The idea of taking away all of Satoshi's bitcoin?

[Raja_MBZ]

Most of you might already know about QuadrigaCX (Canada's largest crypto exchange) owner's death:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/04/quadrigacx-canada-cryptocurrency-exchange-locked-gerald-cotten

If he has actually died, then it means that about 0.25% of the bitcoin's supply has been burnt. However, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn (Zcash's founder) seems to have come up with a solution for the confirmation of this:



Not sure if Zooko thought of this, but if we really recycle those 10-year-old unmoved bitcoin into new mining rewards, then all of Satoshi's addresses will be emptied too! This could possibly boost up the confidence of investors/holders, as the fear of Satoshi dumping his/her bitcoin will vanish.

Quite interesting...

[1713407289]

1713407289

[1713407289]

1713407289

[1713407289]

1713407289

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Most of you might already know about QuadrigaCX (Canada's largest crypto exchange) owner's death:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/04/quadrigacx-canada-cryptocurrency-exchange-locked-gerald-cotten

If he has actually died, then it means that about 0.25% of the bitcoin's supply has been burnt. However, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn (Zcash's founder) seems to have come up with a solution for the confirmation of this:



Not sure if Zooko thought of this, but if we really recycle those 10-year-old unmoved bitcoin into new mining rewards, then all of Satoshi's addresses will be emptied too! This could possibly boost up the confidence of investors/holders, as the fear of Satoshi dumping his/her bitcoin will vanish.

Quite interesting...

Interesting and how do we do it?
Why 10 years by the way? I guess it needs to be longer if this is achievable.

Thanks for the link on WO or I would miss it.

[doc12]

Bullshit ....so somebody's money is taken away, just because he saved it for the future? Why I have to move my money, if I don't want to?

This stands against some of the most important core values of bitcoin. Satoshis coins belong to Satoshi, nobody's business what he does with them.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Bullshit ....so somebody's money is taken away, just because he saved it for the future? Why I have to move my money, if I don't want to?

This stands against some of the most important core values of bitcoin. Satoshis coins belong to Satoshi, nobody's business what he does with them.

This.

Also, if people lose their coins, be it by proxy or not, it's their problem. It's about time we stopped babysitting adults.

[mindrust]

Bullshit ....so somebody's money is taken away, just because he saved it for the future? Why I have to move my money, if I don't want to?

This stands against some of the most important core values of bitcoin. Satoshis coins belong to Satoshi, nobody's business what he does with them.

Agreed.

Taking away satoshi's coins is no different than what happened with ETH&DAO in the past. Immutability is bitcoin's core feature. If you take away satoshi's coins and redistribute them, you'll just fork yourself away into another shitcoin which nobody uses.

About the investor confidence thing, personally I have enough confidence right now and fucking with immutability is not going to increase it, on the contrary, I would lose all I have now.

If a group of person can decide to take one person's stash and redistribute them, then they can decide to take mine later too.

I am not dumb.

Fuck that shit.

[StartupAnalyst]

Most of you might already know about QuadrigaCX (Canada's largest crypto exchange) owner's death

It is rumored that he is not so dead as it seems...
Here are the proofs:

Gentlemen, have you heard that the funds on the “lost” wallets of the QuadrigaCX exchange have been set in motion?
It is at least about wallets with lightcoins. It is active, transactions are made from it. Proof

Update: Rumors Claim QuadrigaCX Exchange Was Operated By ShadowCrew Fraudster
Dear community WO, do you think it's true or not?

[vapourminer]

Taking away satoshi's coins is no different than what happened with ETH&DAO in the past. Immutability is bitcoin's core feature. If you take away satoshi's coins and redistribute them, you'll just fork yourself away into another shitcoin which nobody uses.

About the investor confidence thing, personally I have enough confidence right now and fucking with immutability is not going to increase it, on the contrary, I would lose all I have now.

If a group of person can decide to take one person's stash and redistribute them, then they can decide to take mine later too.

I am not dumb.

Fuck that shit.

exactly this.

need to move your coins every 10 years? riiiight so when will it be 5 years? 3 years? 1 month?

i had btc in paper wallets for over 5 years. only moved them to split out the bcash_lol from them, or they would still be there.. so that would be 7+ years without moving. so what? they are MINE to leave there forever if i so chose.

bitcoin ever implements this im out 100% because i wont trust it any other way than coins stay where they are put forever until the private key holder moves them.

[poptok1]

bitcoin ever implements this im out 100% because i wont trust it any other way than coins stay where they are put forever until the private key holder moves them.

This dangerous idea keeps coming back Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed” <--this is BS
You are not alone friend, this would mean the end of the original chain. Question is would it result with fork?
I'm quite shocked that theymos actually put this idea out. Was it a moment of weakness on his part?
Although destroying does not equal re-minted but still, it is tinkering with someone's possession.
I would rather see bitcoin down due to satoshis wallet hack than due to consensus robbery.
Who is this Zooko anyway? SJW or something?

[theymos]

This dangerous idea keeps coming back Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”

Try actually reading the thread...

I never said any such thing. bitcoin.com again proves that it is absolutely worthless by completely fabricating that quote.

[poptok1]

This dangerous idea keeps coming back Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”

Try actually reading the thread...

I never said any such thing. bitcoin.com again proves that it is absolutely worthless by completely fabricating that quote.

thought so
Sorry for spreading nonsense then.
But as you see, there was none to set the record straight. Glad that you did.
I remembered that you once told me that there can only be one genuine satoshis chain, but was unable to find it.
Always best to check with the source though.

[mikeywith]

might as well call it E-Socialism blockchain.

where i live, we used to have socialism system the country was based on, there is a long detailed explanation regarding it, but long story short, the government can confiscate your money, property or anything you own - for whatever reason they see fit, they can just assume it's too much for you or simply you are not using it ,  this proposal  is not much of a difference.

[mindrust]

Actually I don't see any bad intent in this proposal but the results will be bad so intentions  don't matter.

Whoever said this, desperately wants to increase the circulating coin supply but again, bitcoin doesn't work that way. If it is lost, then it is lost forever. If a person wants to hodl his coins more than 10 years without touching his address, that's his right to do so. He doesn't have to check what the devs are going to do everyday.

[Quickseller]

This dangerous idea keeps coming back Theymos: “Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed”

Try actually reading the thread...

I never said any such thing. bitcoin.com again proves that it is absolutely worthless by completely fabricating that quote.

The full quote:

Edit: To be absolutely clear: I am not proposing (and would never propose) a policy that would have the goal of depriving anyone of his bitcoins. Satoshi's bitcoins (which number far below 1M, I think) rightfully belong to him, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur.

 This issue has been discussed for several years. I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue.

So if we somehow learn that people will be able to start breaking ECDSA-protected addresses in 5 years (for example), two softforks should be rolled out now:

•   ⁠One softfork, which would activate ASAP, would assign an OP_NOP to OP_LAMPORT (or whatever QC-resistant crypto will be used). Everyone would be urged to send all of their bitcoins to new OP_LAMPORT-protected addresses.
•   ⁠One softfork set to trigger in 5 years would convert OP_CHECKSIG to OP_RETURN, destroying all coins protected by OP_CHECKSIG. People would have until then to move their BTC to secure addresses. Anyone who fails to do so would almost certainly have lost their money due to the ECDSA failure anyway -- the number of people who lose additional BTC would be very low. (There might be a whitelist of UTXOs protected by one-time-use addresses, which would remain secure for a long time.)

There have been some reports that Blockchain analysts experts do not believe the exchange has the claimed amount of coins in cold storage, or at least not in a cold storage address with many transactions to the address. It may have used a new address each time a transaction to cold storage was made. Some of these experts believe many of the withdrawals from their hot wallet went to various other exchanges, although this may have been legitimate customer withdrawals.

[JayJuanGee]

While the intention isn't that bad, i'm sure it will be abused/exploited in many ways IF it allowed to happen even only once (even if first action has good intention/goal).

Even if Satoshi's coin is re-distributed, how will it distributed fairly and prevent abuse/exploit by miners?

I am not sure how the intention could be good if the objective is completely unnecessary.  There is absolutely no need to re-distribute Satoshi's coins, even if we believe that Satoshi had mistakenly lost access to his keys and died or something very unintentional that changes the initial conceptualization of total supply.  O.k.  So, instead of 21 million coins, there are now 20 million coins. 

If there ends up being a shortage of liquidity because all 7 billion people on the planet want to get themselves some coins and to use them, etc etc, then the most obvious solution would be to move the decimal point further to the right. 

Another conceptual problem is the issue of too much BTC scarcity because almost inevitably coins are going to be lost, that would not justify reviving those keys, but there could be some justification to some kind of ongoing BTC inflation, such as 1% a year or perhaps less, even though, from what I understand, such a change to add constant inflation would require a BTC hardfork... Currently, there is a natural around 3.6% inflation, that reduces to around 1.8% at the 2020 halvening.. So BTC's inflation rate is still well over 1%, until after the next halvening in 2024.

[Raja_MBZ]

Taking away satoshi's coins is no different than what happened with ETH&DAO in the past. Immutability is bitcoin's core feature. If you take away satoshi's coins and redistribute them, you'll just fork yourself away into another shitcoin which nobody uses.

So... did immutability win in the case of ETH&DAO? Ethereum did the right thing and people agreed to it, see the current situation of Ethereum Classic for proof. Immutability didn't succeed!

If you take away satoshi's coins and redistribute them, you'll just fork yourself away into another shitcoin which nobody uses.

If a group of person can decide to take one person's stash and redistribute them, then they can decide to take mine later too.

Contradiction detected

[Hueristic]

Cannot break immutability PERIOD.

[mindrust]

Taking away satoshi's coins is no different than what happened with ETH&DAO in the past. Immutability is bitcoin's core feature. If you take away satoshi's coins and redistribute them, you'll just fork yourself away into another shitcoin which nobody uses.

So... did immutability win in the case of ETH&DAO? Ethereum did the right thing and people agreed to it, see the current situation of Ethereum Classic for proof. Immutability didn't succeed!

If you take away satoshi's coins and redistribute them, you'll just fork yourself away into another shitcoin which nobody uses.

If a group of person can decide to take one person's stash and redistribute them, then they can decide to take mine later too.

Contradiction detected

Ethereum is a shitshow they blindly followed what Vitalik said. (Not all though, that's why etc exists)  It is because eth holders are morons without any self conscious. I got zero eth and probably never gonna have any.

Vitalik made a bad decision that day and it will haunt him till the end of his days. That's why he is desperately saying that he has no influence over the eth development no more which is another lie. As long as he is alive and around, vitalik is eth.

That's why we don't have a vitalik/satoshi here.

We got a theymos but he is responsible for the forum;) not the coin.

[Lucius]

This idea is contrary to what Satoshi himself say about this problem :
 

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

So every discussion on this subject actually challenges the ideas of the creator himself how things should work. What is lost must remain lost, and this is not bad thing at all.

[Hueristic]

This idea is contrary to what Satoshi himself say about this problem :
 

Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more.  Think of it as a donation to everyone.

So every discussion on this subject actually challenges the ideas of the creator himself how things should work. What is lost must remain lost, and this is not bad thing at all.

Correct, He said nothing about destroying lost coins only that without them being available all the others are worth more and for all we know they are not lost and forking them away would be stealing them..

[RocketSingh]

Zooko has no right to say what everyone should mutually agree or not. Remember, blockchain is not a democracy, that majority will decide its future.