Decentralized Security in the Blockchain

[MrTeal]

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins"  would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin"  the coin with the majority  (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name  

Why the majority of the hash power?  The real power is the users. Ghash, Discuss Fish and Antpool could all decide they want to mine blackcoin. However if only a few hundred users move with them and everyone stays with the current client, they would essentially just be mining a very difficult altcoin.

[goosoodude]

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins"  would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin"  the coin with the majority  (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name  

Why the majority of the hash power?  The real power is the users. Ghash, Discuss Fish and Antpool could all decide they want to mine blackcoin. However if only a few hundred users move with them and everyone stays with the current client, they would essentially just be mining a very difficult altcoin.

Its not even the users directly but where they use it. Currently exchanges and merchants would be the ones determining. However, there is no way for them to reach a consensus, while miners can reach a consensus easily as there only a few.

[MrTeal]

I don't think that forking bitcoin in " clean coins" and " free coins"  would be a good idea for many reasons, but I don't think this would destroy bitcoin at all....just some miners switching to an alt-coin

I suppose that depends on how big of a percentage the smaller community was, and how hard each community pushed to be considered the "official bitcoin".

I would call " bitcoin"  the coin with the majority  (50%+1) of the hashpower. That's one of the reasons why I hate so much centralization, I know that hashes are not people, but name does not matter... I will prefer to use the original blockchain independently of the coin name  

Why the majority of the hash power?  The real power is the users. Ghash, Discuss Fish and Antpool could all decide they want to mine blackcoin. However if only a few hundred users move with them and everyone stays with the current client, they would essentially just be mining a very difficult altcoin.

Its not even the users directly but where they use it. Currently exchanges and merchants would be the ones determining. However, there is no way for them to reach a consensus, while miners can reach a consensus easily as there only a few.

Exchanges and merchants are users.
People who send transactions -> Users
People who confirm transactions -> Miners
That being said, if everyone decided they wanted to use the blacklisted coin and forked while Newegg kept using vanilla, I imagine there's a decent probability they'd change to the coin people are using. More likely that they'd just dump Bitcoin entirely, but that's the risk you take trying to make massive changes to the entire idea behind Bitcoin.

[Q7]

The problem is when it comes to consensus that is when we consider the size of the network which is too big to control. If we take exception in this address and start implementing some from control, what would happen if there is another hack similar to it and people start to make request? A person or organization needs to be held accountable for their own actions especially security.

[Bitware]

I was thinking yesterday, this address:
https://blockchain.info/address/1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf

We all know that it belongs to the Bitstamp hacker, a thief; why then, the whole network, knowing that Bitcoins are coming from a hack, can't do anything about it? Why if we all agree, the network, can't do anything against this injustice?

Crazy idea, but what if we all start to migrate to new anti-thief-nodes where, while analyzing the blockchain during a transaction and find that this address was involved, automatically reject the transfers?
Does not this would eliminate the profit of the hacker?, this will not eliminate the urge to steal bitcoins, and still maintain a decentralized, anti theft system?

I know that this will only works for BIG hacks, that the entire network knows about, but this could be done somehow or I'm missing something?

Thanks in advance.

All you know is what a human at Bitstamp told you.

[muhrohmat]

well at begining was just to state the hacking possibility of blockchain  and that is decentrilized its in every wallets person the info and also blockchain soo the btc never disapers until 2113 but i mean it can be hacked like from personla info on the wallets like on line wallets of passwords and low security ones amasinlgy blockchain wallets are now more reliable i dont use but its proper for 1 to 2 btcs in there dont advise more

[Delek]

All you know is what a human at Bitstamp told you.

Who cares if it was a human, a cat or a horse? If ~100% of the network agree that https://blockchain.info/address/1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf has 100% hacked coins, it should be possible to develop a Decentralized Security System.

[Bitware]

All you know is what a human at Bitstamp told you.

Who cares if it was a human, a cat or a horse? If ~100% of the network agree that https://blockchain.info/address/1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf has 100% hacked coins, it should be possible to develop a Decentralized Security System.

I care and others care.  I don't agree with a claim from a single person that a theft occurred. Others also disagree. That means that 100% of the network are not in agreement those coins are 100% hacked. What you appear to be willing to do is lock up those coins from the current owner based on one persons claim that they are stolen, without any due process for the current holder of those coins. It is not our job to police individual wallet addresses and the coins contained therein. That is an issue for the police and the courts, then they go after those involved and their assets if found guilty by a jury of their peers. The Bitcoin users, devs and the Bitcoin code are not responsible for any of that, never should be and hopefully never will be. This is part of decentralization. Take responsibility for your own coins, wallets and storage mechanisms. Should the courts rule that a theft occurred, then its their responsibility to obtain access to the wallets or take the assets of those proven to be guilty and make whole those affected. Not mine. Not yours. Not Bitcoin devs. Not the code.

[muhrohmat]

we all concern bout security of our goods like every material thing we have and this digital decentralized btc its going to be secure but 100% hacked acount must be from low security in firewalls or password acesss in blockchain

[mistercoin]

For all I "know"- in a strong sense-- Bitstamp sold those coins to an innocent third party.  (Or, if implicating Bitstamp is indeed too crazy for you: The hacker could have directly sold them to an unaware third party; and half the coins flowing there could actually be unrelated to Bitstamp.)

Be mindful of what you know, vs what you think you know.  Part of the value of the system is that it minimizes importing human judgement into its operation.  If it does that then there is no clean boundary, and risk analysis is much more costly.

Very true. This is an important point regarding one of the reasons Bitcoin is the way it is. Centralization, if you think about it, allows for one party, or in some cases, multiple parties, to control how something is used. As humans we are prone to making mistakes, look at the people who are wrongly put to death for crimes they did not commit. The glory of the blockchain is that it allows a certain bit of freedom from ourselves, and our judgement. When a transaction is sent, it is final, for the most part.

If Bitstamp was compromised (and there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that it wasn't) then hopefully they will take this as a lesson learned, and explore every nook of their systems for security flaws.

I'm blabbering...sorry