Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?

[antimattercrusader]

Right, in reality.

In principal, however, much of it is still out of the jurisdiction of the DEA and my ass is a little bit drier because of it. A little flaky, in fact.

Since the world is clearly not about common sense anymore, and one's family can sue the FAA and win because a private pilot family member flew into a storm and died.... then one can't say storing your money in an (Illegal in the US) global marketplace should result in automatic forfeiture of your funds, especially if you're not breaking any laws in your local area. Based on that precedent, perhaps a seller in India selling a Children's book printed in 1950 (Illegal in the US due to possible lead ink) to a buyer in Vietnam on eBay should have their paypal account locked since, because in the US, that is illegal by god.

I understand the reality of this situation. But I also understand hte principal. I don't like where this type of mentality can lead, and in an increasingly global marketplace it's going to get a lot more complicated.

EDIT: That Paypal example, strictly speaking, is more plausible because both eBay and PayPal are US companies and subject to US law. Silkroad nor bitcoin are US owned/based.

[1715631361]

1715631361

[antimattercrusader]

That I agree with

[darkmule]

It says should miners collude, not could miners collude. The answer to the second question is obviously yes. If you randomly 'split' the thread, then what's this one for?

I believe the "should" question pertains to whether it is, pragmatically, a good idea to do this.  I think the answer to this is so obvious (fuck no) that there hardly needs to be a thread, but here it is, and here I am in it.  A general discussion of the differences between morality, ethics and legality is pretty off-topic for that.

Even this is a pretty speculative discussion, since none of the miners who would actually have to be involved to perpetrate this atrociously silly act are, so far as I can tell, remotely interested in doing something this dumb.

[Alpaca Bob]

The fact that blocking transactions is even considered by some, is proof we need litecoin to stick around.

Now don't get me wrong. It would be absolutely horrible if litecoin overtook bitcoin for no apparent reason. I absolutely do not want this to happen, it would be a disaster for cryptocurrencies in general.

But blocking transactions is a very apparent reason for a take-over. The miners need to know and understand that they are not God's, they do not get to decide whom pays whom.

If miners - now or in the distant future - would ever pull of something like this, I will instantly quit bitcoin. Fiat is not an option anymore either though. That's why we need a back-up. A little sister that will keep bitcoin honest. Even if it does nothing but show the miners that their asic's could become worthless overnight if they misbehave.

[(A)social]

I would vote for a "No." If all miners agree to take the money without the standard, normal procedure, I think it will make Bitcoin reputation goes worse.

But I don't mind if a single entity or a single person steals the private key of that address though

+1
Right my thought.

[Buffer Overflow]

The fact that blocking transactions is even considered by some, is proof we need litecoin to stick around.

And how does Litecoin protect against this problem?

[Alpaca Bob]

The fact that blocking transactions is even considered by some, is proof we need litecoin to stick around.

And how does Litecoin protect against this problem?

That's why we need a back-up. A little sister that will keep bitcoin honest. Even if it does nothing but show the miners that their asic's could become worthless overnight if they misbehave.

[cowandtea]

How can we steal fund? Even if we want to there is no way.

[dhenson]

So this is how stupid misinformation about bitcoin is spread?  Great, now people will think we can just erase transactions at will. *sigh*

[dhenson]

So this is how stupid misinformation about bitcoin is spread?  Great, now people will think we can just erase transactions at will. *sigh*

I asked for an explanation (a few times). Here are the detailed instruction highlighting the steps required to erase transactions.

51% or hard fork maybe.  I'm sure it could be  done with the top three pools pretty easily.

So... it's "pretty easy".

If they did that, then they would be off on their own version of the blockchain and we would be on the 'real' one.  It wouldn't change ANYTHING for us.  They would just be removing their hash power from the real blockchain and mining blocks that don't effect our chain at all.  In effect they would be blowing millions of dollars worth of hashpower to mine worthless coins that no vendors can accept because they won't ever see the transactions.

Once they forked off, they would essentially be in a race with the real blockchain trying to make their branch longer than ours.  Everyone would notice the fork growing out there and the obvious drop in hashpower by the real pools and adjustments would be made to ignore their fork.  I would say that it would be completely impractical after about 6 confirmations on the main chain.

Completely impossible.

[niko]

I hereby quit bitcointalk.

[darkmule]

How can we steal fund? Even if we want to there is no way.

"We" can't, even if "we" wanted to.  But 51% of miners could, at least especially right after a transaction they wanted to nullify.  However, they have very good incentives not to do that.  It would basically amount to nuking their own assets.

[darkmule]

If they did that, then they would be off on their own version of the blockchain and we would be on the 'real' one.

If 51% of miners did something, their blockchain would then be the "real" one.  It would take active measures to abandon their chain in favor of another.  People would have to do something to abandon it.

[alkaz]

Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?

i dont think so. NO.
this is a dangerous idea, stealing from government
the word "stealing" itself is illegal

[Roger_Murdock]

I think 'no' is probably the right answer, but I strongly disagree with the idea that it would "destroy everything that Bitcoin stands for" if we prevented the feds from spending those coins. To me, Bitcoin "stands for" a system that is voluntary and based on consensus rather than coercion.  The ledger is whatever the network collectively agrees it is.   Here, we have witnessed a very large, unambiguous, and high-profile theft of bitcoins where the thieves have not yet made any attempt to launder the stolen coins.  So we still could make the stolen coins unspendable without harming innocent third-parties.  In this scenario, which will almost by definition be an extremely rare one, I don't see why the network couldn't collectively agree that the thieves should not be allowed to profit from their bad acts.  Now, that doesn't appear to be the consensus that has in fact been reached. Instead, the consensus appears to be that it's more important to keep "the rules" simple (i.e., the owner of the coins is whoever has the private key and the network isn't going to "look behind" transactions), keep the network "neutral", and not undermine confidence in the protocol by departing from "the rules" even in extreme cases.  And that's fine, and like I said, probably the right result in this case.  But again, the most important "rule" is consensus. And in an even more extreme case, e.g., the feds steal DPR's (probably-mythical) 600,000 coins, I could see the network coming to a different consensus -- and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

[Amitabh S]

Why are people still posting here. Why not just let this thread die?

[Roger_Murdock]

Why are people still posting here. Why not just let this thread die?

They have something they want to say?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I hereby quit bitcointalk.

Please don't.  All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men leave bitcointalk.  Or something like that...

People who voted "Yes," think about this a little more. If the Bitcoin community was going to pull such a stunt, it would have to save it for a cataclysmic situation. If the feds somehow seized half of all bitcoins in existence, then it might be time to have a careful debate about this...and probably still not do it. But for this little bit of money?

It would destroy Bitcoin's reputation as impartial, unimpeachable, immutable money. Not only would it turn governments against us, it would also show people that money they receive could be taken from them if they lose in the court of public opinion. It would be like a giant billboard saying BITCOIN: YOUR MONEY AT THE WHIMS OF THE MASSES.

And some people say there's a clean line we can draw in the case of the feds. How about legitimately seized bitcoins, from real criminals? How about those of the big banks? How about large companies like Apple and Walmart, that have close ties with the government just by virtue of their size? How about pirateat40's stash? Why not anyone with a Scammer tag on bitcointalk? Heck, why not annul the bitcoins of all taxpayers, since they feed the government by not resisting?

This is the most dangerous idea to come about in a long time. Please, please, please think this through.

This.

[Roger_Murdock]

Also, I have to say, I'm not crazy about how this poll question was worded.  Shouldn't the question be asked in a more neutral manner? E.g.:

Q: Should miners collude cooperate to steal by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of funds from wallet confiscated stolen by US government a violent, criminal gang calling itself the "US government"?

(And again, my vote is probably not.)

[User705]

Why are people still posting here. Why not just let this thread die?

It's a good thread to populate your ignore list.