damian at willtech.com.au [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2022-02-24 đź“ť Original message:Not all people who have ...
đź“… Original date posted:2022-02-24
đź“ť Original message:Not all people who have been stolen from believe that they have lost the
right and title to what has been stolen and in many cases they have not.
I do not excuse Bitcoin that it is impossible to have any individual
Bitcoin identified but also I do not care, if I receive Bitcoin honestly
I do not care what their history was. What if they were taken from a
brothel? It is not a matter for an ordinal to determine if a satoshi is
fungible. It is truth in effect that each satoshi is newly created to
the new UTXO and the old satoshi destroyed. -DA.
On 2022-02-23 18:31, Casey Rodarmor wrote:
>> ​The least reasonable thing I could expect is some claimed former
>> holder of some ordianls turning up to challenge me that it was their
>> stolen Bitcoin was some of what I received.
>
> I think it's unlikely that this would come to pass. A previous owner
> of an ordinal wouldn't have any particular reason to expect that they
> should own it after they transfer it. Similar to how noting a dollar
> bill's serial number doesn't give you a claim to it after you spend
> it. From the BIP:
>
>> ​Since any ordinal can be sent to any address at any time,
>> ordinals that are transferred, even those with some public history,
>> should be considered to be fungible with other satoshis with no such
>> history. [1]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://github.com/casey/ord/blob/master/bip.mediawiki#backward-compatibility
đź“ť Original message:Not all people who have been stolen from believe that they have lost the
right and title to what has been stolen and in many cases they have not.
I do not excuse Bitcoin that it is impossible to have any individual
Bitcoin identified but also I do not care, if I receive Bitcoin honestly
I do not care what their history was. What if they were taken from a
brothel? It is not a matter for an ordinal to determine if a satoshi is
fungible. It is truth in effect that each satoshi is newly created to
the new UTXO and the old satoshi destroyed. -DA.
On 2022-02-23 18:31, Casey Rodarmor wrote:
>> ​The least reasonable thing I could expect is some claimed former
>> holder of some ordianls turning up to challenge me that it was their
>> stolen Bitcoin was some of what I received.
>
> I think it's unlikely that this would come to pass. A previous owner
> of an ordinal wouldn't have any particular reason to expect that they
> should own it after they transfer it. Similar to how noting a dollar
> bill's serial number doesn't give you a claim to it after you spend
> it. From the BIP:
>
>> ​Since any ordinal can be sent to any address at any time,
>> ordinals that are transferred, even those with some public history,
>> should be considered to be fungible with other satoshis with no such
>> history. [1]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://github.com/casey/ord/blob/master/bip.mediawiki#backward-compatibility