3 ms·
It would be better to transfer the money publicly later to destroy the key. I think accidentally or non-provably losing the key to this is the worst possible t
by rdl 11y ago
It would be better to transfer the money publicly later to destroy the key. I think accidentally or non-provably losing the key to this is the worst possible thing -- no one can believe you, so they have to act as if you have the money, but you don't have control of it to do anything with it (including verifiably destroy it.)
- eru 11y agoYes. Though hindsight is 20:20, of course.
- rdl 11y agoExcept everyone involved in Bitcoin's creation was aware of about 20 years of precedent and discussion about these kinds of issues -- http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ -- so it wasn't really hindsight
- dakami 11y agoEverything before Bitcoin was really obsessed with anonymity, whereas Bitcoin was actually scared of centralization.
- rdl 11y agoNot everything (hashcash, some of Wei Dai's stuff, etc.) -- but I was more referring to how to do tests/proofs in mutually-distrustful environments, not the protocols themselves. Bitcoin was exceptional in a lot of ways -- most importantly, getting traction! -- decentralization, the ramping up, etc.
- dakami 11y agoI'm interested in more of your perspective here. I was around back in the Mojo Nation era as something of an observer, but there's lots maybe I didn't see.
- rdl 11y agoThe good stuff was always buried deeply on threads, and mainly pre 1996. I should do something better with the archives to pull out the specific good stuff.