6 ms·

But that ledger isn't accurate. It's just distributed and difficult to change. I technically am the owner of (quite a few) bitcoin that were being processed b

But that ledger isn't accurate. It's just distributed and difficult to change. I technically am the owner of (quite a few) bitcoin that were being processed by MtGox when they imploded. The wallet they were in at the time was emptied and no longer exists. I still receive the relevant court documents as the case continues still. As far as the ledger is concerned - they are no longer mine. --- So question to you: How do you reconcile the theft of my property with the ledger at this point? It turns out I have no ability to do so at all. The ledger is distributed and impossible to meaningfully change. So while I trust that the ledger can't be changed easily - I don't trust the ledger to accurately reflect ownership (it can only represent possession, not true ownership). So now what? Now it turns out I have to turn around and trust a central authority anyways! That authority being the government that is handling the prosecution of MtGox for fraud and theft.

voldacar 5y ago
>Now it turns out I have to turn around and trust a central authority anyways! That authority being the government that is handling the prosecution of MtGox for fraud and theft. In theory, DeFi can solve this. In practice it is hampered by poor UX and high transaction/gas fees. I think in the far future, the idea of ever having "your" assets in a wallet whose key you don't control will be seen as a ludicrous archaism. Sorry for your loss btw, that really sucks
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  > Sorry for your loss btw, that really sucks You and me both - 41 bitcoin at $4.17 a piece. Admittedly, if they hadn't been stolen I was planning on buying a 1/4 of weed with them, so I probably wouldn't be rich either way... shrug Fun story though - I can honestly say I spent more than USD 10 million in bitcoin on weed in college. Only about $500 at the time.
  - CTDOCodebases 5y ago
    You know they recovered 150000 Bitcoin from a cold wallet and are going to repay holders?
  - TheProbes 5y ago
    You should be getting some of them back soon then right?
JackFr 5y ago
This exactly. Turns out there is some utility to a central authority.
- verdverm 5y ago
  Proof of Authority systems
throwaway21332 5y ago
You know, there is a reason why crypto people chant "Not your keys, not your coins".
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Sure, but value without an enforcement mechanism is not very useful. People usually want to trade stored value in exchange for goods and services (at least in a functioning value store - I don't really believe bitcoin serves that purpose at the moment). So lets say we agree that I pay you 10k in bitcoin in exchange for you remodeling my bathroom (and ignore how unlikely this scenario is with real crypto currencies). I pay you 50% up front (to purchase materials), and 50% on completion. Then you run off with my initial 50%. Now what? ---- Every solution I've seen is riddled with pitfalls and gotchas - Use escrow? Wait - now we're just trusting a central authority again. - Use Eth contracts? Well, maybe - but it requires a perfectly written contract or you're open to all sorts of strange edge behavior and side effects. - Sue over the theft? Now the central authority is just the government again, and we're back at square one! You see the disconnect I'm getting at? Eventually, if disagreements occur about how value was traded, there has to be a reconciliation mechanism. Right now, even in modern crypto - that reconciliation mechanism is still a central authority: Your government.
  - throwaway21332 5y ago
    You're conflating two issues with each other. One is having a decentralized currency with a fixed monetary policy. Another issue is the counterparty risk. Bitcoin is not designed to solve the counterparty risk, it's just a digital cash that has a fixed emission schedule. It can be stolen just like regular physical cash can be. Smart Contracts try to solve the counterparty risk issue, but it's just an extra layer around cryptocurrencies, that has it's pros and cons.
    - horsawlarway 5y ago
      See, I think you're disconnecting two issues which are inherently related. Fraud is not going anywhere anytime soon. If you have no proposed mechanism to reconcile fraud, I'd argue there's not any true value stored. If the proposed mechanism is "just use the existing government" then the whole house of cards in built on the back of that central authority enforcing ownership for you anyways in which case why not just use the currency that authority already sponsors and has a proven track record of enforcing?
CTDOCodebases 5y ago
“I don't trust the ledger to accurately reflect ownership (it can only represent possession, not true ownership).” Possession is ownership on the Bitcoin network. Not ownership in the sense of it is written down in some legal document somewhere but ownership in the sense that you have the power to perform a transaction with what you say you own. You were trusting a central party all along. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be in the position you are in.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  But the alternative here is that you have to place all your trust in an unknown and untrusted 3rd party to ever actually make an exchange. Even the silk-road used an escrow service that required that the seller trust the buyer, and both parties trust the silk-road. (a buyer places coins in escrow with the silk-road, the silk-road confirms it has the coins to the seller, the seller ships the product, the buyer unlocks the coins escrow upon receipt) So the whole things boils down to "trust" and it turns out that the ledger can't actually provide any trust.
  - CTDOCodebases 5y ago
    After enough confirmations a transaction is final and I can trust that the transaction is final and my account balance on the ledger is correct. Present forms of digital cash do not offer this. A payment can be reversed if the buyer claims the transaction was fraudulent and the banks involved agree to reverse the transaction. Money can be accidentally withdrawn from my account and I have to ask the bank to return it. In both these cases if the institutions involved refuse to return my money then I have to take the issue to court and I am deprived of using or investing this money in the meantime. If consumer protections are your concern these laws exist in many countries regardless of the payment medium.
    - horsawlarway 5y ago
      But the trust that a bitcoin transaction is final isn't enough trust to make an exchange! Lets say you and I decide right now that we're going to use these comments to make an exchange. I will give you $5 of bitcoin in exchange for you mailing me a postcard. Now what? How do we proceed in a meaningful manner? How do we go about making that exchange happen if we assume that either party is self-interested, and not interested in actually completing the deal? If I send the bitcoin first? - the second it hits your account you know for sure it's yours: No need to bother sending the postcard - that's just cash out of your pocket. If you mail the postcard first? - Well, job's done for me, no need to send any bitcoin at all. What if we both agree that we trust Bob, and you send him the postcard, and I send him the bitcoin, and he only forwards them along after he gets both? - Oops, now Bob can do all those things you complained about letting the bank do! He can send that bitcoin back and I won't ever get a postcard. He can mail the postcard back and you won't ever get any bitcoin (Transaction reversed!). Worse, he can take anything you give him and do what he wants while he has it (like disappear!) - or hold them much longer than you'd like after he gets them. (Freeze it). How do you get your stuff back from Bob? Same way you would from a bank - appeal to the government. Basically - Bitcoin without enforcement is only a ledger. The thing that keeps it in check with reality is an appeal to an authority somewhere, who provides trust that both parties in an exchange aren't getting screwed.
hirako2000 5y ago
Not your keys not your coins. Unless you trust some central authority to take care of you, which you should by now understand that doesn't always work, and when it doesn't work, it's usually a spectacular failure. So to answer your questions. Although possible, no reconcile is the pure spirit of a trustless network. Now? you make sure to avoid custodian services and keep your keys safe. or stay away from crypto until/if it becomes as ubiquitous as the Internet.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  So we both agree - the ledger is "accurate" only in the sense that the ledger matches... (drumroll) the ledger. Which is entirely true, and there are some useful properties to that, but the whole thing falls down the second you have a real dispute over the trade of goods for value (which I might remind you, outside of the pure speculation/gambling that occurs in bitcoin pricing, is the point of actually holding a currency). So how do I go about safely spending these things? Oh - it turns out that still only works in the context of a central authority and the legal system they support.
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    the dispute concern is long solved. it happens every day with cash, but also with other form of payments. freight shows interesting practices. and, escrow is still an option. Spending these things? I can show you how to hold securely some wallet with your own private keys (no custody), receive then "spend" these things for a few pennies per transactions and with the guarantee nobody will interfere with our exchange. from wherever you happen to reside. there is no central authority able to (practically) control many of the blockchain networks out there.
    - horsawlarway 5y ago
      > Spending these things? I can show you how to hold securely some wallet with your own private keys (no custody), receive then "spend" these things for a few pennies per transactions and with the guarantee nobody will interfere with our exchange. Yes, and because no one can interfere in the exchange, no one can prevent either party from abusing the other, and no third party can later reconcile the dispute without an outside framework. I find it pretty unbelievable how comfortable the crypto crowd is about just dismissing reconciliation, when it's literally some of the oldest history have, and one of the more important roles of a functioning government (we literally have 4 thousand year old stone tablets dealing with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir)
betwixthewires 5y ago
I see your perspective. There's another perspective from which you could look at the details of your situation. You deferred to a trusted party to secure your wealth and because that third party was untrustworthy, you have to defer to an intermediary. Had you deferred to yourself to secure your wealth you wouldn't be in this situation. The ledger would be the canonical one of ownership and possession, and you wouldn't have to defer to anyone. Basically, you kept your bitcoin in a traditional, legally enforceable arrangement instead of the bottom layer, algorithmically enforced environment and now have to defer to the traditional system to restore possession.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Ok - so follow along with me here: I owned no bitcoins at the time I desired to trade bitcoins for a physical product (in this case: ~7g of Cannabis) What recourse do I have that does not require trusting a third party? I do not own the required compute power to mine it myself (not technically true at the time, although certainly true today) I'd like to have you walk me through the exact set of steps to acquire my bitcoin and use them to purchase that physical good, where I can magically avoid placing any trust in a 3rd party.
  - MrMan 5y ago
    They want you to go back to frontier days before specialization in the economy, you are supposed to hoard your wealth yourself and protect your family with a gun
    - horsawlarway 5y ago
      This exactly! (not to mention only ever making exchanges in person, because remote exchanges require trust) Which is hilarious. Because that's actually all that bitcoin was good for: black market deals/trades, where enforcement is left up to you anyways. Unfortunately, that makes it a (fucking terrible) medium of exchange for absolutely anything else, unless you add back in all the government regulation that the crypto folks hate.
  - 5y ago
BTCOG 5y ago
Not your private keys, not your coins. You CHOSE to gamble with your property when you gave it to someone else. Whether you understood this before you lost your property or not, is irrelevant. I've not lost any of my coin UTXOs associated with my own private keys. Unregulated, foreign Magic The Gathering trading card exchange use was never a wise choice from the day Jed McCaleb started that garbage database.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> How do you reconcile the theft of my property with the ledger at this point? Authorities must find whoever received those bitcoins and make them transfer the funds back to you.

voldacar 5y ago

>Now it turns out I have to turn around and trust a central authority anyways! That authority being the government that is handling the prosecution of MtGox for fraud and theft. In theory, DeFi can solve this. In practice it is hampered by poor UX and high transaction/gas fees. I think in the far future, the idea of ever having "your" assets in a wallet whose key you don't control will be seen as a ludicrous archaism. Sorry for your loss btw, that really sucks

horsawlarway 5y ago
> Sorry for your loss btw, that really sucks You and me both - 41 bitcoin at $4.17 a piece. Admittedly, if they hadn't been stolen I was planning on buying a 1/4 of weed with them, so I probably wouldn't be rich either way... shrug Fun story though - I can honestly say I spent more than USD 10 million in bitcoin on weed in college. Only about $500 at the time.
- CTDOCodebases 5y ago
  You know they recovered 150000 Bitcoin from a cold wallet and are going to repay holders?
- TheProbes 5y ago
  You should be getting some of them back soon then right?

JackFr 5y ago

This exactly. Turns out there is some utility to a central authority.

verdverm 5y ago
Proof of Authority systems

throwaway21332 5y ago

You know, there is a reason why crypto people chant "Not your keys, not your coins".

horsawlarway 5y ago
Sure, but value without an enforcement mechanism is not very useful. People usually want to trade stored value in exchange for goods and services (at least in a functioning value store - I don't really believe bitcoin serves that purpose at the moment). So lets say we agree that I pay you 10k in bitcoin in exchange for you remodeling my bathroom (and ignore how unlikely this scenario is with real crypto currencies). I pay you 50% up front (to purchase materials), and 50% on completion. Then you run off with my initial 50%. Now what? ---- Every solution I've seen is riddled with pitfalls and gotchas - Use escrow? Wait - now we're just trusting a central authority again. - Use Eth contracts? Well, maybe - but it requires a perfectly written contract or you're open to all sorts of strange edge behavior and side effects. - Sue over the theft? Now the central authority is just the government again, and we're back at square one! You see the disconnect I'm getting at? Eventually, if disagreements occur about how value was traded, there has to be a reconciliation mechanism. Right now, even in modern crypto - that reconciliation mechanism is still a central authority: Your government.
- throwaway21332 5y ago
  You're conflating two issues with each other. One is having a decentralized currency with a fixed monetary policy. Another issue is the counterparty risk. Bitcoin is not designed to solve the counterparty risk, it's just a digital cash that has a fixed emission schedule. It can be stolen just like regular physical cash can be. Smart Contracts try to solve the counterparty risk issue, but it's just an extra layer around cryptocurrencies, that has it's pros and cons.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    See, I think you're disconnecting two issues which are inherently related. Fraud is not going anywhere anytime soon. If you have no proposed mechanism to reconcile fraud, I'd argue there's not any true value stored. If the proposed mechanism is "just use the existing government" then the whole house of cards in built on the back of that central authority enforcing ownership for you anyways in which case why not just use the currency that authority already sponsors and has a proven track record of enforcing?

CTDOCodebases 5y ago

“I don't trust the ledger to accurately reflect ownership (it can only represent possession, not true ownership).” Possession is ownership on the Bitcoin network. Not ownership in the sense of it is written down in some legal document somewhere but ownership in the sense that you have the power to perform a transaction with what you say you own. You were trusting a central party all along. If you didn’t you wouldn’t be in the position you are in.

horsawlarway 5y ago
But the alternative here is that you have to place all your trust in an unknown and untrusted 3rd party to ever actually make an exchange. Even the silk-road used an escrow service that required that the seller trust the buyer, and both parties trust the silk-road. (a buyer places coins in escrow with the silk-road, the silk-road confirms it has the coins to the seller, the seller ships the product, the buyer unlocks the coins escrow upon receipt) So the whole things boils down to "trust" and it turns out that the ledger can't actually provide any trust.
- CTDOCodebases 5y ago
  After enough confirmations a transaction is final and I can trust that the transaction is final and my account balance on the ledger is correct. Present forms of digital cash do not offer this. A payment can be reversed if the buyer claims the transaction was fraudulent and the banks involved agree to reverse the transaction. Money can be accidentally withdrawn from my account and I have to ask the bank to return it. In both these cases if the institutions involved refuse to return my money then I have to take the issue to court and I am deprived of using or investing this money in the meantime. If consumer protections are your concern these laws exist in many countries regardless of the payment medium.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    But the trust that a bitcoin transaction is final isn't enough trust to make an exchange! Lets say you and I decide right now that we're going to use these comments to make an exchange. I will give you $5 of bitcoin in exchange for you mailing me a postcard. Now what? How do we proceed in a meaningful manner? How do we go about making that exchange happen if we assume that either party is self-interested, and not interested in actually completing the deal? If I send the bitcoin first? - the second it hits your account you know for sure it's yours: No need to bother sending the postcard - that's just cash out of your pocket. If you mail the postcard first? - Well, job's done for me, no need to send any bitcoin at all. What if we both agree that we trust Bob, and you send him the postcard, and I send him the bitcoin, and he only forwards them along after he gets both? - Oops, now Bob can do all those things you complained about letting the bank do! He can send that bitcoin back and I won't ever get a postcard. He can mail the postcard back and you won't ever get any bitcoin (Transaction reversed!). Worse, he can take anything you give him and do what he wants while he has it (like disappear!) - or hold them much longer than you'd like after he gets them. (Freeze it). How do you get your stuff back from Bob? Same way you would from a bank - appeal to the government. Basically - Bitcoin without enforcement is only a ledger. The thing that keeps it in check with reality is an appeal to an authority somewhere, who provides trust that both parties in an exchange aren't getting screwed.

hirako2000 5y ago

Not your keys not your coins. Unless you trust some central authority to take care of you, which you should by now understand that doesn't always work, and when it doesn't work, it's usually a spectacular failure. So to answer your questions. Although possible, no reconcile is the pure spirit of a trustless network. Now? you make sure to avoid custodian services and keep your keys safe. or stay away from crypto until/if it becomes as ubiquitous as the Internet.

horsawlarway 5y ago
So we both agree - the ledger is "accurate" only in the sense that the ledger matches... (drumroll) the ledger. Which is entirely true, and there are some useful properties to that, but the whole thing falls down the second you have a real dispute over the trade of goods for value (which I might remind you, outside of the pure speculation/gambling that occurs in bitcoin pricing, is the point of actually holding a currency). So how do I go about safely spending these things? Oh - it turns out that still only works in the context of a central authority and the legal system they support.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  the dispute concern is long solved. it happens every day with cash, but also with other form of payments. freight shows interesting practices. and, escrow is still an option. Spending these things? I can show you how to hold securely some wallet with your own private keys (no custody), receive then "spend" these things for a few pennies per transactions and with the guarantee nobody will interfere with our exchange. from wherever you happen to reside. there is no central authority able to (practically) control many of the blockchain networks out there.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    > Spending these things? I can show you how to hold securely some wallet with your own private keys (no custody), receive then "spend" these things for a few pennies per transactions and with the guarantee nobody will interfere with our exchange. Yes, and because no one can interfere in the exchange, no one can prevent either party from abusing the other, and no third party can later reconcile the dispute without an outside framework. I find it pretty unbelievable how comfortable the crypto crowd is about just dismissing reconciliation, when it's literally some of the oldest history have, and one of the more important roles of a functioning government (we literally have 4 thousand year old stone tablets dealing with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir)

betwixthewires 5y ago

I see your perspective. There's another perspective from which you could look at the details of your situation. You deferred to a trusted party to secure your wealth and because that third party was untrustworthy, you have to defer to an intermediary. Had you deferred to yourself to secure your wealth you wouldn't be in this situation. The ledger would be the canonical one of ownership and possession, and you wouldn't have to defer to anyone. Basically, you kept your bitcoin in a traditional, legally enforceable arrangement instead of the bottom layer, algorithmically enforced environment and now have to defer to the traditional system to restore possession.

horsawlarway 5y ago
Ok - so follow along with me here: I owned no bitcoins at the time I desired to trade bitcoins for a physical product (in this case: ~7g of Cannabis) What recourse do I have that does not require trusting a third party? I do not own the required compute power to mine it myself (not technically true at the time, although certainly true today) I'd like to have you walk me through the exact set of steps to acquire my bitcoin and use them to purchase that physical good, where I can magically avoid placing any trust in a 3rd party.
- MrMan 5y ago
  They want you to go back to frontier days before specialization in the economy, you are supposed to hoard your wealth yourself and protect your family with a gun
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    This exactly! (not to mention only ever making exchanges in person, because remote exchanges require trust) Which is hilarious. Because that's actually all that bitcoin was good for: black market deals/trades, where enforcement is left up to you anyways. Unfortunately, that makes it a (fucking terrible) medium of exchange for absolutely anything else, unless you add back in all the government regulation that the crypto folks hate.
- 5y ago

BTCOG 5y ago

Not your private keys, not your coins. You CHOSE to gamble with your property when you gave it to someone else. Whether you understood this before you lost your property or not, is irrelevant. I've not lost any of my coin UTXOs associated with my own private keys. Unregulated, foreign Magic The Gathering trading card exchange use was never a wise choice from the day Jed McCaleb started that garbage database.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> How do you reconcile the theft of my property with the ledger at this point? Authorities must find whoever received those bitcoins and make them transfer the funds back to you.