Oddbean new post about login | logout The US Gov has ~1,158,078 BTC or 5.51% of total supply within 6102 reach. This is the biggest threat facing Bitcoin and by extension, Bitcoiners. https://i.nostr.build/Q7258.jpg nostr:note1kh8h3vvjrkx3llcsl8dv3cdkqzhyk6yy6h7am5k73l5jy5dh3ewsk8xnk9
In a true 6102, there would be patches to blacklist US gov addresses
You think so? That would be contentious as fuck
If the US gov stole 10% of the bitcoin supply? I don't think it would be contentious at all, who would be on their side?
21 million is consensus, not 18.9 million. We gonna get rid of Satoshi’s coins while we’re at it? Which other addresses are we going to blacklist? Once you open Pandora’s box there’s no going back
Plenty of coins are burned/provably undependable. As if any consensus would form around getting rid of Satoshi's coins. Your solution is to just let a government steal millions of coins and get away with it?
People steal bitcoin all the time. Would you care to do that if the CCP did that to the Chinese?
I’ve posted multiple times that I think Coinbase are going to be targeted when BTC goes up - if some group goes and robs Blackrock of 500k coins before the USGov can 6102 them, are we going to blacklist that too? If the choice is between USGov 6102ing without impact and Noderunners blacklisting addresses, I’ll take the former. They’ve just created a massive fucking honeypot again that some group can go after, rob, and send via irreversible transaction out of their custody. No theft of Bitcoin should see wallets blacklisted. “Soft” blacklisted ok, but not via consensus.
That's your personal choice. I think if the US gov overtly stole some huge amount of bitcoin (>2M), there would be a consensus split, and then a fork that burns those coins. Personally I would run the fork, and use the fork coins, but still hold my coins on the original chain in case I'm wrong.
Given that if the government steals coins, that means Bitcoin's legitimation, which is a win in itself. Anyways, stolen coins are still valid coins because...they're just coins, such as stolen gold bars are still gold bars. The fact that a lot of coins are sitting in one's priv keys, being the keys of a government or an individual, is somehow a natural evolution of how capital works. Bitcoin is not a Maoist dream in which every user holds the same amount of coins...so we must accept the existence of big coin stacks, like possibly a government's stack.
Why are you talking about Maoism? Bitcoin is not gold, because you can't fork gold. If there is a major consensus break, then there will be a fork. If that's your opinion, you will know which side of the fork to choose.
Yep technically forks can happen, you're right. The problem behind hard forks is that once the opportunity of changing the rules is given, eventually people form lobbies to change other rules. If we just forked away because of government 6102 order, why can't we also include in the fork a supply increase? or a blocksize increase to 32GB? Or a dynamic blacklisting of adresses by miners? Or the seizure of Satoshi's coins? etc. If you think I'm just riffing, look at all the other protocols that hard forked in the past...that is the issue. Once the immutability is broken, you're done with the "immutability" narrative. > Bitcoin is not gold because Bitcoin can fork. Yes, but the only "gold-like Bitcoin " is the Bitcoin that technically respected the status quo...all the others are just shitcoin.
"if the oportunity of changing the rules is given" What are you talking about? No one needs permission to fork Bitcoin. It has happened many times, and will continue to happen. It's just a question of how much of the bitcoin economy forks away. It's part of the game theory. Bitcoin is a consensus of humans, and they express their will through the code they use to validate their coins. If there is a big break in consensus, a fork will happen. You can't stop it.
What would that achieve? The only transactions us gov might do is to other nation states.
would teach states that they can't steal the coins of an entire population, unlike with gold. and that their laws are meaningless when it comes to bitcoin network consensus.
So you're saying to blacklist at the protocol level? I don't think that would set a good precedent. For starters a lot of us are not American.
