{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub136w76t4elj3fpxvzq0tpkm2smaav9aku7y7ccjzvhhhyqhuk8hmsgdtjc5","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub136w76t4elj3fpxvzq0tpkm2smaav9aku7y7ccjzvhhhyqhuk8hmsgdtjc5","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22\n📝 Original message:In any case when Hal Finney do not wake up from his 200years\ncryo-preservation (because unfortunately for him 200 years earlier they\ndid not know how to preserve a body well enough to resurrect it) he\nwould find that advance in computer technology made it trivial for\nanyone to steal his coins using the long-obsolete secp256k1 ec curve\n(which was done long before, as soon as it became profitable to crack\ndown the huge stash of coins stale in the early blocks)\n\nI just don't get that argument that you can't be \"your own bank\". The\nonly requirement coming from this would be to move your coins about once\nevery 10 years or so, which you should be able to do if you have your\nprivate keys (you should!). You say it may be something to consider when\ncomputer breakthroughs makes old outputs vulnerable, but I say it's not\n\"if\" but \"when\" it happens, and by telling firsthand people that their\ncoins requires moving every once in a long while you ensure they won't\ndo stupid things or come back 50 years from now and complain their\naddresses have been scavenged.\n\n--\nThomas\n\nOn 22/08/17 10:29 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing\n\u003e threat to the security of Bitcoin.  \n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e     This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion.  The idea\n\u003e     that we can change the rules and steal coins at a later date\n\u003e     because they are \"stale\" or someone is \"hoarding\" is antithetical\n\u003e     to one of the points of bitcoin in that you can no longer control\n\u003e     your own money (\"be your own bank\") because someone can at a later\n\u003e     date take your coins for some reason that is outside your control\n\u003e     and solely based on some rationalization by a third party.  Once\n\u003e     the rule is established that there are valid reasons why someone\n\u003e     should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons\n\u003e     will then be determined to be valid?\n\u003e\n\u003e     I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at\n\u003e     Alcor if you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his\n\u003e     coins to be there only to find out that his coins were deemed\n\u003e     \"stale\" so were \"reclaimed\" (in the current doublespeak - e.g.\n\u003e     stolen or confiscated).  Or perhaps he locked some for his\n\u003e     children and they are found to be \"stale\" before they are\n\u003e     available.  He said in March 2013, \"I think they're safe enough\"\n\u003e     stored in a paper wallet.  Perhaps any remaining coins are no\n\u003e     longer \"safe enough.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e     Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b)\n\u003e     better in bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it\n\u003e     discussed many times since 2010 and still do not agree with the\n\u003e     rational that embracing allowing someone to steal someone else's\n\u003e     coins for any reason is a useful change to bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e     On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e         Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height\n\u003e         630000 or 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this\n\u003e         solution), it stays nice and neat with the halving interval.\n\u003e         We can look at this like so:\n\u003e\n\u003e         B - the current block number\n\u003e         P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is.\n\u003e         (630000, 840000, or otherwise.)\n\u003e\n\u003e         Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and\n\u003e         check for stale coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled\n\u003e         into block B's miner fees. This keeps the mining rewards up in\n\u003e         the long term, people are less likely to stop mining due to\n\u003e         too low fees. It also encourages people to keep moving their\n\u003e         money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving it.\n\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170822/bc4992c0/attachment.html\u003e"}