I'm not sure I'm following, but I think the thing people forget in this context is insurance.
So we have normal theft procedures (be it by gov or privately), flagged coins and insurance.
Maybe before changing Bitcoin we could wait and see if this isn't enough.
Instead of handing everything over to the state...
Do you own property? Do you have US bank accounts? Brokerage accounts? In theory any of these things can be confiscated from you at any time? Is this a legitimate concern for you?
Eventually Bitcoin should represent all property/data ownership. Or this would have ended up a failed experiment. Sorry, you lost the deed to your house because it was a 1sat protocol taken in the hacking you experienced.
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
1G15jb1oQzB3oV6TEBaXfKA5PD6jSS2UXp UnverifiedI think we are talking past each other.
I don't see it this way. You believe a fundamental change was made to Bitcoin protocol. I believe there was an already existing alert key or something. There are a lot of things about Bitcoin that we're not immediately obvious or part of the narrative. Enforcement of property rights is not new or unique to Bitcoin. Your worry is that the state can in theory transfer your property without your consent. Which is a bit unreasonable if you understand the world you live in, and if you understand what Bitcoin can do. It's not just 100 million sats each. Each sat is data ownership, your house, your car, your stocks. What do you think Craig meant when he said eventually bitcoin will be everything. How do you build for everything if you have no legal rights to it? It would be stupid to continue this charade. Let's just admit we were taken for fools and give this up