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

[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.