@theymos - Request: Multisig addresses for treasurers

[EcuaMobi]

This has been suggested several times and I think it's extremely important. I see it as essential for the forum's funds security and I don't see any disadvantages at all. Current treasurer OgNasty agrees multisig should be used.

I would suggest choosing several very trustworthy users and creating x-in-y addresses, where x is at least 3 (to avoid collusion) and y is at least x+2 (to avoid an accident to lock the funds). 4-in-7 addresses could be a good option. Theymos, is there any reason this hasn't been implemented yet? What are the disadvantages? Funds have been lost and more could be lost in the future.

Local rule:
Vod can't quote or mention OgNasty, directly or indirectly.
OgNasty can't quote or mention Vod, directly or indirectly.

[AB de Royse777]

This has been suggested several times and I think it's extremely important. I see it as essential for the forum's funds security and I don't see any disadvantages at all. Current treasurer OgNasty agrees multisig should be used.

I would suggest choosing several very trustworthy users and creating x-in-y addresses, where x is at least 3 (to avoid collusion) and y is at least x+2 (to avoid an accident to lock the funds). 4-in-7 addresses could be a good option. Theymos, is there any reason this hasn't been implemented yet? What are the disadvantages? Funds have been lost and more could be lost in the future.

This will be a very good step to secure the forum funds. It has a cost. I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.

So, considering the expense, I think 2/3 Multisig wallet/address will more than enough.

Thanks for posting this topic. Someone had to create a topic for this.

[EcuaMobi]

I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.

I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee.
Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough.

In my opinion 2-of-3 isn't enough (but still much better than now of course).

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~

In my opinion 2-of-3 isn't enough (but still much better than now of course).

Any x/y combination will be better than the presently the coins are in hold. I have no issue with trusting OG but the risk is the accident. The accidental damage is my concern and I am sure most of the forum members too will have the same statement.

I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee.
Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough.

That will be up to theymos in fact everything is up to him. We just want to see the funds are not in any risk :-)

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee.
Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough.

I think it would even be better to peg the fee to the US Dollar rate. From what I can see.. BTC's volatility seem to be back.

[FFrankie]

I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.

I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee.
Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough.

In my opinion 2-of-3 isn't enough (but still much better than now of course).

You think that 0.1% of the total is not a fair escrow price? What % do you think would be fair than? I see a ton of escrows on here that want between 0.5-1%


I don't even see the point in having fourm treasurers anymore its not like the fourm is sitting on any large amount of btc. It seems like it is all pretty much spent

[AB de Royse777]

I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee.
Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough.

I think it would even be better to peg the fee to the US Dollar rate. From what I can tell... BTC's volatility seem to be back.

This is a Bitcoin forum. We are hoping Bitcoin to establish as the main currency of the world. I know this may take few decades if not centuries but I would like to see a world where the main currency will be Bitcoin.

So we better stop compering fiat with Bitcoin :-D

~snip~

You think that 0.1% of the total is not a fair escrow price? What % do you think would be fair than? I see a ton of escrows on here that want between 0.5-1%

It's a per month expense we are talking about not a year or a term of one time x amount of time.

[AdolfinWolf]

This has been suggested several times and I think it's extremely important. I see it as essential for the forum's funds security and I don't see any disadvantages at all. Current treasurer OgNasty agrees multisig should be used.

I would suggest choosing several very trustworthy users and creating x-in-y addresses, where x is at least 3 (to avoid collusion) and y is at least x+2 (to avoid an accident to lock the funds). 4-in-7 addresses could be a good option. Theymos, is there any reason this hasn't been implemented yet? What are the disadvantages? Funds have been lost and more could be lost in the future.

This will be a very good step to secure the forum funds. It has a cost. I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.

So, considering the expense, I think 2/3 Multisig wallet/address will more than enough.

Thanks for posting this topic. Someone had to create a topic for this.

-- Wait 0.5BTC a month?

How much BTC exactly is he holding? I thought it was somewhere around the 500BTC mark, right?

That's ~0.1% a month (and incrementing each month in % of total.). Seems totally insane to me, or am i missing something?

---
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155000.0

Code:

Person	Amount   	Fee (monthly)   	Next fee payment   	Address
paraipan	250	0.208	2014-04-19	1PFkqgBBrSKikyyUGDerZMfzvCNPgKrR3o
OgNasty	500	0.5	2014-11-22	1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF
theymos	varies	0	-	19XTo6BHpPHSkW5cm183VrgEYpGjVJmQEt, et al.

Cool stuff. That's a decent amount of money for just holding an escrow. I'm guessing it was a lot less at the time, and never got readjusted.

-x-

+1

[EcuaMobi]

I know OG gets 0.5BTC meaning more key holders, more money to pay every month.

I think the current BTC0.5-per-month fee is ridiculously high and having 7 treasurers wouldn't require paying each one a similar fee.
Probably BTC0.02 or BTC0.05 for each one would be more than enough.

In my opinion 2-of-3 isn't enough (but still much better than now of course).

You think that 0.1% of the total is not a fair escrow price? What % do you think would be fair than? I see a ton of escrows on here that want between 0.5-1%

Why does it have to be based on a percentage? Maybe it makes sense for small deals (along with a minimum) but not for higher amounts paying every month.

Based on the treasurer's obligations posted on one the contracts, I estimate the treasurer must work not more than a few hours per month, or less.
At BTC0.05 (currently just under $400), that's at least $100 per hour for their work. I think that's more than enough regardless of what percentage of the total represents.

Edit: Actually much fewer hours and therefore much more per hour after checking the number of transactions of the treasure address.

But this is not the main point at all.

[suchmoon]

incrementing each month in % of total

I don't think it's paid out of the held amount:

https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/address/1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF/

And we don't know if the amount has been revised since then.

On the other hand, a high fee might make sense for a single holder of funds because of risks and logistical challenges (if they're serious in protecting the funds in case of an accident for example, so that might involve a living will / lawyers / etc). Some of which might not be necessary with multisig so the fee could be lower in that case.

[Quickseller]

I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.

[EcuaMobi]

I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.

BTC500 to be held by one single person? Definitely not. Not anyone. I think those funds are at risk.
7 people for a 4-of-7 multisig address so 4 signatures are required? Absolutely yes. Much less trust is required in that case.

[AB de Royse777]

I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.

BTC500 to be held by one single person? Definitely not. Not anyone. I think those funds are at risk.
7 people for a 4-of-7 multisig address so 4 signatures are required? Absolutely yes. Much less trust is required in that case.

Back in the days when the tx made the value for this 500BTC was only: $34,445.00 (I hate to compare with fiat damn!),
Now it's: $3,448,708.66
When BTC had it's ATH over $19k (consider $19k) then the value was :  $9,500,000.00
There are no question about OG's loyalty and responsibility. OG really has some really a big balls :-P (<== thanks bud)

Reference: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF

I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.

An imaginary scenario:
2/3 Multisig wallet

Key 1 : theymos
Key 2 : OG
Key 3 : VOD

or

Key 1 : theymos
Key 2 : QS
Key 3 : VOD

:-P

[OgNasty]

I don't think it's paid out of the held amount:

https://explorer.bitcoin.com/btc/address/1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF

It isn't.  It has historically been paid from separate funds and 1099's issued to ensure payment of the appropriate taxes on income.  The big winner in this situation has always been Uncle Sam.  I think there are better ways to do it, like the way NastyFans issues distributions.  Reclassifying those payments and spreading to more multi-signers would have a multitude of advantages, including for me personally, so it's hard to disagree with.

There are no question about OG's loyalty and responsibility. OG really has some really a big balls :-P (<== thanks bud)

Hard to disagree with that conclusion as well.  You're welcome.  I was built for this.

An imaginary scenario:
2/3 Multisig wallet


Key 3 : VOD

LOL.  Pretty sure Vod's chances of being a part of bitcointalk outside of a regular user have evaporated with his recent behavior.

[FFrankie]

What about:

1: Theymos
2: Ognasty
3: Otoh
4: GP
5: Minerjones
6: BG4
7: Blazed
8: coblee

I think that if the fourm goes to multi sig, that at least 3 or 4 of the people that are picked, individually have more than 500 btc.

[LoyceMobile]

If there's going to be a multisig treasurer system, wouldn't it make sense to only pay the treasurers for their services after the funds have been paid back?

Is there an overview of past returns from treasurers? I know one was lost, but I don't know how the others did. I'm curious if it's been worth having treasurers over just Admin keeping the funds.

[Quickseller]

I am not sure there are enough trustworthy people whom it would not be insane to trust with this much money, and to not collude to try to steal the money.

BTC500 to be held by one single person? Definitely not. Not anyone. I think those funds are at risk.
7 people for a 4-of-7 multisig address so 4 signatures are required? Absolutely yes. Much less trust is required in that case.

First of all, this is ultimately theymos' money, legally speaking, so the decision starts and ends with him.

In order for it to be a good idea to allow someone to hold 500BTC of your money, you need to be confident they can be trusted holding said money. This is very straightforward as all you need to ask yourself if the person can be trusted with said amount of money. OgN has shown himself to be able to be trusted with the money -- he has not touched the money, even as its value exceeded $10 million, this is true even if you need to ask probing questions when relying on information provided by him.

If someone were to be a keyholder of a 4-of-7 address, they need to be similarly trusted. They perhaps to not need to have sufficient "trust" -- that is confidence they will keep their promises when amounts involved are in the millions, not having a bunch of ratings for $200 transactions and for having "good judgment" -- to hold 500BTC, but need enough trust to hold very substantial amounts of others' money.

If you were to rely on the fact that two "people" are truly separate people, you will have difficulty verifying this information.  First you need to verify they are two distinct people, but this is difficult because locations can easily be faked. Next you need to evaluate if the various keyholders have existing business or personal relationships that might conflict with the assumption the keyholders will not collude to steal the money. Two people that run a business venture together are going to be similar to being one person as they are likely to be loyal to eachother, and their financial success not only depends on the others' reputation, but also their financial situations are likely to be similar and will depend on how successful their venture is. The same is true if two people later form a venture after becoming a stakeholder. if two people have frequently traded with eachother, or are otherwise friendly, they may not disclose an (unsuccessful) attempt to collude to steal funds as a "joke" or would not otherwise report such an attempt.

If there's going to be a multisig treasurer system, wouldn't it make sense to only pay the treasurers for their services after the funds have been paid back?

Is there an overview of past returns from treasurers? I know one was lost, but I don't know how the others did. I'm curious if it's been worth having treasurers over just Admin keeping the funds.

The service is to hold the money, potentially for years (as has been the case), and to maintain the private keys holding the coins. Coinbase charges 0.5% per year to hold coins similarly to how the treasurers are holding funds. Gemini charges 0.4%/year. OgN's payment is probably a bit on the high side, but both he and theymos are free to negotiate a price they wish. 

[r1s2g3]

I support the demand of Multisig address . I do not know why it is not in priority list of theymos, specially when previous treasured died and locking the funds of the forum.

I think theymos is not trusting anybody with forum funds except OgNasty.

[yahoo62278]

If theymos thought there was a need to change up the way things have been done, i'm sure it would have been done by now. I'll would almost guarantee that he has the home address and real name of OGNasty in case something like theft were to happen.

I doubt very much he's gonna just send 500 btc to a guy and not have some sort of information on the guy.

[Vod]

If theymos thought there was a need to change up the way things have been done, i'm sure it would have been done by now. I'll would almost guarantee that he has the home address and real name of OGNasty in case something like theft were to happen.

I doubt very much he's gonna just send 500 btc to a guy and not have some sort of information on the guy.

OG can just send the BTC to a friend and file a police report for whatever he wants.

Multisig is necessary.