Quote from: theymos on February 05, 2019, 10:48:11 PM

Quote from: poptok1 on February 05, 2019, 07:52:06 PM

This dangerous idea keeps coming back Theymos: Bitcoins Belonging to Satoshi Should Be Destroyed

Try actually reading the thread...

Quote from: theymos on May 12, 2016, 01:43:01 AM

I never said any such thing. bitcoin.com again proves that it is absolutely worthless by completely fabricating that quote.

The full quote:

Quote

Edit: To be absolutely clear: I am not proposing (and would never propose) a policy that would have the goal of depriving anyone of his bitcoins. Satoshi's bitcoins (which number far below 1M, I think) rightfully belong to him, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur.

This issue has been discussed for several years. I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue.

So if we somehow learn that people will be able to start breaking ECDSA-protected addresses in 5 years (for example), two softforks should be rolled out now:

⁠One softfork, which would activate ASAP, would assign an OP_NOP to OP_LAMPORT (or whatever QC-resistant crypto will be used). Everyone would be urged to send all of their bitcoins to new OP_LAMPORT-protected addresses.
⁠One softfork set to trigger in 5 years would convert OP_CHECKSIG to OP_RETURN, destroying all coins protected by OP_CHECKSIG. People would have until then to move their BTC to secure addresses. Anyone who fails to do so would almost certainly have lost their money due to the ECDSA failure anyway -- the number of people who lose additional BTC would be very low. (There might be a whitelist of UTXOs protected by one-time-use addresses, which would remain secure for a long time.)

There have been some reports that Blockchain analysts experts do not believe the exchange has the claimed amount of coins in cold storage, or at least not in a cold storage address with many transactions to the address. It may have used a new address each time a transaction to cold storage was made. Some of these experts believe many of the withdrawals from their hot wallet went to various other exchanges, although this may have been legitimate customer withdrawals.