pull down to refresh

69 sats \ 11 replies \ @south_korea_ln 9 Dec \ parent \ on: The filter stupidity gets even more stupider bitcoin
I'd have to find proper reference, but i think there has been serious discussion at some point about what to do if Satoshi's coins ever move. One of the viable options was to actually invalidate his UTXOs. Maybe this wouldn't fly anymore in the current climate.
write
preview
102 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec
Sure there has been talk of that. But it's a contentious hardfork to do so. So I propose to burn all satoshi coins on BCH because they love hardforking.
reply
169 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Dec
also, why would satoshi's coins be any different than anyone else's? They're satoshi's coins, not yours or mine, and therefore, the only person who should decide what to do with them is satoshi.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec
I'm of the opinion that they're exactly the same. Your coins, my coins, satoshi's coins, scammer's coins, thieves' coins, even Saylor's coins.
But if in the end Satoshi's coins will be frozen, let's just freeze Saylor's and Blackrock's too. Would be much funnier.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec
One of the conversations around this brought up the coins being stolen as the hypothetical scenario.
I still thought it was better to let the hacker have them.
reply
171 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec
Can't make a meme out of Vitalik "stopping all trading" and then do the same.
Edit: this meme:
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 9 Dec
It’s not clear to me why making Satoshi’s coins unspendable would be a hard fork. That seems like an obvious soft fork to me.
reply
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec
What if satoshi wants to spend their coins?
Not your keys, not your coins means that you don't get to make decisions over coins that you don't have the keys for. If you do have the keys, OP_RETURN is a great unspendable output, I hear.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 9 Dec
You mean, Satoshi would propose a hard fork to reenable spending? Making them unspendable is a soft fork.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec
No, a portion of Bitcoiners would. It will be toxic.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec
I remember some of those discussions but the arguments never made sense to me.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9 Dec
Wait, but why? That feels even less justified than censoring ordinals
reply