generator will include the transaction in a block anyway?

[kiba]

I am impressed that Satoshi think of everything. 

[theymos]

Interesting. How does this work?
What stops a generator from including the transaction before its time? The signed transaction contains the date in it, in a way that it can't be separated?
And how does the cancel message makes sure no generator will include the transaction in a block anyway?

The lock time is signed. Everyone will reject the block if it includes a transaction before its lock time (this rule is already in effect).

Revoking is a bit more risky. If 1% of generation power doesn't support revoking unlocking transactions, then there's a 1% chance that the revoke will fail. In this case a failed revocation is just an "accidental withdrawal", though.

[ribuck]

You could do it if the transaction locking system was re-enabled.

That would solve the problem for people who use a bitcoin client. But it doesn't address the problem for people who are using a bitcoin "bank" as their bitcoin wallet. I suppose they will have to open another account with another bitcoin "bank" to be able to receive their funds.

[bencoder]

Revoking is a bit more risky. If 1% of generation power doesn't support revoking unlocking transactions, then there's a 1% chance that the revoke will fail. In this case a failed revocation is just an "accidental withdrawal", though.

Couldn't a block including a known revoked withdrawal be ignored as invalid by the other clients though?

[theymos]

Revoking is a bit more risky. If 1% of generation power doesn't support revoking unlocking transactions, then there's a 1% chance that the revoke will fail. In this case a failed revocation is just an "accidental withdrawal", though.

Couldn't a block including a known revoked withdrawal be ignored as invalid by the other clients though?

It's not a good idea to reject a block for that reason, but you could discourage such a block by not building onto it until it is one block deep. If most of the network is discouraging a block, then it will almost never stay in the block chain. Bitcoin doesn't do this currently, though.

[caveden]

Speaking of websites going down... does anyone have any idea what's going on with http://bitcoinexchange.com?

They have been down for a good few days now. I know it says "down for maintenance", but it just seems a little bit long time now.

They remain down... it's bad, they are the most practical exchange for those who have euros.