Fork The Blockchain And Block The Seized FBI Coins.

[zeetubes]

Congrats to the OP on a thought provoking post. The purists' position should always be that bitcoins should be allowed to live and die on its own merits and if it happens, one of the other alt coins will take its place. Such is the way of the only free market left in the world. Personally I don't do drugs, aside from copious amounts of beer and I could give a flying fuck whether the FagBI thinks they're naughty. Wankers. Funny that they sue dpr but let big banks get away with much worse crimes. If the wallet in question was to be subjected to a random attack and those coins disappeared I wouldn't cry any tears.

[BurtW]

This has been discussed ad nauseum but once again:

Once the trial and appeals are all done the FBI will auction off the coins, most likely in medium sized blocks of coins on the one of the various goverment auction web sites they have already created for exactly the purpose of auctioning off seized assets.  Go check out these web sites, you can often find boats, airplanes, jewelry, helicopters, etc for a pretty good price.  To them Bitcoin is just another asset to be auctioned off for USD that they can use to line their budgets.

Anyway, the coins will be sold to whoever bids the most for them.

Your proposal would harm the auction winners - not the government.

[BurtW]

If the wallet in question was to be subjected to a random attack and those coins disappeared I wouldn't cry any tears.

A random attack that steals the coins from the FBI and moves them someplace else is completely different from what is being proposed here, blacklisting those specific coins in the client and mining software.

In the hacker attack the coins move and are liberated from the FBI, in the blacklisting attempt an alt coin is created.

[DannyHamilton]

There are more attacks than just the 50%+1 attack.

Certainly, but I'm not sure that you understand what the "50% +1" attack is, what it can accomplish, or what some of the alternative attacks are.

Orphaning blocks for instance.

Blocks are orphaned all the time.  There is nothing wrong with this. It is a part of the netowrk working out a consensus.  Now if someone had more than 50% of the hashing power, they could choose which blocks are orphaned, and which are not.  This is part of the "50% +1" attack.

Commandeering major mining operations,

What would this allow you to do?  I suppose if you commandeered enough of them, you'd control more than 50% of the network hashing power, but that's just a "50% +1" attack.  I thought you were listing "other" attacks?

a virus (like stutnex attacking nuclear facilities),

What would this virus do?  It might steal from individual wallets that aren't properly secured, but that's not an attack on the bitcoin network, it's just an attack on the wealth of individuals that don't properly secure their bitcoins.

DDOS (NSA has a lot of influence over the main DNS providers.),

I don't think bitcoin uses DNS.  There isn't a single server to DDOS against.  You'd have to find a way to DDOS every single node on the system to DDOS a decentralized peer-to-peer protocol such as bitcoin, wouldn't you?

them figuring out the identity of Satoshi (What is the NSA's job again?) forcing Satoshi to give up his wallet then we'd have the DPR problem but on an even larger scale.

I don't see a DPR "problem", and I don't see any "problem" with Satoshi's coins being spent.

This would be more than "panic selling" where even the loyalist to bitcoin (such as myself) would have to logically realize that getting out of the market would be the smartest thing to do.

Other than the "50% +1" attack, I don't see anything in your list that would cause me to panic and "get out of the market".  If someone did manage to acquire more than 50% of the total network hashing power, then they could prevent you from "getting out of the market", but refusing to confirm any of your transactions.

alter the block chain so the FBI's coins no longer exist. I'm not sure if this is even possible? But something to consider.

No thanks.  As far as I'm concerned, those are legitmate bitcoins.  There is no reason to "alter the block chain so the FBI's coins no longer exist".

[ljudotina]

What OP is proposing is exactly what BTC stands AGAINST. OP should think twice before typeing this kind of posts.

[cr1776]

This has been discussed ad nauseum but once again:

Once the trial and appeals are all done the FBI will auction off the coins, most likely in medium sized blocks of coins on the one of the various goverment auction web sites they have already created for exactly the purpose of auctioning off seized assets.  Go check out these web sites, you can often find boats, airplanes, jewelry, helicopters, etc for a pretty good price.  To them Bitcoin is just another asset to be auctioned off for USD that they can use to line their budgets.

Anyway, the coins will be sold to whoever bids the most for them.

Your proposal would harm the auction winners - not the government.

+1. Once you establish the precedent of making some coins more equal and others, bitcoin will be in bad shape.  It will become a slippery-slope of trying to decide who is worthy and who is unworthy.

[augustocroppo]

I agree, it will also be a good thing when the original miners (such as Satoshi himself) finally use at least some of their coins, which will have the result of better distrubting the wealth to the masses allowing it to function much more like a currency than a commodity. But here is the difference;

Explain in details how the dump of BTC in the exchange markets will result in a better distribution of wealth to the masses.

By the way, BTC is neither a commodity or a currency. For someone which praise itself as "studied" you lack the fundamental understanding of what exactly is Bitcoin.

Satoshi and the original miners have an invested interest (even if it where only based on greed) to do so in a constructive fashion, such as starting an ETF like TradeFortress had done.

Yep, great comparison you did. Do you even know that Tradefortress was running an illegal enterprise and he lost peoples funds?

[BurtW]

This would be more than "panic selling" where even the loyalist to bitcoin (such as myself) would have to logically realize that getting out of the market would be the smartest thing to do.

This is what we old timers call just another fantastic buying opportunity.

[DannyHamilton]

This would be more than "panic selling" where even the loyalist to bitcoin (such as myself) would have to logically realize that getting out of the market would be the smartest thing to do.

This is what we old timers call just another fantastic buying opportunity.

Apparently we aren't allowed to demonstrate agreement with an opinion or add emphasis to a fact with a simple "+1".  I've recently had my "+1" posts removed.  Therefore, I'm typing out this message to indicate that I believe the quoted information needs extra emphasis to avoid being unnoticed in the rest of the chatter in this discussion. I may (or may not) also have added bold or underline tags to the text in the quote above to further emphasize the parts that I think are important to understand or be aware of.

[augustocroppo]

This would be more than "panic selling" where even the loyalist to bitcoin (such as myself) would have to logically realize that getting out of the market would be the smartest thing to do.

Yep, very loyal and smart. At the first opportunity, dump all coins and let the fools hold the bag. The hypocrisy coming from people like you is staggering. Let me guess...  You would cash out in USD, right?

I'm not suggesting a "Colored Coin Solution" but to alter the block chain so the FBI's coins no longer exist. I'm not sure if this is even possible? But something to consider.

Wait, I thought you were "studied"... So it turn out that you do not even know what are you talking about?

ROFL!

Thank you for the laugh.

[zeetubes]

"What OP is proposing is exactly what BTC stands AGAINST. OP should think twice before typeing this kind of post"

Disagree. Your two sentences are contradictory. Free markets and free speech should always prevail. If I knew that certain bitcoins were being used to fund a pedophile site (e.g. priests.com), I would certainly agree to extraordinary actions and fuck the consequences. OTOH the bitcoins infrastructure could easily be used as a foundation for a voting system. And if you or I disagreed with a certain decision, that is tough shit. Democracy cuts two ways.

[BurtW]

"What OP is proposing is exactly what BTC stands AGAINST. OP should think twice before typeing this kind of post"

Disagree. Your two sentences are contradictory. Free markets and free speech should always prevail. If I knew that certain bitcoins were being used to fund a pedophile site (e.g. priests.com), I would certainly agree to extraordinary actions and fuck the consequences. OTOH the bitcoins infrastructure could easily be used as a foundation for a voting system. And if you or I disagreed with a certain decision, that is tough shit. Democracy cuts two ways.

How often do you check the serial numbers on your USD to make sure they have not been used for something you disagree with?

[zeetubes]

Yup and how often do you avoid the main issues raised and just respond with a platitude?

[crazy_rabbit]

"What OP is proposing is exactly what BTC stands AGAINST. OP should think twice before typeing this kind of post"

Disagree. Your two sentences are contradictory. Free markets and free speech should always prevail. If I knew that certain bitcoins were being used to fund a pedophile site (e.g. priests.com), I would certainly agree to extraordinary actions and fuck the consequences. OTOH the bitcoins infrastructure could easily be used as a foundation for a voting system. And if you or I disagreed with a certain decision, that is tough shit. Democracy cuts two ways.

So why haven't you done it with fiat yet? Fiat is used to fund pedophile's why haven't you done something about it?

[zeetubes]

Er, because it's a philosophical question. Would you do something about it if you could, or would you just let it happen because it's a free market?

[cr1776]

I agree, it will also be a good thing when the original miners (such as Satoshi himself) finally use at least some of their coins, which will have the result of better distrubting the wealth to the masses allowing it to function much more like a currency than a commodity. But here is the difference;

Explain in details how the dump of BTC in the exchange markets will result in a better distribution of wealth to the masses.

By the way, BTC is neither a commodity or a currency. For someone which praise itself as "studied" you lack the fundamental understanding of what exactly is Bitcoin.

Satoshi and the original miners have an invested interest (even if it where only based on greed) to do so in a constructive fashion, such as starting an ETF like TradeFortress had done.

Yep, great comparison you did. Do you even know that Tradefortress was running an illegal enterprise and he lost peoples funds?

I think he is confused.  I think he was talk about FIG (Fortress Investment Group) with regard to their new fund (not an etf yet) and meant a vested interest vs an invested interest. 

Of course, he could have meant TradeFortress, but that wasn't an etf either and as you said, he stole funds.

[BurtW]

Yup and how often do you avoid the main issues raised and just respond with a platitude?

I am not sure of the exact percentage so I guess you will have to go back through all my posts and figure it out.

My point which you failed to grasp was that you personally never worry about the serial numbers on goobermint issued fiat because it is fungible money.

The single largest threat to the survival of Bitcoin today is the overt and covert attacks on the fungibility of Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin is not fungible then it is not a form of money.  It becomes a collectible with all the problems inherent in a collectibles market:

The need for an authority or authorities to tell you the value of each Bitcoin based on criteria set by outside influences with their own political, economic and social engineering agendas.

The need for and infrastructure to check with this central authority, or worse yet multiple authorities, every single time you do a transaction - so you don't get stuck with less than desirable coins.  Or even worse, the need to check in with a very complex market to value the coins on a “sliding taint scale”, if presented with less than desirable coins, so you can accept them at a discounted value.

Fragmentation of the market for Bitcoins:  a white market for the coins deemed clean by the authority or authorities and a black market for the less desirable, listed coins.

The core developers could consciously or inadvertently either maintain or destroy the fungible property of Bitcoin.

Help:  implement BIP32 as soon as possible in all clients in order to allow all periodic payments to be done in a fungibility supportive way.
         also everyone should use CoinJoin as often as you can, hopefully on every transaction.

Hinder: anything in the clients that helps in the formation, propagation or checking of any kind, color or flavor of lists of Bitcoins.

[BurtW]

Er, because it's a philosophical question. Would you do something about it if you could, or would you just let it happen because it's a free market?

Do you think you should do something?  If so, what exactly would you do about all the goobermint fiat currency that is used for things you personally do not agree with?  This is not a plattitute, it is a very deep philosophical question.  What exactly should be done about this horrible missuse of fiat currency?

[BawsyBoss]

Bitcoin was made in such way as to let people do transactions to their will. Let the FBI dump the coins, we would be going against our own principles otherwise.

[BittBurger]

They are enemies to our community, likely planning to dump onto the market to cause a flash crash.

They aren't dumb.  There is significant more power in the act of *retaining* control over such a large portion of total  Bitcoins.  They aren't going to waste it on some silly short term price crash dumping.  The real threat here is that the Government now controls a big portion of all Bitcoins.  That's pretty much the very OPPOSITE of what was intended with Bitcoin.

The goal should be to delete those coins from the system completely, and kick them back into the mining queue to be re-created into the network.  Absurd, I know, but I can't think of anyone who would be unhappy with the outcome of this idea.