What do you think Nostriches?
USGov 6102s 2 million BTC - are you gonna run the new code to burn those coins, or leave market forces to work it out?
#asknostr #Bitcoin nostr:note1x7f3jsduy6celmg5y2nl3lpmgyerysdtn4zgjuwcv3gdp68egkaqezfyw6
Discussion
No
That's the same slippery slope that ended ethiriums claim of decentralization. Though there could be value in watching CSW claim Bitcoin Classic is not the real Bitcoin ... đ
I vote for the latter đ¤
Stolen bitcoin will find its way back out again. No way in hell we're stooping to the level of ETH and doing our version of the DAO hack rollback. Fuck that.
The integrity of Bitcoin is worth more than some petty squabble on US soil.
Is it that fucking hard to keep a secret?
What do you mean âto keep a secretâ?
12 words
⌠in my head and they want me to give them up.
12 gauge in my hand, 4 years throw a party when they split it up
71 straight to 84 Big Brother wants to round us up,
Their printer goes brrrrrrrr, so we do da zaps
Ah gotcha. Yes and no though Iâd say.
This dynamic hasnât been fully grokked by people yet. These Institutions sitting on gigantic piles of corn have fallible humans protecting those 12 words.
Even sharded with a multisig, thereâs a few bags of flesh and bone in control of keys protecting potentially Trillions in wealth that are one immutable transaction away from being moved to someone elseâs control. No Bitcoin police to call and seize it, no Bank to print the difference.
The game theory **massively** changes when Bitcoin skyrockets into 7 figures and these honeypots become irresistible to motivated actors.
nostr:note10ta0lf5lqgyvxu5zgty94yj74zjm44tcrv3urzg05dut7x0wgnjs66gzxj
Yup, in my mind it is certain to be a rug pull, the only question is when.
It's not Bitcoin's problem though.
Legacy finance needs to touch the proverbial stove too.
Honeybadger DGAF.
Genuinely I donât think TradFi has any idea what they have gotten themselves into.
None of them are spending thousands of hours studying all the elements of Bitcoin.
They came for NGU but there are implications of operating in Bitcoinâs world that are totally alien to them and they will find out the hard way.
Because as you say, Honeybadger DGAF đ
Market of course. A countries decision is no deciding factor on Bitcoin code
Well nostr:npub19tfw9gngrq30usrx73sf2a6rp5gujflkqvzm9r7htt7et0vwhjxqwwzc0k my straw poll shows 0-7 for your idea of supporting a fork where we burn stolen coins.
As I said earlier in our chat, Iâd consider this move extremely contentious and other Nostriches have supported that.
Bitcoiners donât want theft adjudicated by consensus and they donât want to fuck with the 21 million just because the USGov (which I personally think is the biggest threat to Bitcoin) or anyone else is doing hostile things on the network.
Encourage you to read my replies to nostr:npub1jmy8weweqzckna0amz7pn0uhhkxx693l7st23829ewmu43yvjsesfp6xcq - let them play fiat games, Bitcoin is an alien arena which they donât understand, these actors are going to find out the hard way.
That's hardly the point.
The people who had their coins stolen *WILL* do a fork. They will want their coins back. And if the "they" is millions of people&companies with millions of coins it will be a big fork.
As a response to that, there will be a middle ground "burn the coins" fork as a kind of compromise that removes moral hazard, encouragees self custody and discourages theft through overwhelming force.
All that's being shown here is that you guys will stay on the original chain. Which, if you're a bitcoiner on nostr that self-custodies outside of the US, makes sense. But I don't get why anyone thinks there won't be a split. There is no "we".
Yes those are fair points.
But play through what you said and ask, how?
How would they try to execute this fork? Remember blocks are going to keep being added to the chain whilst this entity realises what has happened, then they have to communicate it to everyone, blocks keeps getting added.
1/3 of the world is offline and asleep at any one time so they wonât see whatâs happening for hours at best, those that are online will be laughing, some will be crying, meanwhile blocks keep being added.
Hours in it will become clear the tx canât be undone as Bitcoin has continued adding block after block after block. Time doesnât stop.
So Iâm not disagreeing they might try something but what is the practicality of the how?
Well then it gets into the details of the specific hypothetical. Presumably they are taking the coins because the dollar is hyperinflating. So the coins are taken overtly, and sent to known addresses because they would want the world to know they control them.
In that case, blacklisting those addresses is simply the least risky code change and doesn't require a lot of coordination or rolling back the chain - it would also be a soft fork.
For the people who want their coins back, they would have to do a hard fork rollback - which I don't think is workable, but they have nothing to lose by hard forking at that point.
Thank you for engaging in this thought exercise! Itâs really useful to play through such hypotheticals and challenge oneâs own thinking and biases, appreciate that youâre willing to do that in good faith đ
We agree a hardfork/rollback ainât happening in the case of âtheftâ then. The entity whose coins were âstolenâ can try but the fork will not gain any traction. Iâm using quotation marks as this scenario could be done via legislation/Executive Order or as a straight up heist, either way, once the coins move is when the game theory kicks in.
If we take your presumption that they do this overtly to known addresses, leaving motives aside, letâs play that out.
We can blacklist or not.
If we softfork to blacklist and burn those coins (ie make them unspendable / not fungible with BTC) we reduce the supply cap by that amount. Existing HODLers benefit as their share of BTC goes from X/21M to X/21M-Burn making their coins more scarce and therefore more valuable. The thief, be it USGov or anyone else, is defunded and goes to zero.
BTC has now demonstrated that the network is not neutral. It can and will boot participants it does not want to hold it. Thatâs a BIG change.
This could possibly be overcome with the right propaganda but could just as easily be used as a narrative against it. Weâre in a different world with adoption/knowledge/state strength etc if this is playing out so itâs difficult to judge how this might go - weâre looking too far ahead with too many variables.
Alternatively there is no softfork.
The world knows the addresses, no hardfork/rollback is happening, no softfork gains any traction.
We now have the biggest honeypot in history.
If itâs the USGov who 6102ed the coins, whoever is in charge is now effectively dictator and canât be removed (think on the nature of holding the keys in multisig and who would be trusted). No more elections, how can you trust a new guy to come in and not steal that much wealth for himself or his cronies? (Bukele ainât going anywhere BTW!) They gonna setup a Supreme Court of key holders? đ
If itâs some private entity who takes the coins before a 6102, I guess it would come down to their motives. Do they want to airdrop it to millions of plebs? Do they want to fund global socialism? Does some bloke want to be a modern day Mansa Musa? Too many scenarios to nail down.
Either way, there is now a massive honeypot of coins which was just proved to be stealable.
Why would they be forked off? To discourage more theft I guess.
What if the network likes what theyâre doing? Then maybe it wonât be restricted. And if itâs for something the network doesnât like (ie the WEF agenda), maybe then it is.
Maybe weâre willing to see them be restolen. Maybe it brings too much heat to Bitcoiners getting wrench attacked in this new dynamic.
Again weâre into too many variables..
I can see paths where your softfork might happen but I think itâs extremely unlikely. Bitcoiners would be super reluctant to change consensus on 21M even if it favoured them short term, theyâd probably be so well funded at this point that they could launch their own offence against such an actor and flip things into a different direction, depending on who has the coins and what they try to do with them I suppose.
Yeah, it's always the problem with hypotheticals, it's either too general so you can't come to conclusions, or so specific it has no chance of happening.
In the case of propaganda we can use for the blacklist option, we already have it..
"Bitcoin separates money from state"
And with the 21M, we already have less than that. e.g. mining rewards not claimed in full, coins provably undependable due to transaction mistakes or burned to bootstrap some shitcoin. 21M was always an upper limit, because there is no requirement to claim the maximum mining reward.
The main reason I wish bitcoiners/node runners wouldn't dismiss a user activated soft fork blacklisting (especially publicly), is that the credible threat of it happening may prevent the theft in the first place.