Gov't + Bitcoin Foundation = 25% of all Bitcoins confiscated?

[Bit_Happy]

Sorry about this "FUD", the truth cannot hurt too much, correct?
The Bitcoin Foundation is paying Devs to work on the core code, so they have a type of control over projected changes.
When the economy gets even more unstable and the establishment gets desperate, here is what could happen:

1) The core Bitcoin code (combined with the blockchain) tracks "every Satishi" from their creation to the current address.
2) It would be possible (no matter how unlikely) to change the code to 'collect' (for the greater good) 25% of all existing Bitcoins and send them to a single address controlled by the United Nations/IMF, for example.
3) The Bitcoin Foundation would need a leader/director who is (possibly) being threatened with serious charges for "heinous crimes" which have no statue of limitations, so the threat is always active...  ...oh wait...didn't they just elect Brock Pierce as their new leader?

Whoever controls the code, has power over your Bitcoins. Correct?
Of course the mining pools will reject those code changes? Have the mining pools ever rejected code coming from the main dev team?

Is #2 possible (no matter how unlikely) Yes or No?

[1714628078]

1714628078

[1714628078]

1714628078

[1714628078]

1714628078

[1714628078]

1714628078

[tmbp]

There are already a couple of alt clients, no one would adopt this new client, especially considering that less than 50% of the nodes are actually from the U.S.

[beatljuice]

Possible? Maybe like the sun going supernova in our lifetime.

The minors haven't rejected updates because there hasn't been a significant enough reason to.

Maybe if it were a much smaller amount, like 0.001% you might sneak it in before it was noticed and it might take a few days to fix the code, but 25%. No way.

[Relnarien]

Whoever controls the code, has power over your Bitcoins. Correct?
Of course the mining pools will reject those code changes? Have the mining pools ever rejected code coming from the main dev team?

There has never been a need to reject any proposed code change before. A government-imposed and veiled taxation on Bitcoins is something that is not acceptable to all Bitcoin supporters, so there's no way that anyone would use a client that would make that possible. Transparency allows anyone to fork the source code, while decentralization allows the majority to consent to forking the blockchain. Essentially, the majority can just fork Bitcoin if it ever becomes necessary.

[porcupine87]

An entity (e.g. the US goverment) could simple buy a decent amount of Bitcoins and then stabalize the price of a Bitcoin.

[Anduck]

The Bitcoin Foundation is paying Devs to work on the core code, so they have a type of control over projected changes.

No, the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't have any control of the Bitcoin development.

[seriouscoin]

I love it when ppl put " around a word then they just balantly describe exactly what that word means....

Yeah..." FUD"

[Light]

It's highly unlikely that the devs would get the agreement of the miners and the nodes and in such a case the only way your proposed changes would get across would be that it is not included in the changelogs/publicly announced and hence it makes it in as a disguised patch. This only works provided no one compares the original changes and the source code so in reality it is very unlikely. Not to mention the backlash that would occur if it was discovered. So you can safely assume that it is extremely improbable that the code will be altered by the devs in such a manner that gives control to the government.

[drawingthesun]

Sorry about this "FUD", the truth cannot hurt too much, correct?
The Bitcoin Foundation is paying Devs to work on the core code, so they have a type of control over projected changes.
When the economy gets even more unstable and the establishment gets desperate, here is what could happen:

1) The core Bitcoin code (combined with the blockchain) tracks "every Satishi" from their creation to the current address.
2) It would be possible (no matter how unlikely) to change the code to 'collect' (for the greater good) 25% of all existing Bitcoins and send them to a single address controlled by the United Nations/IMF, for example.
3) The Bitcoin Foundation would need a leader/director who is (possibly) being threatened with serious charges for "heinous crimes" which have no statue of limitations, so the threat is always active...  ...oh wait...didn't they just elect Brock Pierce as their new leader?

Whoever controls the code, has power over your Bitcoins. Correct?
Of course the mining pools will reject those code changes? Have the mining pools ever rejected code coming from the main dev team?

Is #2 possible (no matter how unlikely) Yes or No?

Remember that all these coins are types of social contracts. This is very important to understand.

Bitcoin is several things, the client(s), the history (blockchain), the security (miners and nodes via the client(s)) and also a social contract.

Bitcoin's social contract is quite simple, the bitcoin supply is growing according to the mint rate specified when Satoshi first created Bitcoin, all bitcoins can be sent with no need for approval apart from controlling the private key, there cannot be double spends and no way to modify the mint rate.

Notice that the entire value of the bitcoin network is derived from these basic rules, and people have given Bitcoin value based on their belief that those rules are forever and unchanging.

Now if the Bitcoin foundation released a tainted client that stole bitcoins, the social contract would be undone and two things happen: either the community reacts and fights to keep the original social contract in place (by releasing an untainted client and hardforking the network back to where it was) or the community agrees with the change (or can't be bothered to fight via releasing another client) and the value of a bitcoin drops to zero.

Now the price will crash and those stolen bitcoin aren't worth anything now anyway.

The reason why Bitcoin has it's value is because of Satoshi's original social contract that we have all bought into, changing a fundamental rule would undo all the faith the market has in Bitcoin and is suicide.

Satoshi never said that a Government isn't allowed to buy up all the bitcoin's, so that is ok and in line with the social contract, but Satoshi said that the private key is always required to send bitcoins, any movement of bitcoins that does not involve the private key breaks the social contract and thus removes all faith in the system.

That is my assessment of the situation.

[rapport]

Sorry about this "FUD", the truth cannot hurt too much, correct?
The Bitcoin Foundation is paying Devs to work on the core code, so they have a type of control over projected changes.
When the economy gets even more unstable and the establishment gets desperate, here is what could happen:

1) The core Bitcoin code (combined with the blockchain) tracks "every Satishi" from their creation to the current address.
2) It would be possible (no matter how unlikely) to change the code to 'collect' (for the greater good) 25% of all existing Bitcoins and send them to a single address controlled by the United Nations/IMF, for example.
3) The Bitcoin Foundation would need a leader/director who is (possibly) being threatened with serious charges for "heinous crimes" which have no statue of limitations, so the threat is always active...  ...oh wait...didn't they just elect Brock Pierce as their new leader?

Whoever controls the code, has power over your Bitcoins. Correct?
Of course the mining pools will reject those code changes? Have the mining pools ever rejected code coming from the main dev team?

Is #2 possible (no matter how unlikely) Yes or No?

The threat of mining pool/s behaving badly (selfishly or if they get hacked) is a much much bigger threat than the core developers doing something like this.

Every person has indirect control of the code: you decide what code you run.  The point of decentralization is that there's no such thing as "Whoever controls the code, has power over your Bitcoins".  Everyone has to reach consensus: everyone has a "vote".  Large pools are dangerous because it is like letting someone else "vote" for you.

[tmbp]

The government works in a much more clever way, for example they could threaten the devs to include a specific version of a dependency (such as openssl) that would then offer a backdoor for them to access.

[giveBTCpls]

The NSA could attack at a hardware level, then shit would get legit real.

[rapport]

The NSA could attack at a hardware level, then shit would get legit real.

Good point.  Maybe this being done already, and it could be taking a long time for these attacks to get discovered?

[Lauda]

OP just no. So you're saying if me and a few corrupt devs implant some doomsday code for Bitcoin it would be accepted? 
TBF doesn't control the code, how would they?

[byt411]

OP just no. So you're saying if me and a few corrupt devs implant some doomsday code for Bitcoin it would be accepted? 
TBF doesn't control the code, how would they?

Even if all the devs become corrupt and make some code, it wouldn't work. Once it is discovered by someone reading the source code, miners and nodes would revert back to an earlier version, therefore making the new version with the doomsday code useless.

[BitCoinDream]

There are already a couple of alt clients, no one would adopt this new client, especially considering that less than 50% of the nodes are actually from the U.S.

All I see are centralized clients. Is there any Bitcoin-QT alternative local client as of yet ?

[byt411]

There are already a couple of alt clients, no one would adopt this new client, especially considering that less than 50% of the nodes are actually from the U.S.

All I see are centralized clients. Is there any Bitcoin-QT alternative local client as of yet ?

You can build it from source yourself if you have the know-how. It's basically Bitcoin Core and QT right now, although many exchanges use modified versions of them.

[BitCoinDream]

There are already a couple of alt clients, no one would adopt this new client, especially considering that less than 50% of the nodes are actually from the U.S.

All I see are centralized clients. Is there any Bitcoin-QT alternative local client as of yet ?

You can build it from source yourself if you have the know-how. It's basically Bitcoin Core and QT right now, although many exchanges use modified versions of them.

What do u mean by Bitcoin Core and QT ? Are not they same ?

[byt411]

There are already a couple of alt clients, no one would adopt this new client, especially considering that less than 50% of the nodes are actually from the U.S.

All I see are centralized clients. Is there any Bitcoin-QT alternative local client as of yet ?

You can build it from source yourself if you have the know-how. It's basically Bitcoin Core and QT right now, although many exchanges use modified versions of them.

What do u mean by Bitcoin Core and QT ? Are not they same ?

Yes, it's the same, that why I said that. It's called Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin QT.

[chennan]

They can't control the protocol and blockchain randomly. If they have managed to do it, the decentralized network would have easily found out. Then the miner would reject to mine and the majority of people wouldn't  accept BTC and dump them instantly. Would the gov and TBF let it happen?