Why doesn't bitcoin have a "freeze" function?

[o_e_l_e_o]

I was referring to the cost of moving your coin back and forth between your hot wallet and what is basically cold storage unnecessarily, and due to the nature of the goal of the setup, almost always having to pay 'next block' level transaction fees.

And as I pointed out, in OP's proposal he was still having to make a transaction to and from his special freezing address whenever he wanted to freeze or unfreeze the coins in his hot wallet, and he would be paying "next block" fees for these transactions too, meaning my multi-sig suggestion is no more expensive than his own proposal. I agree the fees are unnecessary and I would never do this, but it is not any more expensive than what he wanted to do anyway.

If you are not comfortable having a certain amount of coin in your hot wallet all the time, it is probably not a good idea to be moving that amount of coin to your hot wallet on any kind of a regular basis.

I agree, but the whole point of my multi-sig suggestion is that he doesn't need to unfreeze his entire stack at once as he would with his proposal. He can store, say, 5 BTC on his multi-sig wallet, move 0.1 to his hot wallet when he needs to spend it on the go, and return whatever he doesn't spend to his multi-sig at a later date.

[1714885986]

1714885986

[1714885986]

1714885986

[1714885986]

1714885986

[1714885986]

1714885986

[1714885986]

1714885986

[1714885986]

1714885986

[Kakmakr]

The "freeze" option is not a feature that was introduced for the Bank client, but rather a regulatory feature that was implemented to protect the Banks. They are not allowed to have "dormant" accounts, because those accounts might be used for money laundering.. (the excuse given to me from my Bank, when I did not use my Credit card for 8 months.)

This is 100% bullshit and just some excuse to "force" you politely to "use" your account... because "dormant" accounts does not generate "fees" and they need the "fees" to pay for their expenses.  

If Bitcoin implement something like this, then changes need to be made to the protocol and that will probably never happen.. because consensus for things like this is almost impossible... or alternatively something like the Lightning Network (side chains) can implement this.  

[kano]

If you run a core node with a wallet, your bitcoins are always 'frozen'.

Only those who know your private keys can spend them.

If others have access to your private keys, that would be considered the same as having access to your bank account login, and being able to press the 'unfreeze' button, and you also having given them full access to your cards that allow you to spend money in your bank account.

In reality, the concept is completely different between a bank and a core wallet:

Many people in the bank, and anyone who has enough access to your details can unfreeze your bank account.

Only those who have access to your wallet keys can spend your bitcoins.
So ensure they are secure ...

i.e. with a bitcoin core wallet, you are the bank, you must handle the security.
(and on a typical windows computer that security is almost non-existent)

[larry_vw_1955]

They are not allowed to have "dormant" accounts, because those accounts might be used for money laundering.. (the excuse given to me from my Bank, when I did not use my Credit card for 8 months.)

This is 100% bullshit and just some excuse to "force" you politely to "use" your account... because "dormant" accounts does not generate "fees" and they need the "fees" to pay for their expenses.  

Yah the old "money laundering" key word they love to pull that out of their asses from time to time lol. But when they do you know you better watch out!

[larry_vw_1955]

In reality, the concept is completely different between a bank and a core wallet:

Many people in the bank, and anyone who has enough access to your details can unfreeze your bank account.

Not only that but they can see everything you're doing, all the transactions, what you use your money for everything. And you have to keep in mind they are just people. People tell other people things that they find interesting or peculiar, people that don't even have any business knowing.

I know this is a bit off topic to the thread subject but still...

[Pmalek]

The "freeze" option is not a feature that was introduced for the Bank client, but rather a regulatory feature that was implemented to protect the Banks. They are not allowed to have "dormant" accounts, because those accounts might be used for money laundering.. (the excuse given to me from my Bank, when I did not use my Credit card for 8 months.)

This is 100% bullshit and just some excuse to "force" you politely to "use" your account... because "dormant" accounts does not generate "fees" and they need the "fees" to pay for their expenses.  

That's part of the problem. I have an acquaintance who works in a local bank in my country. That bank recently sent out letters to all their customers informing them that in a few months they are planning to introduce new monthly fees for bank accounts whose clients have no type of active time deposit. When I asked her what it was all about, she said that the bank has high costs in insuring money on accounts with no time deposits. Those costs are at a minimum or non-existent once a part of your money goes into some kind of investment fund or time deposit. It could all be bullshit, of course, but it could also be true. Whatever it is, they don't want to see your money just laying around in your account, not being used, they want a bigger piece for themselves.     

[BlackHatCoiner]

i.e. with a bitcoin core wallet, you are the bank, you must handle the security.

Isn't it a little idiotic to compare those two just because the bank and you with your keys must handle the security of your money? I find the phrase “Be your own bank” a little misleading; maybe “Be your own sovereign” would be more proper.

In contrast with your node:

• A bank is a business. The bank does what it does, to earn money, to be maintained. You run your node (mostly) for personal reasons; you don't buy Bitcoins cheaper and sell them higher, as a bank would do, but rather use it as a wallet, so you can transact money with it.
• The bank has to play with the government's rules. But, you shouldn't fault the bank for freezing accounts to supposedly protect the society from money laundering. That's a government's command.

[thecodebear]

Here's the answer the OP is looking for:

So OP is saying he can freeze his account so nobody with his credit card info can spend it. BUT, he can unfreeze it by logging into his account and clicking a button. If someone got his account credentials then they could just unfreeze it themselves. In Bitcoin the private key corresponds to both account credentials and credit card number. Just as if he gave away his bank login credentials an attacker could do whatever they want with his funds, in Bitcoin if he gave away his private key the same thing would happen. There's no private info that allows spending but doesn't allow account control, like with credit cards, it's all just simplified to a single key you need to keep private. So there is no "freeze" option in bitcoin because there is no lower barrier to spending the funds like just getting your credit card info, so a freeze option isn't needed and doesn't even make sense. You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen.

[larry_vw_1955]

So there is no "freeze" option in bitcoin because there is no lower barrier to spending the funds like just getting your credit card info, so a freeze option isn't needed and doesn't even make sense. You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen.

Security through obscurity (or security by obscurity) is the reliance in security engineering on design or implementation secrecy as the main method of providing security to a system or component

[kano]

So there is no "freeze" option in bitcoin because there is no lower barrier to spending the funds like just getting your credit card info, so a freeze option isn't needed and doesn't even make sense. You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen.

Security through obscurity (or security by obscurity) is the reliance in security engineering on design or implementation secrecy as the main method of providing security to a system or component

Bad comparison.

Security through obscurity is hiding 'how' something works, and thus not secure in the true definition of the word, since it can usually be reverse engineered.

Security with a private key is security by definition - as long as the private key is complex enough to make a brute force attack pointless.

[larry_vw_1955]

Bad comparison.

Security through obscurity is hiding 'how' something works, and thus not secure in the true definition of the word, since it can usually be reverse engineered.

Security with a private key is security by definition - as long as the private key is complex enough to make a brute force attack pointless.

Yeah but he said "You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen." That's a bad comparison too because just keeping something "hidden" doesn't mean it's "frozen". If someone finds it, that would automatically "unfreeze" it without needing a 2nd factor.

[garlonicon]

If someone finds it, that would automatically "unfreeze" it without needing a 2nd factor.

If you don't want to use multisig, you can just encrypt your private key with another private key, in this way you will still have single key that can be frozen/unfrozen (or rather encrypted/decrypted). Using a password is also possible, but less safe, because people are bad at generating strong passwords, that's why we use keys instead of passwords in the first place.

Also, you can encrypt signed transaction instead of encrypting your private key, in this way you can add some limits and restrict where funds can be sent after unlocking or how many coins could be sent somewhere, then you can never touch your private key as long as you don't want to change such conditions.

[larry_vw_1955]

If you don't want to use multisig, you can just encrypt your private key with another private key, in this way you will still have single key that can be frozen/unfrozen (or rather encrypted/decrypted).

Again, with your idea above there is no 2nd factor that is required to be able to spend from the private key if someone happens to know it. I appreciate that you think the way you generated the private key was clever, maybe it was but in the end, it's just a private key.

Using a password is also possible, but less safe, because people are bad at generating strong passwords, that's why we use keys instead of passwords in the first place.

Well I'm not so sure I can agree that people are bad at generating strong passwords. Am I limited to the password's length? Can I make it 5000 characters long?

[Wind_FURY]

Bad comparison.

Security through obscurity is hiding 'how' something works, and thus not secure in the true definition of the word, since it can usually be reverse engineered.

Security with a private key is security by definition - as long as the private key is complex enough to make a brute force attack pointless.

Yeah but he said "You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen." That's a bad comparison too because just keeping something "hidden" doesn't mean it's "frozen". If someone finds it, that would automatically "unfreeze" it without needing a 2nd factor.

I believe it’s your comparison that’s bad. You merely think in terms of Bitcoin as a “UI” without understanding the protocol running behind it. You may think the freeze feature of your credit card is “amazing tech”, but your bank can freeze your ability to use the system anytime, and without your permission. It’s truly a laughable comparison.

[Pmalek]

Yeah but he said "You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen." That's a bad comparison too because just keeping something "hidden" doesn't mean it's "frozen". If someone finds it, that would automatically "unfreeze" it without needing a 2nd factor.

You just explained how your bank protects someone from using you credit card. The fact that your card is "frozen" provides no security whatsoever if someone knows how to access your online banking account. If I have your login data, I can unfreeze the card with the click of a button. Where is the second factor authentification for freezing and unfreezing if it can be done with the same password and account?

[larry_vw_1955]

Where is the second factor authentification for freezing and unfreezing if it can be done with the same password and account?

Well obviously the 2nd factor is the physical card itself! I didn't think that was necessary to explain but I guess it is. You're not going to be able to use the card if you don't have it. It's just that simple.

[Pmalek]

Well obviously the 2nd factor is the physical card itself! I didn't think that was necessary to explain but I guess it is. You're not going to be able to use the card if you don't have it. It's just that simple.

I don't need the card. I just need the numbers on it, the CVV number, and its expiration date and I can shop with it online. With a little bit of research, I could also replicate those numbers on a blank card with a piece of hardware and withdraw money from ATMs as well if I unfreeze it or if it already is unfrozen.

So you consider your credit card the first level of security and your online banking account the 2nd level? OK. In that case, why is your hardware or software wallet (protected with a PIN or password) not the first level of security, and your private keys or seed phrase not the 2FA? If you don't consider that to be optimal, you can introduce a passphrase or multisignature setup like mentioned above.

[thecodebear]

Yeah but he said "You freeze your funds when you keep your private key hidden, so your bitcoin is already always frozen." That's a bad comparison too because just keeping something "hidden" doesn't mean it's "frozen". If someone finds it, that would automatically "unfreeze" it without needing a 2nd factor.

You just explained how your bank protects someone from using you credit card. The fact that your card is "frozen" provides no security whatsoever if someone knows how to access your online banking account. If I have your login data, I can unfreeze the card with the click of a button. Where is the second factor authentification for freezing and unfreezing if it can be done with the same password and account?

Yes exactly. Which was my point. Larry doesn't understand that there is no equivalently low barrier to using funds in bitcoin like getting someone's credit card number. We walk around with our credit cards with all the numbers on the card. That's a low level of security to stop someone from using your credit card, so a freeze function in the bank account is useful. But the freeze function is only useful if you keep your account credentials safe.

In Bitcoin we don't carry around a card that lets us spend our bitcoin, their is only the higher account-level security - the thing you absolute must keep private. So it makes no sense to say there needs to be a freeze function in bitcoin, that'd be like saying you need a second freeze function in your bank account that freezes someone from even accesses the account itself, but then you'd need yet another "higher" account to freeze and unfreeze your account, and you'd still end up with the same solution of keeping your higher account credential private to keep someone from being able to unfreeze your lower account and unfreeze your funds. it's just infinite regress.

What it comes down to is in any system you have to keep SOMETHING private. With banks you need to try to keep your credit card info private but you also carry that info around in your wallet and type it into websites all the time so it's not that private, but you absolutely must keep your bank login credentials private, because a "freeze" function means nothing if that's not private. In bitcoin there is no credit card number that allows someone to spend your money, it's all in the private key that you must keep private, so it is the bank equivalent to your funds ALWAYS being frozen until you decide to do spend. A freeze function in bitcoin is nonsensical, as I already explained in my previous comment that is being quoted by Larry. Your private key security IS the freeze in Bitcoin.

To say Bitcoin needs a "freeze" function is to say you don't understand how Bitcoin works, Larry.

[larry_vw_1955]

I don't need the card. I just need the numbers on it, the CVV number, and its expiration date and I can shop with it online. With a little bit of research, I could also replicate those numbers on a blank card with a piece of hardware and withdraw money from ATMs as well if I unfreeze it or if it already is unfrozen.

Yeah but there's no way you are going to get the CVV number and expiration date. You might be able to get the numbers of the card but I'm not even sure about that. Some credit cards don't display the entire account # on your online account for that exact security reason!

So you consider your credit card the first level of security and your online banking account the 2nd level?
OK. In that case, why is your hardware or software wallet (protected with a PIN or password) not the first level of security, and your private keys or seed phrase not the 2FA? If you don't consider that to be optimal, you can introduce a passphrase or multisignature setup like mentioned above.

You're confusing two very different things. You can't clone my credit card. It would take alot more than "a little bit of research". Plus, you could very well end up in jail if you weren't careful.  In addition, the PIN/password of a crypto wallet doesn't stop even yourself from cloning the wallet somewhere else with a new PIN/password of your own choosing. That's what people don't understand. They think they understand but they really dont.

[kano]

In addition, the PIN/password of a crypto wallet doesn't stop even yourself from cloning the wallet somewhere else with a new PIN/password of your own choosing. That's what people don't understand. They think they understand but they really dont.

Without the password, a copy of a core wallet using a password is useless.
It does not give you access to unencrypted data, the password is part of the decryption of that data.