[PROPOSAL] - lock the apparent Mt. Gox coins for now

[CompNsci]

Given the possible recent leak of the Mt. Gox source code and database, what would the core developers and mining community think of locking the apparent large wallet balances belonging to Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, and Jeb McCaleb by changing the protocol for now?

The idea would not be to accept any transactions spending these bitcoin until the Mt. Gox bankruptcy case is sorted out. A committee, possibly appointed by the Bitcoin Foundation, could verify proper ownership before the coins are cleared for spending and a change back is made.

This would be a bit different than the idea of taking the coins permanently, or permanently invalidating them. The intention here would be to simply assist the legal process.

I know this is not something which can be done for every theft, etc., but we are talking about 6% of all bitcoin mined to date, which are presently tangled up in a real legal mess.

I suppose a general principle to govern this could be that when an entity controlling greater than some number of fraction of bitcoin is subject to legal action, such as a bankruptcy, charges of fraud, lawsuits, etc., that coins may be locked pending the outcome of litigation.

[QuestionAuthority]

Search discussions - Re: Fungibility

[Timo Y]

neither the mining community nor the developers have the power to do this on their own. the majority of of users and businesses also have to be convinced to update their client. remember, a chain containing invalid transactions will be rejected even if it is the longest.

since many of those users, and some miners, would oppose this out of principle, the result would almost certainly be a fork into 2 seperate bitcoins.

highly undesireable.

[CompNsci]

neither the mining community nor the developers have the power to do this on their own. the majority of of users and businesses also have to be convinced to update their client. remember, a chain containing invalid transactions will be rejected even if it is the longest.

I think the idea here would be for the miners to not put such transactions on the chain in the first place. In that case, would a change in the majority of the clients be needed?

I understand the whole fungibility issue and understand it is contentious.

[DannyHamilton]

neither the mining community nor the developers have the power to do this on their own. the majority of of users and businesses also have to be convinced to update their client. remember, a chain containing invalid transactions will be rejected even if it is the longest.

I think the idea here would be for the miners to not put such transactions on the chain in the first place. In that case, would a change in the majority of the clients be needed?

That depends.

How sure are you that 100% of all miners and all mining pools in the entire world will honor the agreement not to put such transactions into the chain in the first place?

If even one miner somewhere in the world puts such a transaction into the blockchain, how would you suggest the remaining miners handle the situation?  Do they ignore that block, or do they accept it and build on top of it?

[Zooey]

QFT

You do understand you will never convince miners to erase 3,000 blocks of the blockchain however if you did, then Bitcoin is done.   Remember over those 3,000 blocks, newly mined coins have been involved in transactions and this action would double spend all of those.  The coins originally minted would never exist and thus the coins spent wouldn't.  Merchants, other users, exchanges would all see the downstream transactions (which have 6 ro 3,000+ confirmations) suddenly go unconfirmed and invalid.

While this in theory could be done at any time it is generally accepted to be impossible.  If miners by decree can double spend transaction not 1 or 2 confirmations into the blockchain but 3,000 blocks deep then no receiver can ever be sure that the transaction is irreversible.  There is a certain level of faith in all currencies that create the perception of value, and Bitcoin is no exception.  Among those faiths, Bitcoin users believe that while it is possible in theory to 51% the network and undo transactions thousands of blocks deep, that it would have such an economic cost that it infeasible.  All users accept this faith or they wouldn't be using bitcoin (or would require 10,000+ confirmations before concluding the transaction).  Your proposed action (although I think it has no chance) if successful would break that faith.  Without faith in the irreversibility of transactions, there is no value or utility to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin would be dead.  I am not talking the exchange rate goes down a bit and recovers, I mean completely abandoned as a worthless experiment and development moves on to future systems which don't have the vulnerability (likely some floating checkpoint system which acts as a check to the proof of work).

How do you use a currency that at any time could simply be "undone" and erased from your wallet by the actions of a third party?  Would you use that currency?  I know I wouldn't.  I genuinely feel sorry for those who lost significant amounts of money by misplacing their trust in MtGox but this is a situation where the cure is worse than the disease.

[davidgdg]

Given the possible recent leak of the Mt. Gox source code and database, what would the core developers and mining community think of locking the apparent large wallet balances belonging to Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, and Jeb McCaleb by changing the protocol for now?

The idea would not be to accept any transactions spending these bitcoin until the Mt. Gox bankruptcy case is sorted out. A committee, possibly appointed by the Bitcoin Foundation, could verify proper ownership before the coins are cleared for spending and a change back is made.

This would be a bit different than the idea of taking the coins permanently, or permanently invalidating them. The intention here would be to simply assist the legal process.

I know this is not something which can be done for every theft, etc., but we are talking about 6% of all bitcoin mined to date, which are presently tangled up in a real legal mess.

I suppose a general principle to govern this could be that when an entity controlling greater than some number of fraction of bitcoin is subject to legal action, such as a bankruptcy, charges of fraud, lawsuits, etc., that coins may be locked pending the outcome of litigation.

Possibly the most appalling idea I have read on this forum and I've read a few.

[repentance]

The intention here would be to simply assist the legal process.

Not only would you not be "assisting the legal process", you would almost certainly be breaking the law because you'd be denying people access to accounts without any legal authority to do so and without any conclusive evidence of who owns those accounts.

Law enforcement and other investigators already have the power to seek injunctions which restrain MtGox principals from moving BTC from company and/or personal accounts.  They can almost certainly obtain court orders compelling the principals to give them access to those accounts if they deem that to be necessary (and failure to do so under those circumstances would put the principals in contempt and subject to penalties).  The community has not such authority and nor should it.

[CompNsci]

Not only would you not be "assisting the legal process", you would almost certainly be breaking the law because you'd be denying people access to accounts without any legal authority to do so and without any conclusive evidence of who owns those accounts.

I don't know that miners are under any legal obligation to carry any transactions at all. Therefore, they can pick and choose. If they choose not to carry transactions involved in such a large criminal activity, that would strike me as reasonable, at least until the matter is properly settled in court.

[Lauda]

Such a thing would destroy bitcoin. It should never be allowed to happen, no blocks will be erased.

[CompNsci]

Such a thing would destroy bitcoin. It should never be allowed to happen, no blocks will be erased.

I don't believe this requires any blocks to be erased or modified in any way. The miners can simply refuse to add transactions moving bitcoin out from the locked addresses to any other address, that is all. All other aspects of new blocks produced can remain the same.

[bassclef]

This will never happen, no way.

[justusranvier]

It would be a good learning experience for everybody involved if the core dev team did indeed release a new version of the client that did this.

[CompNsci]

It would be a good learning experience for everybody involved if the core dev team did indeed release a new version of the client that did this.

I don't believe this requires an immediate change in the client software, does it? Simply the software used by the miners would need to be changed to not incorporate transactions spending from the locked addresses. Eventually I suppose it should be incorporated into the main client software, but that is not the main priority.

Anyone who feels their coins have been unfairly locked, because they weren't part of the Mt. Gox wallets, can just provide proof of ownership to the appropriate group to have the addresses removed from the locked list. Clearly this would require good evidence, but that can be arranged and weighed appropriately.

This shouldn't inconvenience many people at all, at least not the honest ones, and would prevent either insiders at Mt. Gox or the alleged thieves from being able to move these coins until the facts are resolved.

When the bankruptcy is cleared up, which I understand will likely be a year or more, then the coins can be unlocked. Obviously, not something we would want to be doing for every theft and problem, but perhaps something to consider when major problems affecting substantial sums are involved. In fact, the ability to perform such a lock under extreme circumstances can be considered a strength of Bitcoin.

There is nothing wrong with the Bitcoin community, as a consensus, saying they want to be just and support law enforcement in such cases. In fact, I would argue it is using available information and the capabilities of new crypto-currencies in a freedom supporting way.

[justusranvier]

Like I said, it would be a good learning experience.

[CompNsci]

Like I said, it would be a good learning experience.

Hopefully we would all learn that the community can pull together for the sake of justice?

In any case, I imagine this would depend almost entirely on what the miners are willing to do, and if a majority of the hashing power would support it.

[DannyHamilton]

Hopefully we would all learn that the community can pull together for the sake of justice?

In any case, I imagine this would depend almost entirely on what the miners are willing to do, and if a majority of the hashing power would support it.

How sure are you that 100% of all miners and all mining pools in the entire world will honor the agreement not to put such transactions into the chain in the first place?

If even one miner somewhere in the world puts such a transaction into the blockchain, how would you suggest the remaining miners handle the situation?  Do they ignore that block, or do they accept it and build on top of it?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Anyone who feels their coins have been unfairly locked, because they weren't part of the Mt. Gox wallets, can just provide proof of ownership to the appropriate group to have the addresses removed from the locked list. Clearly this would require good evidence, but that can be arranged and weighed appropriately.

What "appropriate group"?  The central bank of Bitcoin?  The Central Bitcoin Intelligence Agency?

You have no idea which addresses belong to MtGox.  It doesn't strike you as utter contemptible to just start blocking addresses because you think they belong to MtGox? Forget laws, on what ethical or moral authority do you have the right to arrest the wealth on another person? 

There is nothing wrong with the Bitcoin community, as a consensus, saying they want to be just and support law enforcement in such cases. In fact, I would argue it is using available information and the capabilities of new crypto-currencies in a freedom supporting way.

Except by the responses of this very thread you already don't have a consensus and that is with only a tiny number of people knowing about it.  What you want is a central all powerful authority to control the wealth of others based on the flimsiest of evidence.  Evidence which BTW wouldn't be sufficient in a court of law to freeze assets "Your honor we think these assets might belong to the defandant so we want you to freeze them for an indefinite amount of time just in case.  This was thoroughly researched by some people on the internet and stuff.".

[repentance]

There is nothing wrong with the Bitcoin community, as a consensus, saying they want to be just and support law enforcement in such cases. In fact, I would argue it is using available information and the capabilities of new crypto-currencies in a freedom supporting way.

According to statements by MtGox, they have 127,000 creditors.  You might have noticed that people who are owed money by MtGox cannot come to a consensus about how the situation should be best approached, and those people have the possibility of invoking varying levels of actual authority.

Do you really believe that "the Bitcoin community" - a diverse group with widely varying agendas - would reach a consensus on this?  Even if they did, they have no authority over miners.  How would you even know that a consensus had been reached?  "The Bitcoin community" includes far more people than those who post here and on reddit.  Are miners supposed to just listen to the loudest voices?

You talk about "supporting law enforcement", but you're really talking about taking an action without even consulting them.  Do you think they're not capable of asking the devs whether or not it's possible for Bitcoin addresses to be "frozen" if they believe that's a desirable option?  It takes legal authority to freeze bank accounts, but what your proposing is freezing funds with no legal authority whatsoever based on no evidence whatsoever - the kind of thing this community would be outraged by if it was done by a conventional financial service.

Seriously, many of the proposals to "help law enforcement" I've seen over the last few days seem far more likely to hinder any investigation than anything else.  Y'all need to step back and let investigators do their thing working within the law because if one of you idiots fucks up the legal cases against MtGox in your quest to play Ellery Queen, nobody is going to give a shit that you had "good intentions".

[CompNsci]

How sure are you that 100% of all miners and all mining pools in the entire world will honor the agreement not to put such transactions into the chain in the first place?

I don't believe it would require 100% of all miners. A simple majority, a bit over 50% of the hashing power, should suffice, right?

If even one miner somewhere in the world puts such a transaction into the blockchain, how would you suggest the remaining miners handle the situation?  Do they ignore that block, or do they accept it and build on top of it?

I would suggest they drop it. That way it wouldn't pay to waste a mined block including such a transaction. Since miners choose which transactions are included in the block, they needed include them in the first place.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I would suggest they drop it. That way it wouldn't pay to waste a mined block including such a transaction. Since miners choose which transactions are included in the block, they needed include them in the first place.

That is a dangerous road to go down.  The 51% of miners they could just drop ALL other blocks and keep 100% of the block rewards for themselves too.  Honest miners build upon the longest chain.  A block containing a tx involving a "MtGox address" (which you have identified to any degree of accuracy) is a valid block.  So your solution is a cartel of miners decide to start dropping valid blocks?  Why not drop all valid blocks and double their profits?  They are already breaking the spirit of Bitcoin why half ass it.

Also you do realize this cartel would be blocking txs based solely on their (likely flawed) guess as to what is a MtGox address.   Why not boost profits and start dropping transactions (and block containing them if they haven't already excluded all other miners) of users who refuse to pay an extortion tax?  Pay 1 BTC and we whitelist your addresses, if you don't then you never get to spend your coins again.

While these types of cartel behavior may be something Bitcoin needs to face in the future, it is another thing to actively recruit and coordinate miners to form the first cartel.

[CompNsci]

What "appropriate group"?  The central bank of Bitcoin?  The Central Bitcoin Intelligence Agency?

You have no idea which addresses belong to MtGox.  It doesn't strike you as utter contemptible to just start blocking addresses because you think they belong to MtGox? Forget laws, on what ethical or moral authority do you have the right to arrest the wealth on another person?  

As I suggested at the beginning of the thread, I would suggest a group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence. To proceed fairly they would have to weigh the evidence for particular addresses. These addresses can always be unlocked if an owner can submit proof of proper ownership by other than Mt. Gox.

There are quite a few discussions on the web where the evidence looks reasonably compelling that there are large blocks of bitcoin which previously belonged to Mt. Gox and haven't been spent since. I don't believe it is accurate to qualify this evidence as "no idea".

There is another alternative to viewing this as arresting the wealth of anyone. It could be viewed as the miners simply refusing to take part in what they judge to be an unethical transaction. I don't think there is anything wrong with miners deciding they don't want to support what may be a massive fraud or theft.

[DannyHamilton]

How sure are you that 100% of all miners and all mining pools in the entire world will honor the agreement not to put such transactions into the chain in the first place?

I don't believe it would require 100% of all miners. A simple majority, a bit over 50% of the hashing power, should suffice, right?

If even one miner somewhere in the world puts such a transaction into the blockchain, how would you suggest the remaining miners handle the situation?  Do they ignore that block, or do they accept it and build on top of it?

I would suggest they drop it. That way it wouldn't pay to waste a mined block including such a transaction. Since miners choose which transactions are included in the block, they needed include them in the first place.

So your solution is for a group of miners to "solve" a potential theft by stealing bitcoins from other miners?

Sorry, no thanks.  Good luck getting a consensus on this.  Almost certainly it would result in those miners whose blocks are being dropped deciding to drop the blocks from the group you approve of.  This would split the bitcoin blockchain.  There would be 2 bitcoins.  Those that embrace fungibilty of currency, and those that want a cartel that can independently decide whose transactions are "good enough" for their system.

I can tell you which "bitcoin" I'd choose.  I wish you luck with yours.

[CompNsci]

So your solution is a cartel of miners decide to start dropping valid blocks?  Why not drop all valid blocks and double their profits?  They are already breaking the spirit of Bitcoin why half ass it.

They may decide that they don't wish to have their mining power used to support a massive fraud or theft. Deciding to drop valid blocks for that reason has a far greater ethical imperative than doing so to enhance one's own profits.

[DeathAndTaxes]

As I suggested at the beginning of the thread, I would suggest a group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence. To proceed fairly they would have to weigh the evidence for particular addresses. These addresses can always be unlocked if an owner can submit proof of proper ownership by other than Mt. Gox.

So a group of unelected persons appoint themselves as a central authority to police a decentralized system.  Can't possibly see what could go wrong with that?  Maybe you should just use PayPal, they already are the sole judge without recourse for transactions on their network.

[CompNsci]

So your solution is for a group of miners to "solve" a potential theft by stealing bitcoins from other miners?

To avoid miners wasting effort on blocks, this could be phased in at a certain block number. There would be no need for miners who are following the consensus to surrender any earned rewards. It is just a matter of whether the majority of miners would choose to support what is just, that is all, and choosing not to have their own effort mining used to support a massive fraud or theft.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So your solution is a cartel of miners decide to start dropping valid blocks?  Why not drop all valid blocks and double their profits?  They are already breaking the spirit of Bitcoin why half ass it.

They may decide that they don't wish to have their mining power used to support a massive fraud or theft. Deciding to drop valid blocks for that reason has a far greater ethical imperative than doing so to enhance one's own profits.

Theft for the greater good?  Decentralized is too scary, bad people might do bad stuff so we should instead facilitate absolute control by a cartel who is almost certainly to end up doing bad stuff.  

So your solution is for a group of miners to "solve" a potential theft by stealing bitcoins from other miners?

To avoid miners wasting effort on blocks, this could be phased in at a certain block number. There would be no need for miners who are following the consensus to surrender any earned rewards. It is just a matter of whether the majority of miners would choose to support what is just, that is all, and choosing not to have their own effort mining used to support a massive fraud or theft.

Consensus obviously doesn't mean what you think it means.  51% is not a consensus, it is a majority.  Deciding who has the money based on majority rule is a terrible idea.  The point is you have no possibility of a consensus so instead you would force your will upon the minority (potentially a very large minority) by extorting their valid mining reward to compel them to act against their own better judgement.

[DannyHamilton]

As I suggested at the beginning of the thread, I would suggest a group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence. To proceed fairly they would have to weigh the evidence for particular addresses. These addresses can always be unlocked if an owner can submit proof of proper ownership by other than Mt. Gox.

I nominate myself, DeathAndTaxes, QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier.

Hopefully, that group will agree to block no addresses.

 

[DannyHamilton]

To avoid miners wasting effort on blocks, this could be phased in at a certain block number. There would be no need for miners who are following the consensus to surrender any earned rewards. It is just a matter of whether the majority of miners would choose to support what is just, that is all, and choosing not to have their own effort mining used to support a massive fraud or theft.

Consensus.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[CompNsci]

Theft for the greater good? 

Why do you keep insisting on calling this theft? Nothing is being stolen. The miners would simply be refusing to aid what they believe to be a theft or fraud.

I agree, it is a change of the protocol, however, none is stealing the private keys of anyone else.

[DeathAndTaxes]

As I suggested at the beginning of the thread, I would suggest a group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence. To proceed fairly they would have to weigh the evidence for particular addresses. These addresses can always be unlocked if an owner can submit proof of proper ownership by other than Mt. Gox.

I nominate myself, DeathAndTaxes, QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier.

Hopefully, that group will agree to block no addresses.

 

Seconded.  I move that the blacklist should contain no addresses and be forever closed to new addresses.   Situation resolved.

[CompNsci]

Consensus.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

You are correct, I should have written, following the majority of the other miners.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Theft for the greater good?

Why do you keep insisting on calling this theft? Nothing is being stolen. The miners would simply be refusing to aid what they believe to be a theft or fraud.

I agree, it is a change of the protocol, however, none is stealing the private keys of anyone else.

Miners discarding the valid blocks of miners who refuse to engage in the unethical blocking of wealth based on no due process is extortion and tantamount to theft of the block reward.

[CompNsci]

Seconded.  I move that the blacklist should contain no addresses and be forever closed to new addresses.   Situation resolved.

What this will depend on, of course, is who controls the majority of the hashing power. I suppose if you four control 51%, that would make the point. There might be other reasons the rest of us would like to fork then, but that is a different question  

[DannyHamilton]

As I suggested at the beginning of the thread, I would suggest a group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence. To proceed fairly they would have to weigh the evidence for particular addresses. These addresses can always be unlocked if an owner can submit proof of proper ownership by other than Mt. Gox.

I nominate myself, DeathAndTaxes, QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier.

Hopefully, that group will agree to block no addresses.

 

Seconded.  I move that the blacklist should contain no addresses and be forever closed to new addresses.   Situation resolved.

Great.  It sounds like we now have what you've requested...

"A group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence"

As soon as we hear from at least one of QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier we can proceed with your plan.

Assuming one of the three of them agree with D&T and I, I'll take it upon myself to contact all the mining pools and inform them of which addresses they should be ignoring.

[DannyHamilton]

Seconded.  I move that the blacklist should contain no addresses and be forever closed to new addresses.   Situation resolved.

What this will depend on, of course, is who controls the majority of the hashing power. I suppose if you four control 51%, that would make the point. There might be other reasons the rest of us would like to fork then, but that is a different question  

Wait!  You're changing the rules?

You said a group of people respected by the community.  You didn't say anything about leaving the decision in the hands of the pools that have 51% of the hashing power.  I thought an independent group was supposed to review the evidence and inform the pools of which addresses they should ignore?

[CompNsci]

Miners discarding the valid blocks of miners who refuse to engage in the unethical blocking of wealth based on no due process is extortion and tantamount to theft of the block reward.

Hypothetical - what is someone doesn't mine at all. Is that extortion and tantamount to theft of the block reward? What constitutes the valid blockchain is essentially determined by a majority of the hashing power.

Also, the statement here ignores the fact that this proposal is to have a form of due process -- appropriate weighting of evidence and an appeals process.

[CompNsci]

You said a group of people respected by the community.  You didn't say anything about leaving the decision in the hands of the pools that have 51% of the hashing power.  I thought an independent group was supposed to review the evidence and inform the pools of which addresses they should ignore?

Good point. I guess the people controlling 51% of the hashing power would have to determine which independent group had sufficient validity. Such a group, constituted appropriately, seems like it could persuade them.

[Biomech]

Anyone who feels their coins have been unfairly locked, because they weren't part of the Mt. Gox wallets, can just provide proof of ownership to the appropriate group to have the addresses removed from the locked list. Clearly this would require good evidence, but that can be arranged and weighed appropriately.

What "appropriate group"?  The central bank of Bitcoin?  The Central Bitcoin Intelligence Agency?

You have no idea which addresses belong to MtGox.  It doesn't strike you as utter contemptible to just start blocking addresses because you think they belong to MtGox? Forget laws, on what ethical or moral authority do you have the right to arrest the wealth on another person? 

There is nothing wrong with the Bitcoin community, as a consensus, saying they want to be just and support law enforcement in such cases. In fact, I would argue it is using available information and the capabilities of new crypto-currencies in a freedom supporting way.

Except by the responses of this very thread you already don't have a consensus and that is with only a tiny number of people knowing about it.  What you want is a central all powerful authority to control the wealth of others based on the flimsiest of evidence.  Evidence which BTW wouldn't be sufficient in a court of law to freeze assets "Your honor we think these assets might belong to the defandant so we want you to freeze them for an indefinite amount of time just in case.  This was thoroughly researched by some people on the internet and stuff.".

Sounds much like the "asset forfeiture" scam that so many states are running these days in regards to (usually alleged) drug smuggling.

If bitcoin is viable, it is BECAUSE things like this can't be done.

I hope Kareles et. al. can or will recover the majority of the losses through legitimate means, or that the sale of their assets is such that most of the clients receive some compensation. However, there is NO scenario in which it would be wise to break bitcoin for the sake of making some people whole who were scammed or defrauded by a sketchy outfit.

The story that they're telling about malleability is simply untrue. Somebody, somewhere has the keys to the "missing" coins. Beyond the flimsy cover story, we really do not know what's going on. However, if the bankruptcy details they have made public are correct, they have close to half the missing assest already, not including customer funds. Which means that the missing coins can be had back at about 50 percent. Given how many sharks circled in at the low prices to try and gather up cheap coins, a lot of people would still make out well on this.

But that is an aside. You don't reissue a security because a brokerage stole some of it, and you don't reissue a currency for that reason either. If they "find" the coins, cool. If they don't, bitcoin is 6 percent more valuable.

While that seems harsh, going the "let's run to big daddy" thing is much harsher. Six percent is very paltry compared to 100 percent.

[CompNsci]

Seriously, many of the proposals to "help law enforcement" I've seen over the last few days seem far more likely to hinder any investigation than anything else.  Y'all need to step back and let investigators do their thing working within the law because if one of you idiots fucks up the legal cases against MtGox in your quest to play Ellery Queen, nobody is going to give a shit that you had "good intentions".

Good point about the potential dangers, particularly with the possible leaks of the source code and the database.

OTOH, it strikes me that freezing spending of reasonably well identified Mt. Gox accounts would be beneficial. How do you think that would harm an investigation? It strikes me as similar to evidence preservation.

[Peter R]

Firstly, you will never achieve consensus on an idea like this.  Bitcoin is digital cash for a reason.  

Secondly, in an alternate universe where you did freeze coins, it would set a precedent that people aren't responsible for their actions and decisions.  It would snowball into a centralized and ambiguous system, complete with favouritism, socialized bailouts, and a loss of freedom for its users.  

Thirdly, MtGox users did not lose their bitcoins.  MtGox defaulted on bitcoin IOUs.  There is a fundamental difference here that we as a community must come to appreciate. For the first time in history, we have a technology that allows its users to store, transport and exchange value with anyone else in the world, without the assistance of a third party or the permission of an authority.  All you need to do is secure your private keys.  

[CompNsci]

But that is an aside. You don't reissue a security because a brokerage stole some of it, and you don't reissue a currency for that reason either. If they "find" the coins, cool. If they don't, bitcoin is 6 percent more valuable.

While that seems harsh, going the "let's run to big daddy" thing is much harsher. Six percent is very paltry compared to 100 percent.

Nice thoughtful remarks.

Is this really like re-issuing a security though? It strikes me as more like evidence preservation, locking up the securities until their proper ownership can be determined.

This proposal is not intended to "run to big daddy" at all. This is not a proposal for any government agency or some such to regulate or change bitcoin in any way. It is a proposal for miners, those controlling more than 51% of the hashing power, to refuse to let their resources be used to support a large scale fraud or theft.

[justusranvier]

As soon as we hear from at least one of QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier we can proceed with your plan.

I am gravely concerned that my name is being mentioned in a list of people who are "respected by the community".

Obviously I must have been slacking off somehow.

What can I do to make this right?

[QuestionAuthority]

I vote we lock this thread and stop discussing the distruction of Bitcoins fungibility forever.

[solex]

I agree. The OP is yet another rinse and repeat of one of the worst proposals possible.

Something's wrong when senior members of the forum have no clue how the integrity and value of Bitcoin is maintained.

[Beliathon]

Never going to happen.

/thread

[Littleshop]

What "appropriate group"?  The central bank of Bitcoin?  The Central Bitcoin Intelligence Agency?

You have no idea which addresses belong to MtGox.  It doesn't strike you as utter contemptible to just start blocking addresses because you think they belong to MtGox? Forget laws, on what ethical or moral authority do you have the right to arrest the wealth on another person?  

As I suggested at the beginning of the thread, I would suggest a group of people, reasonably respected in the community, be set up to judge the evidence. To proceed fairly they would have to weigh the evidence for particular addresses. These addresses can always be unlocked if an owner can submit proof of proper ownership by other than Mt. Gox.

There are quite a few discussions on the web where the evidence looks reasonably compelling that there are large blocks of bitcoin which previously belonged to Mt. Gox and haven't been spent since. I don't believe it is accurate to qualify this evidence as "no idea".

There is another alternative to viewing this as arresting the wealth of anyone. It could be viewed as the miners simply refusing to take part in what they judge to be an unethical transaction. I don't think there is anything wrong with miners deciding they don't want to support what may be a massive fraud or theft.

This is centralization, and is against one of the core values of Bitcoin.  End of discussion.



Ok.  No.  There is something you can do.  Make a client for users and a bitcoind for miners and pools that simply does not processes certain addresses that you are against.  Then publicize and distribute that client.  If you get 51% of the miners to follow you, you win!   It is not a whole lot of code just to ignore the addresses either.   Then when someone tries to move those coins, the network will fork.  If you have enough on your side the network will re-organize every time a block is mined with those coins and revert back to your fork without those coins moving. 

[Biomech]

As soon as we hear from at least one of QuestionAuthority, LaudaM, and justusranvier we can proceed with your plan.

I am gravely concerned that my name is being mentioned in a list of people who are "respected by the community".

Obviously I must have been slacking off somehow.

What can I do to make this right?

I've been accused of being level headed and sane several times on this forum. It's kind of weird. I'm used to being the crazy one. Maybe the same deal?

[Lauda]

Such a thing would destroy bitcoin. It should never be allowed to happen, no blocks will be erased.

I don't believe this requires any blocks to be erased or modified in any way. The miners can simply refuse to add transactions moving bitcoin out from the locked addresses to any other address, that is all. All other aspects of new blocks produced can remain the same.

But what you're proposing is very risky for the whole network, just to keep some coins from being spent?
This would open up room for similar events taking place in the future, which would be even worse.

[tss]

bitcoin is bitcoin.. thats what its for.. no take backs.. no indian givers.. you wanna sell drugs.. guns.. or even uproot fiat.. i dont care... thats why bitcoin was created. if you're a damn fool and dont follow the protocol then you deserve to be robbed.. ie.. hold coins in our own wallets and dont let greed take over by trusting your coins to someone else (it says so right when you download bitcoin client !!! DONT TRUST OTHERS WITH YOUR COIN)

[Soros Shorts]

If you fork the blockchain it is a guaranteed fact that somebody somewhere will get screwed over. How could this be a good idea?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Given the possible recent leak of the Mt. Gox source code and database, what would the core developers and mining community think of locking the apparent large wallet balances belonging to Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, and Jeb McCaleb by changing the protocol for now?

The idea would not be to accept any transactions spending these bitcoin until the Mt. Gox bankruptcy case is sorted out. A committee, possibly appointed by the Bitcoin Foundation, could verify proper ownership before the coins are cleared for spending and a change back is made.

This would be a bit different than the idea of taking the coins permanently, or permanently invalidating them. The intention here would be to simply assist the legal process.

I know this is not something which can be done for every theft, etc., but we are talking about 6% of all bitcoin mined to date, which are presently tangled up in a real legal mess.

I suppose a general principle to govern this could be that when an entity controlling greater than some number of fraction of bitcoin is subject to legal action, such as a bankruptcy, charges of fraud, lawsuits, etc., that coins may be locked pending the outcome of litigation.

Bad idea! (with apologies)

[btc4ever]

Hey OP:

Multiple senior people on these boards have told you this one of or possibly the worst proposal they have ever heard of for bitcoin.

Not just one person.  Several.

And yet still you persist in arguing for it.

If it were me, and I had submitted such a bad idea and then been repeatedly called out on it, I would shut up, have a good think, and study up a good deal more before making any further boneheaded proposals.

In other words, why don't you shut the hell up before you make more of an ass of yourself.

have a nice day.

[BitCoinDream]

Given the possible recent leak of the Mt. Gox source code and database, what would the core developers and mining community think of locking the apparent large wallet balances belonging to Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, and Jeb McCaleb by changing the protocol for now?

The idea would not be to accept any transactions spending these bitcoin until the Mt. Gox bankruptcy case is sorted out. A committee, possibly appointed by the Bitcoin Foundation, could verify proper ownership before the coins are cleared for spending and a change back is made.

This would be a bit different than the idea of taking the coins permanently, or permanently invalidating them. The intention here would be to simply assist the legal process.

I know this is not something which can be done for every theft, etc., but we are talking about 6% of all bitcoin mined to date, which are presently tangled up in a real legal mess.

I suppose a general principle to govern this could be that when an entity controlling greater than some number of fraction of bitcoin is subject to legal action, such as a bankruptcy, charges of fraud, lawsuits, etc., that coins may be locked pending the outcome of litigation.

If this idea is accepted, I'll do my best to warn people to stay away from a centralized system like Bitcoin. When a newbie's coin get hacked, u give your big words that how noob they are. And now u r Goxed and crying like a baby. Be matured.

[ZephramC]

Also, people whose addresses would be unjustly blocked by OP solution shall have no obligation to prove their innocence, provide any evidence or identification.
Violating fungibility is a bad idea. Some things in fiat world considered "ethical" and "just" (and enforced even on those who disagree with "inevitable truth of such ethic") are simply algorithmically prohibited (or complicated tremendously) by Bitcoin protocol. This is not a bug, but it is a feature of Bitcoin and one of the reasons of its success.

[broolstoryco]

Such a thing would destroy bitcoin. It should never be allowed to happen, no blocks will be erased.

this x100. there is nothing to discuss here, such a proposal goes against everything bitcoin stands for.

[DooMAD]

It seems I can copy and paste word-for-word my response in another thread here:

This is the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be corrected. 

Hats are designed to be worn on your head.  If you wear them on your foot and they don't work correctly, there isn't a fault with the way the hat is designed, there a fault with you not using it as intended.

Bitcoin is designed as peer-to-peer money.  One Sender and one Recipient.  If you leave someone else in charge of your coins, there isn't a fault with the way Bitcoin is designed, there a fault with you not using it as intended.

If someone was standing on a street corner with a glass box full of money and they said they'd look after your cash for you, and you were stupid enough to put your money in the box and find that they are not there the following day, is that a fault with the way money is designed?  Or is that a fault with you being reckless and naive?

Exchanges should never have become as popular as they are in the first place.  People just need to learn the difference between the fiat money world and the digital world.  Exchanges are not banks and you should not trust them, or anyone else, to look after your money for you.  Use it properly and you won't get burned.

[Biomech]

It seems I can copy and paste word-for-word my response in another thread here:

This is the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be corrected. 

Hats are designed to be worn on your head.  If you wear them on your foot and they don't work correctly, there isn't a fault with the way the hat is designed, there a fault with you not using it as intended.

Bitcoin is designed as peer-to-peer money.  One Sender and one Recipient.  If you leave someone else in charge of your coins, there isn't a fault with the way Bitcoin is designed, there a fault with you not using it as intended.

If someone was standing on a street corner with a glass box full of money and they said they'd look after your cash for you, and you were stupid enough to put your money in the box and find that they are not there the following day, is that a fault with the way money is designed?  Or is that a fault with you being reckless and naive?

Exchanges should never have become as popular as they are in the first place.  People just need to learn the difference between the fiat money world and the digital world.  Exchanges are not banks and you should not trust them, or anyone else, to look after your money for you.  Use it properly and you won't get burned.

Quoted for both beauty and truth.

[Buffer Overflow]

Another one of these silly threads started because someone doesn't understand why bitcoin has any value in the first place.

[CompNsci]

Multiple senior people on these boards have told you this one of or possibly the worst proposal they have ever heard of for bitcoin.

I understand people's reluctance, but I've yet to hear that this would really hurt anyone other than possibly the people with the locked coins. And in those cases, there would be a procedure for unlocking.

I also understand the general concern that this would change the underlying perception of bitcoin. In other words, that the value of bitcoin for most people is derived from the fact that there is no such locking possible. Now while that certainly has been the rule to date, the question is, would such an ability to lock addresses, subject to a review procedure, increase or decrease the typical potential user's confidence?

Certainly the criminal element wouldn't like this. By and large, of course, they would usually be flying under the radar of some limit on the amount and would likely be in trouble by the time legal action is taken against them anyway, but presumably they still wouldn't like this.

But I do wonder what the effect would be for the much larger number of potential users that bitcoin is trying to expand into? Certainly the aficionados who tend to read this forum aren't representative of this group.

I've actually read comments of at least a few miners that might be in favor of such an idea, because they don't want their resources being used to commit a large fraud or theft.

I tend to be interested in the actual facts behind an issue and don't pay much attention to arguments from authority. If you don't like my discussions or posts, please go ahead and block me so you don't have to read them.

[CompNsci]

Make a client for users and a bitcoind for miners and pools that simply does not processes certain addresses that you are against.  Then publicize and distribute that client.  If you get 51% of the miners to follow you, you win!   It is not a whole lot of code just to ignore the addresses either.   Then when someone tries to move those coins, the network will fork.  If you have enough on your side the network will re-organize every time a block is mined with those coins and revert back to your fork without those coins moving. 

You're correct. It would just require agreement of 51% of the mining power.

[DannyHamilton]

Multiple senior people on these boards have told you this one of or possibly the worst proposal they have ever heard of for bitcoin.

I understand people's reluctance, but I've yet to hear that this would really hurt anyone other than possibly the people with the locked coins. And in those cases, there would be a procedure for unlocking.

I also understand the general concern that this would change the underlying perception of bitcoin. In other words, that the value of bitcoin for most people is derived from the fact that there is no such locking possible. Now while that certainly has been the rule to date, the question is, would such an ability to lock addresses, subject to a review procedure, increase or decrease the typical potential user's confidence?

Certainly the criminal element wouldn't like this. By and large, of course, they would usually be flying under the radar of some limit on the amount and would likely be in trouble by the time legal action is taken against them anyway, but presumably they still wouldn't like this.

But I do wonder what the effect would be for the much larger number of potential users that bitcoin is trying to expand into? Certainly the aficionados who tend to read this forum aren't representative of this group.

I've actually read comments of at least a few miners that might be in favor of such an idea, because they don't want their resources being used to commit a large fraud or theft.

I tend to be interested in the actual facts behind an issue and don't pay much attention to arguments from authority. If you don't like my discussions or posts, please go ahead and block me so you don't have to read them.

You are right.  If you can gather a significant majority you can fork bitcoin.  The minority will either continue without everyone else on their own fungible bitcoin or will give up and join your non-fungible system.

I say go for it.  It seems that you are one of those people that aren't capable of learning from the wisdom of others.  You prefer to just try foolish things and see what happens.  I wish you all the luck in the world.  You seem to believe that there would be significant support for such an idea, so go ahead and implement it.

Start contacting mining pools and individual miners.  Convince them to accept this new system.  Get your "trusted authority" put together and write up the rules and procedures that they will use to review lock and unlock submissions.

Either you are correct and your idea will take off, or you are wrong and you are wasting your own time.  Either way, doesn't matter to me.

To me, your system will just be another dogecoin.  I'll stay with the fungible bitcoins, and watch from a distance with interest to see what happens with your experiment.

When you're all done, stop back and let us all know how it worked out for you.

[lucasjkr]

Everyone talks about how bitcoin is free of all constraints, yet when a high profile event happens (this, silkroad) there are those who out forward the idea of locking certain coins out of being used in transactions.  Don't you get, if the community came together and enabled such a thing, then those dreaded courts and governments could step forward and make the same requests?

No. Once you start locking coins out of being processed, then the entire idea of bitcoin and it's commence without constraints is over.

[Biomech]

Multiple senior people on these boards have told you this one of or possibly the worst proposal they have ever heard of for bitcoin.

I understand people's reluctance, but I've yet to hear that this would really hurt anyone other than possibly the people with the locked coins. And in those cases, there would be a procedure for unlocking.

I also understand the general concern that this would change the underlying perception of bitcoin. In other words, that the value of bitcoin for most people is derived from the fact that there is no such locking possible. Now while that certainly has been the rule to date, the question is, would such an ability to lock addresses, subject to a review procedure, increase or decrease the typical potential user's confidence?

Certainly the criminal element wouldn't like this. By and large, of course, they would usually be flying under the radar of some limit on the amount and would likely be in trouble by the time legal action is taken against them anyway, but presumably they still wouldn't like this.

But I do wonder what the effect would be for the much larger number of potential users that bitcoin is trying to expand into? Certainly the aficionados who tend to read this forum aren't representative of this group.

I've actually read comments of at least a few miners that might be in favor of such an idea, because they don't want their resources being used to commit a large fraud or theft.

I tend to be interested in the actual facts behind an issue and don't pay much attention to arguments from authority. If you don't like my discussions or posts, please go ahead and block me so you don't have to read them.

I'm a miner, and I would leave bitcoin the day such a foul scheme were enacted.

Which criminals do you think would be affected by this? The Goxxers?

Maybe. But one well known criminal groupl would seize on your proposal like a fish to water. By implementing this, you have just opened the door for asset forfeiture, which is one of the biggest scams in human history. And that particular criminal group steals between 50 and 75 percent of every honest man's income every single year, and then uses the money against us. So far, Bitcoin is resistant to this. If you implement this, We might as well throw in the towel. The governments will own all of the blockchain in less than a day.

[Coins4life]

QFT

You do understand you will never convince miners to erase 3,000 blocks of the blockchain however if you did, then Bitcoin is done.   Remember over those 3,000 blocks, newly mined coins have been involved in transactions and this action would double spend all of those.  The coins originally minted would never exist and thus the coins spent wouldn't.  Merchants, other users, exchanges would all see the downstream transactions (which have 6 ro 3,000+ confirmations) suddenly go unconfirmed and invalid.

While this in theory could be done at any time it is generally accepted to be impossible.  If miners by decree can double spend transaction not 1 or 2 confirmations into the blockchain but 3,000 blocks deep then no receiver can ever be sure that the transaction is irreversible.  There is a certain level of faith in all currencies that create the perception of value, and Bitcoin is no exception.  Among those faiths, Bitcoin users believe that while it is possible in theory to 51% the network and undo transactions thousands of blocks deep, that it would have such an economic cost that it infeasible.  All users accept this faith or they wouldn't be using bitcoin (or would require 10,000+ confirmations before concluding the transaction).  Your proposed action (although I think it has no chance) if successful would break that faith.  Without faith in the irreversibility of transactions, there is no value or utility to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin would be dead.  I am not talking the exchange rate goes down a bit and recovers, I mean completely abandoned as a worthless experiment and development moves on to future systems which don't have the vulnerability (likely some floating checkpoint system which acts as a check to the proof of work).

How do you use a currency that at any time could simply be "undone" and erased from your wallet by the actions of a third party?  Would you use that currency?  I know I wouldn't.  I genuinely feel sorry for those who lost significant amounts of money by misplacing their trust in MtGox but this is a situation where the cure is worse than the disease.

This

[cdog]

I understand people's reluctance

Yes, I am reluctant to completely destroy Bitcoin and reduce its value to zero.

If you dont understand why this would happen, you actually dont "grok" the core concept of a decentralized peer-to-peer cryptocurrency.

You recognize Bitcoins value. But clearly you dont understand that what gives it such incredible value is directly at odds with what you are suggesting.

[DannyHamilton]

I've had a change of heart.

I think there's only one way some people will learn this lesson.  Therefore, I'm willing to put my belief to the test.

If you can get me a digitally signed statement from the operator of even one of the largest pools:

• GHash.IO
• Eligius
• BTC Guild
• Discus Fish
• BitMinter
• Slush

stating that they agree with your concept and will implement it, then I'll personally fork the github repository and create the necessary bitcoind and bitcoin-qt software to implement the address ignoring.

Of course, along with the changes, I'll also be widely advertising to everyone the pools willingness to go along with the plan.  It will be very interesting to see how many miners will abandon the pool.

Let me know when any of the listed pools accept your idea.  Until then, any discussion is an exercise in futility (you aren't going to get 50%+ without getting at least 2 of these pools).

[Biomech]

I've had a change of heart.

I think there's only one way some people will learn this lesson.  Therefore, I'm willing to put my belief to the test.

If you can get me digitally signed statement from the operator of even one of the largest pools:

• GHash.IO
• Eligius
• BTC Guild
• Discus Fish
• BitMinter
• Slush

stating that they agree with your concept and will implement it, then I'll personally fork the github repository and create the necessary bitcoind and bitcoin-qt software to implement the address ignoring.

Of course, along with the changes, I'll also be widely advertising to everyone the pools willingness to go along with the plan.  It will be very interesting to see how many miners will abandon the pool.

Let me know when any of the listed pools accept your idea.  Until then, any discussion is an exercise in futility (you aren't going to get 50%+ without getting at least 2 of these pools).

+1000

[DeathAndTaxes]

I've had a change of heart.

I think there's only one way some people will learn this lesson.  Therefore, I'm willing to put my belief to the test.

If you can get me digitally signed statement from the operator of even one of the largest pools:

• GHash.IO
• Eligius
• BTC Guild
• Discus Fish
• BitMinter
• Slush

stating that they agree with your concept and will implement it, then I'll personally fork the github repository and create the necessary bitcoind and bitcoin-qt software to implement the address ignoring.

Of course, along with the changes, I'll also be widely advertising to everyone the pools willingness to go along with the plan.  It will be very interesting to see how many miners will abandon the pool.

Let me know when any of the listed pools accept your idea.  Until then, any discussion is an exercise in futility (you aren't going to get 50%+ without getting at least 2 of these pools).

[QuestionAuthority]

I've had a change of heart.

I think there's only one way some people will learn this lesson.  Therefore, I'm willing to put my belief to the test.

If you can get me digitally signed statement from the operator of even one of the largest pools:

• GHash.IO
• Eligius
• BTC Guild
• Discus Fish
• BitMinter
• Slush

stating that they agree with your concept and will implement it, then I'll personally fork the github repository and create the necessary bitcoind and bitcoin-qt software to implement the address ignoring.

Of course, along with the changes, I'll also be widely advertising to everyone the pools willingness to go along with the plan.  It will be very interesting to see how many miners will abandon the pool.

Let me know when any of the listed pools accept your idea.  Until then, any discussion is an exercise in futility (you aren't going to get 50%+ without getting at least 2 of these pools).

You're wasting your time. Very few people here are sophisticated (old) enough to know what a gauntlet is or what throwing down a gauntlet means.

[DannyHamilton]

If they choose not to carry transactions involved in such a large criminal activity, that would strike me as reasonable

the ability to perform such a lock under extreme circumstances can be considered a strength of Bitcoin.

I would argue it is using available information and the capabilities of new crypto-currencies in a freedom supporting way.

the community can pull together for the sake of justice?

a majority of the hashing power would support it.

a bit over 50% of the hashing power, should suffice

don't think there is anything wrong with miners deciding they don't want to support what may be a massive fraud or theft.

they don't wish to have their mining power used to support a massive fraud or theft.

Deciding to drop valid blocks ... has a far greater ethical imperative

miners would choose to support what is just, that is all, and choosing not to have their own effort mining used to support a massive fraud or theft.

following the majority of the other miners.

the people controlling 51% of the hashing power would have to determine which independent group had sufficient validity

miners, those controlling more than 51% of the hashing power, to refuse to let their resources be used to support a large scale fraud or theft.

I've actually read comments of at least a few miners that might be in favor of such an idea, because they don't want their resources being used to commit a large fraud or theft.

don't pay much attention to arguments from authority

It would just require agreement of 51% of the mining power.

Clearly you've laid out a convincing argument.  I'm sure you have mining pools contacting you already asking to be involved in this effort.  We have to hurry.  The longer we wait the more time the thieves will have to hide their trail and disperse the stolen bit coins throughout the economy.  Please get me the required signed statement as soon as possible.

Do you have any suggestions on how much "taint" is sufficient to authorize a "lock"?  Will the output have to be proven to be 100% entirely from the MtGox theft?  Maybe anything more than 90% tainted should be locked?  Really since we are using 50% of the hashing power to enforce the rules, perhaps we should consider anything more than 50% tainted should be locked.  Come to think of it, given the "ethical imperative" and the "massive fraud or theft", I suppose the best thing to do is consider anything more than 0.1% tainted to be lockable.  It should be acceptable to temporarily lock valid bitcoins to protect the community from assisting the thief.

Since anyone with any tainted bitcoins at all is a potential thief, it might be a good idea to lock all their bitcoins, and not just the tainted outputs.  Therefore, if any address has even a single output that is at least 0.1% tainted, we should probably lock all the unspent outputs that are currently associated with that address.

Furthermore, we shouldn't be letting a thief spend any other bitcoins that they control (since we may need to seize these in the future to compensate the victims).  Therefore, any address that ever had any of its outputs used as inputs in a transaction with an address that is being locked should also be locked.

We need to get a list of addresses from MtGox as soon as possible.  In the meantime, please present any reasonably reliable list that you've found.

Barring that, we need to quickly establish the set of specific criteria that an address will have to meet to be locked.

Again, time is our enemy on this.  Please contact some of the many miners that obviously would be interested in this.  We need to pressure at least one mining pool to go along with it if you don't already have buy-in from the operator of the mining pool.

If there aren't any major mining pool operators that understand the importance of this, perhaps you can organize a boycott?  If you can get enough miners to agree to withhold their hashing equipment from the pool until the pool succumbs to the community pressure, then we may be able to change their minds.

Anxiously waiting for a pool operator to agree to the plan...

[coastermonger]

Wow Danny, calm down.  You're being baited.

[DannyHamilton]

Wow Danny, calm down.  You're being baited.

I know.  But I'm bored, and this concept is so dumb it's entertaining me.  It's a bit like watching The Three Stooges.

The OP has created a fantasy in his mind from the land of unicorns and leprechauns, and is acting like it has real bearing in the real world.

I like a good fantasy story once in a while.

I'm true to my word though...  If I'm wrong and the OP can actually find support from major mining pools, I'll get it coded for him.

I'll be happy to be rid of the mining pool when they fork the blockchain.  I have no desire for any such miners or pools in the real bitcoin.

[Biomech]

I've had a change of heart.

I think there's only one way some people will learn this lesson.  Therefore, I'm willing to put my belief to the test.

If you can get me digitally signed statement from the operator of even one of the largest pools:

• GHash.IO
• Eligius
• BTC Guild
• Discus Fish
• BitMinter
• Slush

stating that they agree with your concept and will implement it, then I'll personally fork the github repository and create the necessary bitcoind and bitcoin-qt software to implement the address ignoring.

Of course, along with the changes, I'll also be widely advertising to everyone the pools willingness to go along with the plan.  It will be very interesting to see how many miners will abandon the pool.

Let me know when any of the listed pools accept your idea.  Until then, any discussion is an exercise in futility (you aren't going to get 50%+ without getting at least 2 of these pools).

You're wasting your time. Very few people here are sophisticated (old) enough to know what a gauntlet is or what throwing down a gauntlet means.

I suspect you might be surprised.

[Biomech]

Wow Danny, calm down.  You're being baited.

I think you got that backwards...

@Danny, I think I would survive your schema unscathed. Almost all of my coins from beginning to end have been generated at Eliigius, BTCguild or Bitparking

[DannyHamilton]

Wow Danny, calm down.  You're being baited.

I think you got that backwards...

Shhhhh.  You'll ruin my fun.

 

@Danny, I think I would survive your schema unscathed. Almost all of my coins from beginning to end have been generated at Eliigius, BTCguild or Bitparking

You'd think so, but when computing "taint" I intend to consider mining fees that are included in the coinbase transaction.  If any of those mining fees are "tainted", then the resulting coinbase is "tainted" proportionally.

 

That's just the kind of guy I am.  If we're going to do this, then we need to get serious about it.

[Biomech]

Wow Danny, calm down.  You're being baited.

I think you got that backwards...

Shhhhh.  You'll ruin my fun.

 

@Danny, I think I would survive your schema unscathed. Almost all of my coins from beginning to end have been generated at Eliigius, BTCguild or Bitparking

You'd think so, but when computing "taint" I intend to consider mining fees that are included in the coinbase transaction.  If any of those mining fees are "tainted", then the resulting coinbase is "tainted" proportionally.

 

That's just the kind of guy I am.  If we're going to do this, then we need to get serious about it.

It would be ridiculously funny if he pulled it off. I'm relatively certain that Eligius would never go for it, but I'm not so sure about ghash.io, and nobody seems to know shit about Discus Fish. All the other pools would get one hell of a boost!

[DannyHamilton]

It would be ridiculously funny if he pulled it off. I'm relatively certain that Eligius would never go for it, but I'm not so sure about ghash.io, and nobody seems to know shit about Discus Fish. All the other pools would get one hell of a boost!

I highly doubt any pool is going to go out into the yard and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs just because some random internet user tells them that the goose will taste good for dinner.

If they do, they deserve to eat the meal that they cook.

[jonald_fyookball]

why is it that the most ridiculous threads get the most action...people must love to argue

[Beef Supreme]

10 of those "Gox coins" are mine!   How about we lock them where they belong, back on my paper wallet.  I deposited them after the withdrawal stoppage, so I know damn well they have not left Gox's pocket!

Thief!

[Buffer Overflow]

We should urgently the lock the full blockchain for a few years, until a self appointed team decides which ones to unlock!

[CompNsci]

Do you have any suggestions on how much "taint" is sufficient to authorize a "lock"?  Will the output have to be proven to be 100% entirely from the MtGox theft?  Maybe anything more than 90% tainted should be locked?  Really since we are using 50% of the hashing power to enforce the rules, perhaps we should consider anything more than 50% tainted should be locked.  Come to think of it, given the "ethical imperative" and the "massive fraud or theft", I suppose the best thing to do is consider anything more than 0.1% tainted to be lockable.  It should be acceptable to temporarily lock valid bitcoins to protect the community from assisting the thief.

So glad to see that this idea is being taken seriously 

This raises an interesting point though. My original proposal was only to lock coins presently belonging to Mt. Gox. I don't think it would be wise to lock coins belonging to others which might have been derived from stolen Mt. Gox coins, as this does become an even harder problem from an evidence point of view. Also, those others are not presently under legal action concerning the missing coins, whereas Mt. Gox is.

Clearly the evidentiary standards would need to be seriously considered.

You raise a good point though that this really is up to the miners. Sounds like the lock would be technically feasible, actually, not that hard.

10 of those "Gox coins" are mine!   How about we lock them where they belong, back on my paper wallet.  I deposited them after the withdrawal stoppage, so I know damn well they have not left Gox's pocket!

Here's an example of a user that might benefit from this. With the Gox coins locked, at least they wouldn't be stolen or leaked to someone else until after the court proceedings.

[Buffer Overflow]

10 of those "Gox coins" are mine!   How about we lock them where they belong, back on my paper wallet.  I deposited them after the withdrawal stoppage, so I know damn well they have not left Gox's pocket!

God give me strength. I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

[solex]

10 of those "Gox coins" are mine!   How about we lock them where they belong, back on my paper wallet.  I deposited them after the withdrawal stoppage, so I know damn well they have not left Gox's pocket!

God give me strength. I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

Yeah. I know, I was thinking of similar events like someone giving money to Nigerian email scammers and complaining afterwards, but you sum up the situation perfectly.

[ReCat]

Why don't we stop talking about it and release a new bitcoin-qt and miner that invalidates transactions from their wallets?

[shitscared]

Why don't we stop talking about it and release a new bitcoin-qt and miner that invalidates transactions from their wallets?

+1 id run it!

[Beef Supreme]

10 of those "Gox coins" are mine!   How about we lock them where they belong, back on my paper wallet.  I deposited them after the withdrawal stoppage, so I know damn well they have not left Gox's pocket!

God give me strength. I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

Yeah. I know, I was thinking of similar events like someone giving money to Nigerian email scammers and complaining afterwards, but you sum up the situation perfectly.

So the ripoff of Gox is comparable to a Nigerian Craigslist scam?

One is the friggin' Battleship of fraud, the other is a one man dingy.

[Buffer Overflow]

10 of those "Gox coins" are mine!   How about we lock them where they belong, back on my paper wallet.  I deposited them after the withdrawal stoppage, so I know damn well they have not left Gox's pocket!

God give me strength. I'm beginning to lose the will to live.

Yeah. I know, I was thinking of similar events like someone giving money to Nigerian email scammers and complaining afterwards, but you sum up the situation perfectly.

So the ripoff of Gox is comparable to a Nigerian Craigslist scam?

One is the friggin' Battleship of fraud, the other is a one man dingy.

The end result is the same. The coins/money have disappeared, you won't be getting them back.

Why don't we stop talking about it and release a new bitcoin-qt and miner that invalidates transactions from their wallets?

Go for it, Bitcoin is free (as in speech).

But remember; others are also free to use your new fork or not. This is where your greatest challenge exists.

Best not to call the new forked coin Bitcoin, as it will cause confusion. Maybe 'untrustworthyCoin', 'bailoutCoin' or even 'CannotTrustCoinAsMaybeFrozenAtSomeFuturePointInTimeCoin'?

[solex]

Best not to call the new forked coin Bitcoin, as it will cause confusion. Maybe 'untrustworthyCoin', 'bailoutCoin' or even 'CannotTrustCoinAsMaybeFrozenAtSomeFuturePointInTimeCoin'?

The thing is that even if "apparent" gox addresses are locked, never mind the collateral damage of locked coins on non-gox addresses of innocent bitcoin holders, this would not return any funds to people who had their coins lost on gox.

It is purely an act of revenge. So the the forked Bitcoin is best called RevengeCoin.

[Loozik]

Given the possible recent leak of the Mt. Gox source code and database, what would the core developers and mining community think of locking the apparent large wallet balances belonging to Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, and Jeb McCaleb by changing the protocol for now?

To my knowledge there was a case of a mining pool operator who was robbed. The victim alarmed the community quickly (this is what a victim normally does when robbed) and the community could react also quickly and some portion of the stolen coins were retrieved.

Unfortunately for the goxed and fortunately for the ''thieves'', Mark Karpeles had allowed about a month before announcing that ''theft'' happened. He didn't even tell to which addresses the ''stolen'' coins were sent. MtGox is under civil rehabilitation, meaning Karpeles will probably never reveal to which addresses the ''stolen'' coins were withdrawn.

The idea would not be to accept any transactions spending these bitcoin until the Mt. Gox bankruptcy case is sorted out.

Only some portion of the ''stolen'' coins are in static addresses now. Majority was simply divided by four, divided by four, divided by four*, then sent to an exchange, sold and or bought back. Most reasonable here is to look for the so called theives' names in exchanges' records - only in case you are absolutely 100% sure (you can't be 100% sure because Karpeles - unlike the robbed ones in the past - did not tell to which addresses the ''stolen'' coins were sent).

A committee, possibly appointed by the Bitcoin Foundation, could verify proper ownership before the coins are cleared for spending and a change back is made.

If what happened was a real theft TBF might do something. Nothing so far (Karapeles' bahaviour and other stuff) indicates this was a theft.


*EDIT: now they are being divided by 8, 18, etc.: https://blockchain.info/address/12WFth5HabiVrcj5waHtDP1b7gXSQPuDPz still not sure if these are the ''disappeared'' / ''unaccounted for'' / ''stolen'' coins.

[sgbett]

Given the possible recent leak of the Mt. Gox source code and database, what would the core developers and mining community think of locking the apparent large wallet balances belonging to Mt. Gox, Mark Karpeles, and Jeb McCaleb by changing the protocol for now?

The idea would not be to accept any transactions spending these bitcoin until the Mt. Gox bankruptcy case is sorted out. A committee, possibly appointed by the Bitcoin Foundation, could verify proper ownership before the coins are cleared for spending and a change back is made.

This would be a bit different than the idea of taking the coins permanently, or permanently invalidating them. The intention here would be to simply assist the legal process.

I know this is not something which can be done for every theft, etc., but we are talking about 6% of all bitcoin mined to date, which are presently tangled up in a real legal mess.

I suppose a general principle to govern this could be that when an entity controlling greater than some number of fraction of bitcoin is subject to legal action, such as a bankruptcy, charges of fraud, lawsuits, etc., that coins may be locked pending the outcome of litigation.

A committee? pfft. All that hassle of having to get more than one person to agree, the pesky distinction between majority and consensus? pit pat piffy wing wong wang just make it one person with sole control over whether or not to allow any transaction they feel like. So long as they are trustworthy, I'm sure it will all work out for the best for everyone.