🤖 Tracking strings detected and removed! 🔗 Clean URL(s):

X (formerly Twitter)

Arbitrum (@arbitrum) on X

The Arbitrum Security Council has taken emergency action to freeze the 30,766 ETH being held in the address on Arbitrum One that is connected to th...

❌ Removed parts: ?t=NN-wAuSW8rv69Yziba2R4w&s=19

They know this and don’t care.

Yes. Also imagine a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers (CRQC) cleaning up the UTXO set from fake public keys : ) (its from the link below) I am sure there will be a number of intelligent ideas on how to resolve this issue with current very very low probability in appropriate cypherpunk way.

Without reading the details of the Arbitrarium case, how does "council decided ... to award confiscated coins to other people than the recipients according to protocol rules" have anything to do with a Bitcoin fork where every user can follow the fork or not ... or both ... at their own discretion? Bitcoin's rules can be changed and people who fancy the changed rules can run a node enforcing those. To argue whether "we" should change the rules is moot. There is no "we". Should a coin-freezing chain have value? Also moot. Should "lost" coins sponsor a quantum frenzy while diluting the Bitcoin supply? Also moot.

There's only one way to find out what Bitcoin users actually want 😉

At this point we should all take it as a given that 'anyone can do anything' - fork, propose stuff etc. I was incredibly explicit about that in the post you're responding to. But like BIP110, I think the idea of freezing coins here is antithetical to what Bitcoin is designed for: permissionlessness . And so I'm advocating against it, as strongly as I can. I think 'sponsor a quantum frenzy' is irrelevant here. No coins will be magically created. If there's a viable path to securing *your* coins before CRQC, that is enough, even if messy, even if inactive coins get reactivated down the line [1]. That's orthogonal to actively choosing to destroy Bitcoin's value proposition. [1] A good analogy might be: someone creates a new super-powerful gold detecting machine and suddenly a bunch of dead people who buried their gold underground in remote locations get it "reclaimed". Bad for the gold price, sure, but gold owners can't do anything because there is no all powerful 'security council' to 'delete' that gold, and they are happy about it! (Maybe in the 30s the US govt kind of did that - but that's not an example to emulate!)

This attitude is the definition of "bad actor".

Genuinely curious; would you say the same about an increase in supply from 21 million to some extended schedule of emissions to secure mining? I'm guessing you would. I do find it interesting that bitcoin could ultimately be 'hoist by its own petard' in this sense. Satoshi's 'set in stone' idea was that fully permissionless *evolution of state* of a fixed protocol is possible, using large scale proof of work. But that 'fixedness' is ofc just human consensus, and if the proof of work moves to a less ... stone-y system, the security is lost.

Ossification fixes this. Jameson is doing his part to hasten it.

Absolutely. It's impossible to create a protocol that is absolutely impossible to change: the best you can do is to align incentives that make certain aspects unlikely to gain sufficient consensus to coordinate a change. With regard to changes in the absolute / effective money supply, the only way one could imagine gathering consensus to change them is if it's done to avoid some sort of catastrophe.

Finding lost gold is one thing you can't prevent. Finding more gold in space neither. In Bitcoin we can do both. "Finding more coins" was ruled out by design from day one. Finding lost coins of course is more tricky as from outside you never know for sure which coin is lost or not but with sufficiently large windows to migrate, any actual holder should be able to migrate their coins to a save address type - a migration they should do anyway if the current type is not save. Ultimately, if coins get burnt or frozen indefinitely, they are not being confiscated by some committee that can and if it happens with years of head notice.

freezing contract address EVM chain like push a button utxo node that is not easy without hardfork

Jameson slopp needs to shut the fuck and and y'all need to stop taking him seriously. He's a retard and probably a pedophile. (If not a pedo why the fuck would he be trying to turn Bitcoin into childporn hosting?) Stop platforming him

People are going to say what they say. They might also reasonably say that cause Mark Karpeles was proposing a fork to reclaim the mtgox funds. But as much as you try to argue these are similar situations, they’re just really not? Fundamentally, in a world where a CRQC exists and more will later, your fundamentally cannot have a concept of property rights for coins secured by ECC. “If you have the key” is nonsense when everyone has the key! More generally, I posted this yesterday: I think its actually an interesting question as to whether allowing a BIP 32+seedphrase-based recovery scheme that also necessarily freezes some coins as a result is more or less property-rights violating than doing nothing. My view of Bitcoin's property rights has always been that someone who bought bitcoin, took self custody and wrote down the seedphrase 10 years ago then promptly forgot about bitcoin and went and lived their life should be able to retain access to their coins no matter what. For that user specifically, a recovery path actually *retains* more property rights than it loses. But for patoshi its a different question. Obviously you can do a commit-before-Q-day-reveal-later scheme for patoshi to retain ownership without revealing whether they still have the private keys, but they do have to do something. Its tricky but ultimately I don't think the "freezing coins is violating property rights so its bad" view is fully thought out - freezing some coins actually allows owners of other coins to retain the coins! Its far from black-and-white.

IOW, personally, I came to the conclusion ECC should be disabled (in conjunction with a commit-reveal scheme to allow pre-BIP-32 wallets to retain ownership without revealing they still have the keys) precisely because it is *less property-rights-violating than the alternative*. Yes, it’s “us” violating some property rights instead of “them” violating all property rights, but I think the distinction is really weird? Like, it feels like shoving our heads in the sand to pretend reality doesn’t exist (once a CRQC is undeniable) instead of facing a tough decision.

Your position is 100% mine, too. How could we coin it in a way can easily rally behind it without writing walls of text every time?

the only threat a crqc poses is to get us to make poor choices. once we realize this, "us" vs "them" simplifies to "us"

the problem is the notion of property rights to begin with, but apparently the practical reality of things is too much for people to bare so they replace it with ideological abstraction. Its all just as silly as saying that a miner that finds a valid blockhash has the "right" to be included into the chain or whatever.

🖕🏽

Critical thinking and nuance FTW 💥

First one must understand what one is saying and then, if the imagination abides, turn it into a meme. “Frozen bitcoin can’t be broken by quantum but there is a path for seed owners to access such frozen bitcoin on long-inactive accounts.” Is this the fundamental idea?

Your identifying the ZK exit proposals is useful. I'd point it back to our earlier discussion, somewhere, where I was saying something along the lines of "there is a catastrophic faliure mode that is unavoidable". In the scenario where a CRQC is developed, quickly, before escape routes are created, secretly and creates the ability to spend any key immediately, bitcoin is fucked - full stop, no argument. In the most likely scenario where all that is reversed - escape routes are created in advance, the development is at least semi-public and very slow, that analysis doesn't apply. The point of discussion is (imo) only the intermediate case - we have a slowly developing escape route, and we have a semi-public, slowly developing concrete CRQC threat. there might be some intermediate point of time where the argument "some coins can be protected by an ECC freeze" I think is defensible, but I'd still say it's very close to a complete failure vector. Because once the precedent is established, it will definitely be used to push other similar cases - the mining security requires inflation argument, before long the North Korea threat, and the will someone think of the children threat leading to a complete loss of the permissionlessness principle. So I'd say that that's a "75-90% loss of bitcoin being bitcoin" scenario that I think could only be defended if there was a 75-90%++ chance that the whole project is, right now, failing in any case. It would be a near-catastrophic failure, in itself, if we ever had to enact it. But it gets hard to argue details precisely because it's specifically the messy case, where we can't know the details, where the argument holds merit.

You don't own a right for the network to process your transaction just because you own a UTXO, as far as I can tell. Physical removal of certain people from certain forks of bitcoin is legal, it just might not be in the best interests of the people doing so. Freezing coins is licit but is fucking stupid under most cases. That is why I can justify freezing spam UTXOs. Could you explain to me how this redemption path would work and how it is not something that an attacker would have equal access to?