Are bitcoins subject to confiscation?

[Greg Tonoski]

There is the thread on the Bitcoin Dev mailing list:

Objection. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 Reduced Data Temporary Softfork) has been activated. There are two blocks with the bit 4 signal (block height 961633) and the estimated 18 000 fully validating nodes in the network. I keep running such a node and accepting payments even if time interval between blocks is temporarily longer until the next difficulty adjustment.

(...)

I disagree. What do you propose as a justification for the 4 weeks and not another duration? Moreover, there are valid transactions, valid new UTXOs and the valid blocks. Would you suggest that they are subject to confiscation?

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/b_aV3JUtUqg/m/HwFbYFJwCAAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

[PrivacyG]

Objection. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 Reduced Data Temporary Softfork) has been activated. There are two blocks

Thank you for making me laugh.

[Mia Chloe]

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

What exactly do you mean by confiscate actually? If you mean something like freeze coins on the network, I don't think it's really possible. Freezing of addresses like you seen chains like USDT TRC 20 and so on is actually a function of what centralization is about just like your Money can get frozen by regular banks.

Other networks that allow it have a consensus rule but even with a soft fork it's still not allowed. The freeze option you may find in some wallets only applies to that seed access in that wallet if I took that same seed to another wallet I'll spend it flawlessly.

[athanred]

Are bitcoins subject to confiscation?

No, I have both BIP-110 and non-BIP-110 coins, properly splitted, and my BIP-110 coins reached a single confirmation.

non-BIP-110: https://mempool.space/tx/909b486928dc415d9b6613fcc70ccdbfb4d2f88516a040522365b95794774608
BIP-110: https://mempool.guide/tx/61ff0a1070b084d2601245056946480917a5f3efcb30fde082e7dafbd2b17158

If you want to buy/sell something between chains, then we can do a P2P trade, like people did in the old times. Nothing is confiscated, users can use any coins they want, using an altcoin is not a crime, no matter which coin you consider as an altcoin.

[pooya87]

There is the thread on the Bitcoin Dev mailing list:

Objection. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 Reduced Data Temporary Softfork) has been activated.

Let's see. If I had more free time, I would have created BIP-Pooya by the end of this day where I'd change something in the protocol and could even change the PoW so that we could mine BIP-Pooya chain using our CPUs. I'd probably be able to get a bunch of users on bitcointalk to mine my chain and by tomorrow morning I would have had an up and running fork.

Similar to BIP-110, my hypothetical BIP-Pooya would not be called "activated". It would be an altcoin created by a tiny minority.

[MusaMohamed]

There is the thread on the Bitcoin Dev mailing list:

Would you suggest that they are subject to confiscation?

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

Bitcoin does not have smart contracts to freeze bitcoins, to confiscate bitcoins in non custodial wallets. It's a decentralized blockchain, that is different than centralized altcoin blockchains or tokens that can be frozen, confiscated in non custodial wallets.

It's practical possible with altcoins, tokens but impossible with Bitcoin blockchain and bitcoins stored in non custodial wallets.
PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets.
Can stablecoins frozen by issuers?
Can stablecoins be frozen? Blacklisting explained (2026).

[ABCbits]

I hope other reader actually visit the google groups link, since OP doesn't quote the initial question/context on that group discussion. There are few monetary transaction or scenario that blocked by BIP 110 and effectively leads to confiscate (even if it's "only" for 1 year). Inheritance with custom spending script/rule is one of the example, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.msg66588032#msg66588032.

[stompix]

There are two blocks

Thank you for making me laugh.

Two days later, still two blocks 

I keep running such a node and accepting payments even if time interval between blocks is temporarily longer until the next difficulty adjustment.

20 Exahash means 1 year and a few weeks, this will probably mean 90% of the transactions will be dropped since they will already be confirmed on the other chain and not kept being broadcasted,  the mempool will be flooded with just the highest payments from the other chain and the poor guys who actually want to make a transaction of 110 coins will have to overpay x10 to x50 times more.

The thing is so idiotically constructed it will just screw 110 coiners twice for nothing.

Bitcoin does not have smart contracts to freeze bitcoins, to confiscate bitcoins in non custodial wallets.

Bitcoin doesn't,  Luke110coin does!

[BIT-BENDER]

There is the thread on the Bitcoin Dev mailing list:

Objection. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 Reduced Data Temporary Softfork) has been activated. There are two blocks with the bit 4 signal (block height 961633) and the estimated 18 000 fully validating nodes in the network. I keep running such a node and accepting payments even if time interval between blocks is temporarily longer until the next difficulty adjustment.

(...)

I disagree. What do you propose as a justification for the 4 weeks and not another duration? Moreover, there are valid transactions, valid new UTXOs and the valid blocks. Would you suggest that they are subject to confiscation?

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/b_aV3JUtUqg/m/HwFbYFJwCAAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

If Bitcoin can be confiscated without the help of the holder then it won't be different from the normal Fiat, amongst what makes Bitcoin unique is that no government can freeze out your Bitcoin just like that, on essence they don't have the ultimate authorization to just carry out such.
But on a case where someone has been apprehended for a crime and his wallet has already been known then he could be demanded to forfeit all coins in his wallet.

[legiteum]

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

Absolutely, positively any crypto, including Bitcoin, can be confiscated by a government.

Governments have a backdoor into all cryptos, and it's called, "the rubber hose attack". This attack consists of finding the person with the keys necessary to obtain ownership of the crypto balance, and... beating them with a rubber hose applying various forms of pressure until the person relinquishes the keys. Once they do that, the money is confiscated.

Bitcoin is no different than keeping your money in a bank account or hiding the money in your basement. Governments go after people, not technical systems.

[Danish Ali]

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

I do not feel like bitcoin provides a suitable mechanism to collect coins from someone without violating the basic idea of ownership.

Rules can be changed based on network consensus, but removing real coins from consumers is quite a different issue and is de facto a lack of trust in Bitcoin.

That is why changes like soft forks are continually contested. The rules that Bitcoin should follow, rather than just the code is what people are talking about.

[athanred]

until the person relinquishes the keys. Once they do that, the money is confiscated.

It works only if your private keys are enough, to move the coins. But some of them are locked on contracts, where knowing the private key will give you no advantage. For example: the private key to all of these addresses is equal to one. And nobody collected all of them.

Also, people can have coins, locked for example to "<timestamp> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG". Then, you can have the key, but you won't move the coins earlier, than the timestamp will let you.

Bitcoin is no different than keeping your money in a bank account or hiding the money in your basement.

Really? Then tell me, how to program my dollars to be movable, only if two out of three people will agree to do so, and only after a given time?

[legiteum]

until the person relinquishes the keys. Once they do that, the money is confiscated.

It works only if your private keys are enough, to move the coins. But some of them are locked on contracts, where knowing the private key will give you no advantage. For example: the private key to all of these keys is equal to one. And nobody collected all of them.

Also, people can have coins, locked for example to "<timestamp> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG". Then, you can have the key, but you won't move the coins earlier, than the timestamp will let you.

Bitcoin is no different than keeping your money in a bank account or hiding the money in your basement.

Really? Then tell me, how to program my dollars to be movable, only if two out of three people will agree to do so, and only after a given time?

It's very simple: if you can get to your money, then the government can compel you to give it to them.

If you make your money impossible for yourself to get, then sure, they can't take your money from you, but you don't have it either. 

In the case of somebody timestamping and locking their BTC for a duration, why, that's just brilliant: they'll just jail you until the timer expires. 

[bitmover]

It's very simple: if you can get to your money, then the government can compel you to give it to them.

If

The government cant compel you to give them only if the government  knows that you have it.

How will the government compel you to give them something they dont know you own?

[PrivacyG]

I hope other reader actually visit the google groups link, since OP doesn't quote the initial question/context on that group discussion. There are few monetary transaction or scenario that blocked by BIP 110 and effectively leads to confiscate (even if it's "only" for 1 year). Inheritance with custom spending script/rule is one of the example, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.msg66588032#msg66588032.

I actually could not believe he posted the link voluntarily.  If the 'There are two Blocks' part made me almost laugh, clicking the link and reading the actual context made me burst out laughing.  I know the BIP-110 supporters have a dubious pleasure of talking about sexuality and 'dickbutts' all the time and completely randomly but this is starting to look like a humiliation fetish already.

-----

Two days later, still two blocks 

It will always be alive as long as Greg is still hoping there will be a third!

[Alphakilo]

Is there a proper way to confiscate bitcoins, perhaps?

Absolutely, positively any crypto, including Bitcoin, can be confiscated by a government.

Governments have a backdoor into all cryptos, and it's called, "the rubber hose attack". This attack consists of finding the person with the keys necessary to obtain ownership of the crypto balance, and... beating them with a rubber hose applying various forms of pressure until the person relinquishes the keys. Once they do that, the money is confiscated.

Bitcoin is no different than keeping your money in a bank account or hiding the money in your basement. Governments go after people, not technical systems.

In addition to being coerced into relinquishing your keys, hard forks and even soft forks could render specific spending script invalid and that's how ones Bitcoin can become unspendable when that topic or subject of confiscation arises.

[legiteum]

It's very simple: if you can get to your money, then the government can compel you to give it to them.

If

The government cant compel you to give them only if the government  knows that you have it.

How will the government compel you to give them something they dont know you own?

LOL, yes, nothing can be confiscated if you hide it well enough.   

I'm not sure where that leaves our conversation though.

[HelliumZ]

Do you mean by confiscation something like that where you are hacking or taking away someone's Bitcoin without knowing the security system? If it was possible, people would have confiscated Bitcoin from many lost wallets long ago and brought it to a wallet.

But how do governments of different countries confiscate Bitcoin? It is basically that the investor or holder of Bitcoin is forced to transfer Bitcoin. In that case, only after being put in a torture cell and subjected to severe mental pressure and beatings, they are forced to give the security of the wallet and thus the government can confiscate Bitcoin.

[ABCbits]

Objection. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110 Reduced Data Temporary Softfork) has been activated. There are two blocks

Thank you for making me laugh.

If you want more laugh, consider visiting https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/355 and https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/356. Didn't expect him to throw away technical rationality.

I hope other reader actually visit the google groups link, since OP doesn't quote the initial question/context on that group discussion. There are few monetary transaction or scenario that blocked by BIP 110 and effectively leads to confiscate (even if it's "only" for 1 year). Inheritance with custom spending script/rule is one of the example, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579484.msg66588032#msg66588032.

I actually could not believe he posted the link voluntarily.  If the 'There are two Blocks' part made me almost laugh, clicking the link and reading the actual context made me burst out laughing.
--snip--

He know fair amount of members doesn't appear to check the source or even read the thread itself. Some reply only related with thread's title or the snipped text.

Two days later, still two blocks 

It will always be alive as long as Greg is still hoping there will be a third!

When i write this reply, the third block mined about 1 hour ago.

[athanred]

Didn't expect him to throw away technical rationality.

Why not? At least it is consistent: he is also in a minority in other areas, so it is not the first time: https://blog.lopp.net/knot-a-serious-project/

Luke has a tendency to not be in consensus with people on a variety of topics even outside of Bitcoin.

For example, he often talks about being a Roman Catholic... but he's not in consensus with what basically everybody considers to be Catholicism. Luke is a part of a tiny fork of Catholicism called Sedevacantism. To put it in perspective, there are 1.4 billion Roman Catholics globally and about 30,000 Sedevacantists. The Sedevacantist fork of Catholicism amounts to less that 0.01% of Catholics.

So, if he can be in a small group of Sedevacantists, then he can also be in a small group of BIP-110 supporters. You can consider it irrational, but at least it is consistent. And now, if he really believes in soft-forks being superior, then he would introduce new changes in a soft-fork way, by using weak blocks, fractional confirmations, and allowing the network to gradually drop the difficulty through years or decades, or whatever it takes. Or, he can always do a hard-fork, but it would simply send a signal, that all existing BIP-110 nodes are irrelevant, and they have to upgrade to new rules.

the third block mined about 1 hour ago

See? It is moving. That way or another, it will have its own chain, with a hard-fork, soft-fork, or whatever else their community will come up with. So, does anyone want to buy any BIP-110 coins?