141–147 of 147 posts
If signatures are no longer trustworthy, rolling back doesn't really tell you who the coins belong to. It just rewinds you to a state where the same problem still exists. So this seems more like a migration problem than a governance problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is you can't distinguish transactions that are from an "attacker" when the underlying signature scheme is broken. The Bitcoin P2P network has some metrics to disconnect from nodes that might be trying to DoS you, but if a transaction has enough fees, is spending unspent coins, and has a valid signature, it's valid.
I did say heuristics , not valid/invalid. You can do all sorts of analytics upon receiving a transaction, and then decide to forward or drop the transaction based on that heuristics. Valid/Invalid could become the minimum requirement for a transaction to be forwarded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t live in the US, and am not a citizen of the US. Well good then, I guess you don't have to worry about any of this so long as no American ever gets a quantum computer! Not like any research on it happens here or anything so you shouldn't need to be concerned.
The US happily arrests and charges people for cryptocurrency theft too. > An unsealed indictment on Thursday identified Malone Lam, 20, a citizen of Singapore who lives in Miami and Los Angeles, and Jeandiel Serrano, 21, of Los Angeles, showing both had been arrested Wednesday night and charged with conspiring to steal and launder the cryptocurrency. They were set to appear in separate federal courts in California an…
But the whole discussion here is whether or not it'd be theft at all. There is no breaking into computers or laundering involved here. And you're also now admitting that we're discussing US law as I was from the beginning, after trying to deflect to whatever rando country you're from as if it matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoins aren't money.
Good luck convincing the government that you aren’t guilty of money laundering because you used bitcoins.
Something doesn’t have to be money to be involved in money laundering, obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoins aren't money.
18 U.S.C. § 2311 defines "money" in the context of stolen property as: > the legal tender of the United States or of any foreign country, or any counterfeit thereof Bitcoin has, at times, met this standard by being the legal tender of a foreign country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck convincing the government that you aren’t guilty of money laundering because you used bitcoins.
It’d be money laundering because money went in on one end, and money came out at the other end. Bitcoin would’ve been the vehicle yes. Still not money though. Something doesn’t have to be money to be involved in money laundering, obviously.
In fact, the U.S. has prosecuted and convicted people for money laundering simply for operating the bitcoin mixing service, which is clearly just bitcoins in and bitcoins out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
18 U.S.C. § 2311 defines "money" in the context of stolen property as: > the legal tender of the United States or of any foreign country, or any counterfeit thereof Bitcoin has, at times, met this standard by being the legal tender of a foreign country.
Wait, does that mean that counterfeit money is legally money in the US?