I have been DCA with Swan for over two years. I started another DCA with Coinbits. In May/June time frame Swan pulls out of Prime and moves to Fortress, yet Coinbits does not. The bitcoin from Swan on PRIME was moved to Fortress and I was able to self custody it. My bitcoin at Coinbits is locked and I can’t move it. Is it lost forever?
It is centralized already. Core developers dictate rules that set out how people can and cannot use the database. Further, there are a small number of miners that consistently create blocks.
The beauty of the governance is that it’s open so if we see bogus behaviour, we call it out. Either by moving to another network or by honest nodes following the longest block (it’s in the white paper).
Decentralization is about how users interact. “Peer to peer cash” = confidently trade without encountering a double spend.
I ask again, if you lost access to your wealth, would you reject recovery technology?
If a US court issued an order and there is a method to recover but US miners decide to not follow the order/follow the method, what happens to that miner? We consulted DoJ at a senior level so this isn’t my opinion off in the ether. consider Ordinals and the ability to use bitcoin to secure any piece of data. Recovery options will aid adoption.
The nodes that create blocks matter (aka miners). I do not follow your miner and node distinction. Can you help me understand? What do you see as the difference?
Would you turn down a recovery option if you lost access by no fault of your own (eg. Theft or corrupted cold storage, etc)
I worked on a project that translated a court order to a machine readable instruction that automates freezing coins and subsequently reassigns them based on a court order. The catch is that miners/nodes need to connect to the service. miners we spoke with were willing to connect if the right indemnifications and governance are in place. No honest miner will connect to an unknown or malicious entity because once their machines get the instruction it’s executed.
The software can be implemented on BTC, BCH, BSV. basically all variants of Bitcoin.
In EVM context, it is also possible as they have reverted transaction to reassign coins.
There’s a more direct solution supported by the underlying protocol. “Lost” Bitcoin can be recovered.
It’s an immutable ledger where things don’t go missing. A key is misplace or someone steals but the ledger is there for evidence.
The solution to losing keys is the same as recovering theft (assuming a fast response to the theft). Off-chain proof of ownership, in this case the agreements and records connecting users with the custodian.
I have been DCA with Swan for over two years. I started another DCA with Coinbits. In May/June time frame Swan pulls out of Prime and moves to Fortress, yet Coinbits does not. The bitcoin from Swan on PRIME was moved to Fortress and I was able to self custody it. My bitcoin at Coinbits is locked and I can’t move it. Is it lost forever?
It is centralized already. Core developers dictate rules that set out how people can and cannot use the database. Further, there are a small number of miners that consistently create blocks.
The beauty of the governance is that it’s open so if we see bogus behaviour, we call it out. Either by moving to another network or by honest nodes following the longest block (it’s in the white paper).
Decentralization is about how users interact. “Peer to peer cash” = confidently trade without encountering a double spend.
I ask again, if you lost access to your wealth, would you reject recovery technology?
If a US court issued an order and there is a method to recover but US miners decide to not follow the order/follow the method, what happens to that miner? We consulted DoJ at a senior level so this isn’t my opinion off in the ether. consider Ordinals and the ability to use bitcoin to secure any piece of data. Recovery options will aid adoption.
The nodes that create blocks matter (aka miners). I do not follow your miner and node distinction. Can you help me understand? What do you see as the difference?
Would you turn down a recovery option if you lost access by no fault of your own (eg. Theft or corrupted cold storage, etc)
Hate to burst your bubble.
I worked on a project that translated a court order to a machine readable instruction that automates freezing coins and subsequently reassigns them based on a court order. The catch is that miners/nodes need to connect to the service. miners we spoke with were willing to connect if the right indemnifications and governance are in place. No honest miner will connect to an unknown or malicious entity because once their machines get the instruction it’s executed.
The software can be implemented on BTC, BCH, BSV. basically all variants of Bitcoin.
In EVM context, it is also possible as they have reverted transaction to reassign coins.
There’s a more direct solution supported by the underlying protocol. “Lost” Bitcoin can be recovered.
It’s an immutable ledger where things don’t go missing. A key is misplace or someone steals but the ledger is there for evidence.
The solution to losing keys is the same as recovering theft (assuming a fast response to the theft). Off-chain proof of ownership, in this case the agreements and records connecting users with the custodian.