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

[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.