Bitcoin as "shalecoin"

[Shalecoin]

Definition of "shalecoin":

Mined coins with no access to the address. (Nobody has the privatekey)

If that address is a coinbase address: 1 year after mining
Other addresses: 10 years after last output transaction (If there is no output transaction then 10 years after first input transaction)

[1713579952]

1713579952

[1713579952]

1713579952

[1713579952]

1713579952

[1713579952]

1713579952

[Shalecoin]

"Don't send to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. These coins are lost."

One day computers will be able to hash the privatekey for this address or for addresses with no access to it. Therefore coins should be removed after mining from the coinbase address to show that someone has access to it. Otherwise they are shalecoins waiting to be "remined" or "fracked" one day.

[WebCoinInfo]

"shalecoin ASIC":

ASIC to "frack" shalecoins.
(Get the privatekey)

[ABCbits]

"Don't send to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. These coins are lost."

One day computers will be able to hash the privatekey for this address or for addresses with no access to it. Therefore coins should be removed after mining from the coinbase address to show that someone has access to it. Otherwise they are shalecoins waiting to be "remined" or "fracked" one day.

That's not how it works, you generate public key (using ECDSA.secp256k1) from private key then perform RIPEMD-160 and SHA-256
Also, the only way to prove some has access to that address are by sign message or spend coins from that address.

Even Quantum Computer won't able to obtain private key of that address because it's public key isn't known.

[muslol67]

Even Quantum Computer won't able to obtain private key of that address because it's public key isn't known.

My biggest question this is. Really we can't? Even if this is not possible in today's technology, what will be the future? I think there should be some progress on this issue.

[Haunebu]

Even Quantum Computer won't able to obtain private key of that address because it's public key isn't known.

My biggest question this is. Really we can't? Even if this is not possible in today's technology, what will be the future? I think there should be some progress on this issue.

ETFBitcoin just mentioned that quantum computers themselves cannot crack the private key which is why I don't understand why you are confused here. People assume that sophisticated technology in the future can somehow crack these addresses, but it is clearly not that simple.

Many BTC will stay lost forever unless someone finds a solution to this problem which is highly unlikely.

[hugeblack]

"Don't send to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. These coins are lost."

One day computers will be able to hash the privatekey for this address or for addresses with no access to it. Therefore coins should be removed after mining from the coinbase address to show that someone has access to it. Otherwise they are shalecoins waiting to be "remined" or "fracked" one day.

No one can Hack Bitcoin addresses, only guessing.
If you're lucky and have a lot of high-speed computing, "do not forget the costs of buying those devices, electricity, plus cooling." You need thousands of millions of years before you can guess the address correctly.
This user @Sahar Wayne has made calculations based on this computer [Sunway TaihuLight] ((a Chinese supercomputer which, as of November 2016, is ranked number one in the TOP500 list as the fastest supercomputer in the world)) you need about ~ 5194882658574989737995779322992527357514014.0710380707 Years [1].


[1] Is it possible for someone to guess a private key to a Bitcoin wallet and steal the coins?
I did not understand what you mean correctly but if you mean the impossibility of restoring those currencies send it to an OP_RETURN output. "No pvt key"

[Shalecoin]

Coins with no access to the address. Nobody has the privatekey.

Quote from: tacotime on April 14, 2013, 12:31:47 AM
I think the likeliest scenario is that hundreds of people downloaded and ran the client then, got a bunch of blocks that were at the time useless because they were valueless, then deleted their client.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=175996.msg1834484#msg1834484

[Shalecoin]

The idea behind declaring coins as "shalecoin" is to indicate whether an address has a holder or not and therefore to have an open and clean blockchain. (Concerning longterm UTXO)

- As mentioned before -
Definition of "shalecoin":
Coins with no access to the address. (Nobody has the privatekey)
If that address is a coinbase address: 1 year after mining
Other addresses: 10 years after last output transaction

Longterm holders of coins should transfer their coins to a new address within 10 years, so they wouldn't become shalecoins. All other coins with no access to the address can't be transacted to a new address and will become shalecoins after 10 years / or after 1 year if it's a coinbase address. Owners of possible computers with the ability to "hash" the privatekey would use these computers only for shalecoins. (Coins with no holder)

[Ailmand]

The idea behind declaring coins as "shalecoin" is to indicate whether an address has an holder or not and therefore to have an open and clean blockchain. (Concerning longterm UTXO)

- As mentioned before -
Definition of "shalecoin":
Coins with no access to the address. (Nobody has the privatekey)
If that address is a coinbase address: 1 year after mining
Other addresses: 10 years after last output transaction

Longterm holders of coins should transfer their coins to a new address within 10 years, so they wouldn't become shalecoins. All other coins with no access to the address can't be transacted to a new address and will become shalecoins after 10 years / or after 1 year if it's a coinbase address. Owners of possible computers with the ability to "hash" the privatekey would use these computers only for shalecoins. (Coins with no holder)

Then what would happen to shale coins? So, it will require holders to move or make transactions on their wallet for their coin not be considered in active?

[Shalecoin]

Through transactions within that timeframe holders indicate that their coins are not shalecoins. The owners of these special computers will only hash privatekeys of shalecoins (coins with no holder) and bring them back to the blockchain as usable coins. They will transfer them to their own addresses. Without that shalecoin declaration they could not know which coins have holders and which not.

Fairplay for both sides (holders of coins and owners of special computers)

[bitmover]

My biggest question this is. Really we can't? Even if this is not possible in today's technology, what will be the future? I think there should be some progress on this issue.

That´s not how it works. You know the public address, not the public key.
It´s a matter of processing power. It is not possible mathematically to break a privatekey without a public key.

[qubitasic]

Shalecoin 'fracking' is the next challenge.

[qubitasic]

Shalecoin 'fracking' is the next challenge.

"Start working now on quantum-resistant solutions"

https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/start-working-now-on-quantum-resistant-solutions-canadian-organizations-urged

[qubitasic]

Shalecoin 'fracking' is the next challenge.

Shalecoins have no owners and can't be moved. These coins will be 'fracked'.

[qubitasic]

According to the definition all addresses with no outgoing transactions or last outgoing transactions older than May 2009 are shalecoin addresses. And all coinbase addresses older than May 2018. These are addresses with no holders.

[qubitasic]

https://lightningwiki.net/index.php/Shalecoin

[BTCprize]

Shalecoin 'fracking' is the biggest prize competition with more than 1,000,000 BTC.

Biggest Bitcoin prize competition
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5146483.0

[qubitasic]

Shalecoin 'fracking' is the next challenge.

Shalecoins have no owners and can't be moved. These coins will be 'fracked'.

EDIT: 'fracked': https://medium.com/@tuurdemeester/bitcoin-as-the-new-petroleum-3a2b277e5146

Dr. Pieter Wuille: Current Bitcoin Protocol Is 'Not Quantum Secure'
https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2019/05/dr-pieter-wuille-current-bitcoin-protocol-is-not-quantum-secure/

[qubitasic]

I think it's fair to say that Bitcoin as it exists today is not quantum secure, period.
Pieter Wuille https://twitter.com/jb55/status/1133533068197675010


1. The first owners of possible computers with the ability to 'frack' the privatekey will use these computers only for shalecoins. (Coins with no holder)
2. Bitcoin will get an update. (QC secure)
3. In the meantime all owners can transact their coins to these new addresses.
4. Then there will be other QC owners who will 'frack' all remaining coins.

- As mentioned before -
Definition of "shalecoin":
Coins with no access to the address. (Nobody has the privatekey)
If that address is a coinbase address: 1 year after mining
Other addresses: 10 years after last output transaction (If there is no output transaction then 10 years after first input transaction)

Longterm holders of coins should transfer their coins to a new address within 10 years, so they wouldn't become shalecoins. All other coins with no access to the address can't be transacted to a new address and will become shalecoins after 10 years / or after 1 year if it's a coinbase address. Owners of possible computers with the ability to "hash" the privatekey would use these computers only for shalecoins. (Coins with no holder)