rich1.0npub1zkygapfrmhrw5yyhj6typl9kjphtfgy8ksjhkf9hslywagpu9qrsnahwkphttps://nostr.ae/npub1zkygapfrmhrw5yyhj6typl9kjphtfgy8ksjhkf9hslywagpu9qrsnahwkpnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-08-22 📝 Original message:Very true, if Moore's law is still functional in 200 years, computers will be 2^100 times faster (possibly more if quantum computing becomes commonplace), and so old wallets may be easily cracked. We will need a way to force people to use newer, higher security wallets, and turning coins to mining rewards is better solution than them just being hacked. On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 7:24 pm Thomas Guyot-Sionnest <dermoth at aei.ca> wrote: > In any case when Hal Finney do not wake up from his 200years > cryo-preservation (because unfortunately for him 200 years earlier they did > not know how to preserve a body well enough to resurrect it) he would find > that advance in computer technology made it trivial for anyone to steal his > coins using the long-obsolete secp256k1 ec curve (which was done long > before, as soon as it became profitable to crack down the huge stash of > coins stale in the early blocks) > > I just don't get that argument that you can't be "your own bank". The only > requirement coming from this would be to move your coins about once every > 10 years or so, which you should be able to do if you have your private > keys (you should!). You say it may be something to consider when computer > breakthroughs makes old outputs vulnerable, but I say it's not "if" but > "when" it happens, and by telling firsthand people that their coins > requires moving every once in a long while you ensure they won't do stupid > things or come back 50 years from now and complain their addresses have > been scavenged. > > -- > Thomas > > > On 22/08/17 10:29 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I agree, it is only a good idea in the event of a quantum computing threat > to the security of Bitcoin. > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Chris Riley via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> This seems to be drifting off into alt-coin discussion. The idea that we >> can change the rules and steal coins at a later date because they are >> "stale" or someone is "hoarding" is antithetical to one of the points of >> bitcoin in that you can no longer control your own money ("be your own >> bank") because someone can at a later date take your coins for some reason >> that is outside your control and solely based on some rationalization by a >> third party. Once the rule is established that there are valid reasons why >> someone should not have control of their own bitcoins, what other reasons >> will then be determined to be valid? >> >> I can imagine Hal Finney being revived (he was cryo-preserved at Alcor if >> you aren't aware) after 100 or 200 years expecting his coins to be there >> only to find out that his coins were deemed "stale" so were "reclaimed" (in >> the current doublespeak - e.g. stolen or confiscated). Or perhaps he >> locked some for his children and they are found to be "stale" before they >> are available. He said in March 2013, "I think they're safe enough" stored >> in a paper wallet. Perhaps any remaining coins are no longer "safe enough." >> >> Again, this seems (a) more about an alt-coin/bitcoin fork or (b) better >> in bitcoin-discuss at best vs bitcoin-dev. I've seen it discussed many >> times since 2010 and still do not agree with the rational that embracing >> allowing someone to steal someone else's coins for any reason is a useful >> change to bitcoin. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Matthew Beton via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> Okay so I quite like this idea. If we start removing at height 630000 or >>> 840000 (gives us 4-8 years to develop this solution), it stays nice and >>> neat with the halving interval. We can look at this like so: >>> >>> B - the current block number >>> P - how many blocks behind current the coin burning block is. (630000, >>> 840000, or otherwise.) >>> >>> Every time we mine a new block, we go to block (B-P), and check for >>> stale coins. These coins get burnt up and pooled into block B's miner fees. >>> This keeps the mining rewards up in the long term, people are less likely >>> to stop mining due to too low fees. It also encourages people to keep >>> moving their money around the enconomy instead of just hording and leaving >>> it. >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170822/2180b316/attachment-0001.html>