Bitcoin Killswitch

[An amorous cow-herder]

Basicly its a fairly hyptothetical question.

But lets, just for a moment assume bitcoin had something like a "kill-switch".
A method that, by design, would revert all transactions that have ever been done.

What would be the consequences?

[Raystonn]

As this is open source, any kill switch would be publicly visible.  It's not there.  Now then, within a closed source implementation, such as any proprietary "coin" invented by J.P. Morgan for example, a kill switch could easily be hidden.

[RyNinDaCleM]

What would be the consequences?

Game over!

[An amorous cow-herder]

As this is open source, any kill switch would be publicly visible.  It's not there.  Now then, within a closed source implementation, such as any proprietary "coin" invented by J.P. Morgan for example, a kill switch could easily be hidden.

I said "by design", not "by code". That might sound like a splitting hairs, but its actually really a very different thing.

[An amorous cow-herder]

What would be the consequences?

Game over!

May i quote you on that?
(Outside this forum?)

[adamstgBit]

What would be the consequences?

orphaned block, not a shit was given.

[An amorous cow-herder]

What would be the consequences?

orphaned block, not a shit was given.

And if the block was several blocks longer than the "valid" block chain?
<edit>I mean, if the "attacking" blockchain was longer?<edit>

[rocks]

As this is open source, any kill switch would be publicly visible.  It's not there.  Now then, within a closed source implementation, such as any proprietary "coin" invented by J.P. Morgan for example, a kill switch could easily be hidden.

I said "by design", not "by code". That might sound like a splitting hairs, but its actually really a very different thing.

The bitcoin "design" is quite simple and straightforward, it is highly doubtful a purposeful flaw exists that remains unknown.

That's not to say that the design may not ultimately fail, for example mining incentives could evolve in a manner that damages bitcoin, but an intentional kill switch is just plain unlikely.

[RyNinDaCleM]

What would be the consequences?

Game over!

May i quote you on that?
(Outside this forum?)

Sure! I say game over because (unless it was averted before the switch was flipped by means of hard fork where the "kill-switch" was omitted), the trust would be gone. Game Over!

[An amorous cow-herder]

That's not to say that the design may not ultimately fail, for example mining incentives could evolve in a manner that damages bitcoin, but an intentional kill switch is just plain unlikely.

I am not considering an "intentional" kill switch (unless that had been the Satoshi´s intention).
Merely a design flaw that could have the same consequence.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Sure! I say game over because (unless it was averted before the switch was flipped by means of hard fork where the "kill-switch" was omitted), the trust would be gone. Game Over!

Well said. A hard fork can be a remedy for everything after all

[adamstgBit]

What would be the consequences?

orphaned block, not a shit was given.

And if the block was several blocks longer than the "valid" block chain?
<edit>I mean, if the "attacking" blockchain was longer?<edit>

everyone ignores attacking blockchain.

[adamstgBit]

Game over!

if this happens i'm buying....

[An amorous cow-herder]

everyone ignores attacking blockchain.

Why would a client ignore a longer block chain? Basicly the valid block chain would be the "attacking" block chain, wouldnt it?

[joe 90]

Was the blockchain rolled back a few years ago to fix some problem? If there were any big problems in the future the dev's would probably roll back the blockchain and do a hard fork to fix it. A design flaw would create loss of confidence and a price drop, but I doubt it would kill bitcoin unless it was unfixable.

[adamstgBit]

everyone ignores attacking blockchain.

Why would a client ignore a longer block chain? Basicly the valid block chain would be the "attacking" block chain, wouldnt it?

everyone ignores attacking blockchain, by upgrading their client.

[adamstgBit]

Was the blockchain rolled back a few years ago to fix some problem? If there were any big problems in the future the dev's would probably roll back the blockchain and do a hard fork to fix it. A design flaw would create loss of confidence and a price drop, but I doubt it would kill bitcoin unless it was unfixable.

you should have been there

poeple were still making TX as the chine was forking and every single TX got through onto the right chain

I was impressed.

[RyNinDaCleM]

everyone ignores attacking blockchain.

Why would a client ignore a longer block chain? Basicly the valid block chain would be the "attacking" block chain, wouldnt it?

everyone ignores attacking blockchain, by upgrading their client.

When you upgrade the client to one that has a fix for such a switch, that would be a hard fork, no? The same as when they implemented the checkpoints and it was a mandatory upgrade which is probably the one you are referring to in your next post

[An amorous cow-herder]

you should have been there

poeple were still making TX as the chine was forking and every single TX got through onto the right chain

I was impressed.

And assuming i (or $whoever) had a/several blockchains dozens of blocks longer than the "valid" blockchain? What then?

[adamstgBit]

its no use, the blockchain necessarily is what the majority want it to be.