Should core bitcoin developers freeze stolen Mt.Gox bitcoins?

[Onar]

Generally in whatever happens the human is the weak link. If you drive a car, Paying the bills online, using bitcoins. If not car had evolved we would be driving T-fords still. I understand the concept of bitcoin, but in generall should the bitcoin exist regards to the founders ideology, or the users demands. I think with so smart programmers that created this, they can evolve bitcoin without lose the desentrilized ideology. Security measurments and desentrilisation is not the same thing. Somehow it should possible to get security protocols that is not monitored by governments and other, at least with as huge amounts as robed in MT.gox.

This would really hurt BTC as it would no longer be decentralized and people would have more faith in fiat.  It isn't fair to people who received stolen funds without knowledge.

As soon as a private key loses the ability to access the relevant funds - Bitcoin is broken. Game over.

It's the user mind set that needs to change, not the protocol. If you wouldn't send cash in an envelope to a PO Box in Poland, why would you send Bitcoins to the same guy if he ran a website?

[grifferz]

Bitcoin will never become mainstream, if you limit them to the tech savvy. And for heavens sake, a lot of people who lost their money in Gox were actually tech savvy!

Being tech savvy does not automatically mean that you are financially prudent or wise in any other respect. Keeping significant funds on remote sites has never been sensible, the risks have been repeated countless times and anyone who failed to be aware of them just wasn't doing their research. You look pover in Service Discussion and you see tales of people being incredibly, insanely reckless with money they can't afford to lose. There is no fixing that in a protocol of anything.

Yes, people should not have to "do their research" if the goal is mass appeal. I 100% agree with that. But that's not where we are now. Bitcoin is not ready for mass appeal. The services and infrastructure still need to grow up.

The fact that people need to do their research turns people off. The fact that people who don't do their research are getting ripped off turns people off. But if you start banning coins then this will deal a far more crippling blow to Bitcoin than a few early adopters realising they are out of their depth and a bit of bad press. It will cause desertion by the people that are currently making this thing work.

I've seen you posting the same line enough now to understand that you will never agree that this point of view is the correct one. Likewise I'm not willing to agree with your ideas of the inevitable death of Bitcoin if the scams and thefts are "allowed" to continue.

Both of these arguments have some merit, perhaps we can at least agree there. You must now agree that this debate has been running long enough to see that the "ban scammed coins" camp has very little support and it's just not going to happen. The MtGox loss/theft so far hasn't persuaded anyone in a position to start rejecting transactions to do so, and it's hard to imagine a bigger loss.

So please can we let this one drop now?

[counter]

no this would not be a good idea and it goes against what people have come to expect of Bitcoin.  The media would have a field day with this type of thing happening and Bitcoin would lose alot of interest form it's users IMO.

[nkocevar]

Bitcoin should always stay in control of the people using it. Not by any small group of people. Thats how it starts losing its reputation, if people start controlling it.

[BurtW]

I think the main point here is that Bitcoin is not going to change in this way.  Ever.

So if you want a coin that can be frozen if stolen, etc. then you will need to move to an alt chain that does what you want.

No amount of posting, no matter how spirited, will change the fundamentals of Bitcoin.  

I wonder if anyone has created an alternate coin that has the properties you desire?

Perhaps a government backed and controlled coin is what you are looking for.

[Velkro]

No, the idea of the dev team becoming the police of bitcoin is awful.  If they were to do it in this instance, where would they draw the line?

as above, agree 100%

[Inkvor]

I think the main point here is that Bitcoin is not going to change in this way.  Ever.

So if you want a coin that can be frozen if stolen, etc. then you will need to move to an alt chain that does what you want.

No amount of posting, no matter how spirited, will change the fundamentals of Bitcoin.  

I wonder if anyone has created an alternate coin that has the properties you desire?

Perhaps a government backed and controlled coin is what you are looking for.

If Bitcoin can be freeze will you be using it ?

The question already obey the rules for Bitcoin .

[Light]

I think the main point here is that Bitcoin is not going to change in this way.  Ever.

So if you want a coin that can be frozen if stolen, etc. then you will need to move to an alt chain that does what you want.

No amount of posting, no matter how spirited, will change the fundamentals of Bitcoin.  

I wonder if anyone has created an alternate coin that has the properties you desire?

Perhaps a government backed and controlled coin is what you are looking for.

I'm pretty sure what he's looking for is something called... fiat. Trying to convince people to have the option of 'freezing' coins goes against the whole fundamental concept of decentralisation and Bitcoin. If it could be frozen power would then reside with the developers. Not to mention, even if they did agree, I doubt the miners and nodes would accept and implement the change and without them good luck.

[nkocevar]

I think the main point here is that Bitcoin is not going to change in this way.  Ever.

So if you want a coin that can be frozen if stolen, etc. then you will need to move to an alt chain that does what you want.

No amount of posting, no matter how spirited, will change the fundamentals of Bitcoin.  

I wonder if anyone has created an alternate coin that has the properties you desire?

Perhaps a government backed and controlled coin is what you are looking for.

I'm pretty sure what he's looking for is something called... fiat. Trying to convince people to have the option of 'freezing' coins goes against the whole fundamental concept of decentralisation and Bitcoin. If it could be frozen power would then reside with the developers. Not to mention, even if they did agree, I doubt the miners and nodes would accept and implement the change and without them good luck.

And who is to say if the developers do "take power" that they wont get greedy and start extorting people by threatening to freeze bitcoins in an account if people dont pay a ransom... Worst case scenario of course..

[bbeagle]

Trying to convince people to have the option of 'freezing' coins goes against the whole fundamental concept of decentralisation and Bitcoin. If it could be frozen power would then reside with the developers. Not to mention, even if they did agree, I doubt the miners and nodes would accept and implement the change and without them good luck.

This, I see as a major flaw in bitcoin's model.... hear me out...

It looks like bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly difficult to the point that only a few rich with huge server farms can mine the coins. When there comes a point when there are like 10 major server farms that mine 90% of the bitcoins, which looks to be where it's going...

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I can't see how we wouldn't end up with a few large server farms mining most of the coins, controlling most of bitcoin. Can anyone steer me to not believe this?

[bryant.coleman]

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I doubt whether they will do anything like that. If they do so, then it will harm the reputation of the Bitcoin, and the exchange rate will tumble to near-zero. In the end, it will affect these powerful mining cabals also. But I agree with you, it is theoretically possible to do so. One of the fundamental flaws of Bitcoin. But as of now, we don't have to fear about it.

[dogechode]

This, I see as a major flaw in bitcoin's model.... hear me out...

It looks like bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly difficult to the point that only a few rich with huge server farms can mine the coins. When there comes a point when there are like 10 major server farms that mine 90% of the bitcoins, which looks to be where it's going...

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I can't see how we wouldn't end up with a few large server farms mining most of the coins, controlling most of bitcoin. Can anyone steer me to not believe this?

Yeah this is somewhat unfortunate when you consider how it was designed and intended. I don't think they foresaw how fast the jump would be made to more advanced mining technologies, especially ASICs, which kind of took bitcoin away from the diehard geek enthusiasts and put it firmly in the hands of whoever can afford to spend 5-7 figures on mining equipment.

[Onar]

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I doubt whether they will do anything like that. If they do so, then it will harm the reputation of the Bitcoin, and the exchange rate will tumble to near-zero. In the end, it will affect these powerful mining cabals also. But I agree with you, it is theoretically possible to do so. One of the fundamental flaws of Bitcoin. But as of now, we don't have to fear about it.

If this happens, would developers develope changes to bitcoin so to block big farmers?
If not tools to avoid big theft of bitcoins is going to happen, is there also a resistanse towards developing a other mining strategy for bitcoin?

[jbreher]

...Just my unedited thoughts.

Evidently. Perhaps some editing is in order.

With anarchy society totaly brakes, down, for instance no food production and other.

What the hell are you talking about? Throughout the free world, the government does not produce food. The government is an impediment to the food producers - dictating how and when and where and in what manner they are allowed to produce food, how and when and where and in what manner they are allowed to transport their food, how and when and where and in what manner they are allowed to sell their food, and on and on. It is the people working together according to their interests and desires that do the producing - the rulers (i.e. the archy) merely get in the way.

Where will you get electricity, noone are producing it or the equipment needed to produce it.

Bullshit. Did the government decide it would be Maxwell that would formulate the mathematical basis for the wave propagation and interrelation of electricity and magnetism? Did the government tell Edison to invent the light bulb? Dictate that Tesla was to develop the A.C. transmission system? Sure Franklin had his kite and key, and was also instrumental in the founding of the USA, but this is a coincidence, not an act of government. Some governments run electrical utilities, sure. Other electrical utilities are privately developed, owned, and managed.

Go and live as a farmer in the stone age, then you can not sit with the computer and enjoy programming.

Again, humanity abandoning the concept that there can be an authority exempt from the morality that binds the rest of us does not extinguish all the forward progress and technologies not only already in existence, but that are continually developed. These are developed not by edict of government, but by individuals working alone or together in free collaboration.

The only thing it leads to is pain and suffering, then war,

Now you've stepped off the deep end. War is nothing but opposing _governments_ engaged in mortal combat. By definition, one cannot have war without government - IOW, there can be no war in anarchy.

And the new order will in the long run somehow look similar to something that already existed previously. Somehow there will be leaders, governmental looking structures and so on and things just repeat itself.

Well, that would not be anarchy then , would it? an : lack of - archy : rulers - anarchy : lack of rulers.

Look at north korea for example where citizens been killed, starved and even worse where an elite dictates how thing will be

Another jump off the deep end. North Korea an anarchy? Are you even thinking about what you are typing?

...Just my unedited thoughts.  

Look, I'm not about to pretend that having a go at anarchy would be all unicorns and rainbows. But to go off equating it with all the pain and suffering the world has ever known is foolish, deceitful, and ultimately counterproductive. I don't know if you are being foolish here, or being deceitful. I suspect the former, as I suspect that you're the victim of indoctrination via public schooling - a system of programming managed by the very people who are 'in power' under a system of government.

But please, at least think about what you're saying.

[jonald_fyookball]

Trying to convince people to have the option of 'freezing' coins goes against the whole fundamental concept of decentralisation and Bitcoin. If it could be frozen power would then reside with the developers. Not to mention, even if they did agree, I doubt the miners and nodes would accept and implement the change and without them good luck.

This, I see as a major flaw in bitcoin's model.... hear me out...

It looks like bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly difficult to the point that only a few rich with huge server farms can mine the coins. When there comes a point when there are like 10 major server farms that mine 90% of the bitcoins, which looks to be where it's going...

You'll then have 10 very rich people basically in charge of bitcoin. I'm sure these now powerful and influential people will have meetings and discuss various ways to control bitcoin. The rest of us will be pawns in their game. It would be very easy for this group to come to a consensus and control bitcoin to their whims.

I can't see how we wouldn't end up with a few large server farms mining most of the coins, controlling most of bitcoin. Can anyone steer me to not believe this?

I think the situation may not be as dire as you think.

1. Even if there is a small group of large miners, those miners still have to sell the coins
to cover their mining costs, so how are they really "controlling" anything?

2. One of the key metrics of the mining business is cost per GHs.  Perhaps
large mining operations can achieve a lower $/GHs, but I haven't seen
any evidence to suggest they can achieve an exponentially lower rate.
Therefore, smaller miners can still achieve results over time.  

That's why we have all these pools, as well as mining contracts.  

I don't know that much about how decentralized things really are,
but the ecosystem seems healthy, at least on the surface.  Maybe
someone with deeper knowledge on this point can jump in.

[jbreher]

Perhaps large mining operations can achieve a lower $/GHs, but I haven't seen
any evidence to suggest they can achieve an exponentially lower rate.
Therefore, smaller miners can still achieve results over time.  

Bingo. The sky is _not_ falling.

[nuff]

OP, what you're suggesting isn't possible in Bitcoin by design. The blockchain can't just be altered by the dev team in the manner that this scenario would require.

The block which contains the MtGox transfers also contain numerous other legitimate transactions that occurred around the same time period before that block was solved.

The hash of a block is a long string of characters representing the entire hash of the previous block, a time stamp of when the current block was created, and all of the transaction data contained within the current block. If a single transaction is changed, the resulting block hash will be completely different. When a block is solved, a new block is instantly created and the cycle is repeated.

All of the blocks solved from then up until now rely on the hash of the block containing those MtGox transactions. Every block is dependent on the data contained within the previous block remaining concurrent. Changing something in a past block would cause a cascading failure event. The change would be rejected.

Each and every block uses the hash of the previous block in its algorithm. If you change the content of a block, the hash changes with it. If the hash of the next block does not check-out against the hash of the previous block it will be discarded. The blockchain from that moment forward and every transaction that occurred from that block onward would need to be reverted as if it never happened for such a change to be accepted...

The protocol will not allow the coins to be "frozen" since the act of freezing them would destroy the concurrency of a known good chain where the inputs and outputs are proven. The alteration would be discarded the same as a "double-spend" attempt.

Bitcoin can't do what you're asking it to do regardless of what the core devs think about the Gox situation... Bitcoin has no conventional "core" in that unilateral "source-code" alterations are not possible. If the community wishes to implement an improvement they must do it by consent. Community consent has limits in that it still doesn't mean they can change the content of a previous block. Improvements can only be implemented from an unsolved block onward. The only way to go back would be to discard all transactions that took place in the chain between the block in question and the current unsolved block.

Bitcoin isn't about Anarchy, it's governed by the most absolutely infallible system of law on the planet; math... The problem with math is that it cares nothing for emotion. If you have unspent outputs and the private keys to control them; nobody can stop you from spending them. That's not Anarchy, that's equality and neutrality...

Finally, after wading through all the other comments to convince myself there's got to be at least ONE freaking post that can explain the ridiculousness of OP's question, finally found it and only after 5 freaking pages no less. The level of ignorance regarding Bitcoin in one of if not the most prominent Bitcoin forums is quite frankly, scary.

[tvbcof]

Finally, after wading through all the other comments to convince myself there's got to be at least ONE freaking post that can explain the ridiculousness of OP's question, finally found it and only after 5 freaking pages no less. The level of ignorance regarding Bitcoin in one of if not the most prominent Bitcoin forums is quite frankly, scary.

I tried to explain the utility of checksuming files which people put up for analysis the other day.  In that case it was the .zip archive which was supposed to cointain Mt. Gox data and a bunch of exploits.  Most people simply could not see how it could be useful to tell two different files of the same name apart.

Most user-level folks here should not even be trying to use Bitcoin, much less trying their hand at monetary system design.  The number of people who get ripped off via fraud or lose their keys to exploits is ample evidence of this.

[solex]

Finally, after wading through all the other comments to convince myself there's got to be at least ONE freaking post that can explain the ridiculousness of OP's question, finally found it and only after 5 freaking pages no less. The level of ignorance regarding Bitcoin in one of if not the most prominent Bitcoin forums is quite frankly, scary.

I was surprised at this observation so I re-read the OP and guess what? It is completely rewritten from the original! This is an argument for the quoting of an entire OP in the 2nd post, so that people who ask a question on a public forum do not waste the time and good efforts of others who answer them.

[Joshuar]

Bitcoin need to be more user friendly. It is true that mostly those who are tech-savy use Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. We need to introduce Bitcoin in a way that even someone who knows nothing about technology etc can use it.