Skip to main content

Hypothetical Implementation of DAR on Bitcoin Core (BTC)


QUESTION: How does Bitcoin SV's DAR method reassign coins to new addresses without the private key?


Bitcoin SV (BSV) implements a Digital Asset Recovery (DAR) process that allows for the freezing and reassignment of coins based on court orders, without requiring the original private key. This is a deliberate design choice in BSV to prioritize legal property rights and compliance with the law over strict cryptographic control, treating digital assets like traditional property (e.g., bank accounts or stocks) that can be subject to court intervention.

How DAR Works

  1. Legal Proof and Court Order: The process starts with the rightful owner (or claimant) providing evidence of ownership—such as purchase receipts, transaction history, or other documentation—to a court. If the court determines the coins were lost, stolen, or misappropriated, it issues an enforceable order (typically from jurisdictions like the UK or Switzerland, or recognized foreign equivalents under BSV's Network Access Rules). This establishes legal ownership independent of blockchain control.

  2. Notary Involvement: A designated notary (often coordinated through entities like the BSV Association or Token Recovery services) converts the court order into a machine-readable format. This is then broadcast to the BSV mining network.

  3. Freezing the Assets: Miners, who run BSV node software with a required add-on called the Blacklist Manager, receive and acknowledge the order. The Blacklist Manager ensures compliance by instructing nodes to reject any transactions attempting to spend the targeted unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs). This creates a "consensus freeze" across the network—honest miners will orphan blocks that include unauthorized spends, effectively locking the coins in place. Miners must follow these orders to stay in consensus; non-compliance could lead to orphaned blocks, financial losses, or legal repercussions like contempt charges.

  4. Reassignment Without Private Key: In the final step, the notary issues a reassignment order. Miners then collectively execute a special transaction that transfers the frozen UTXOs to a new address specified in the court order. This transaction doesn't require a signature from the original private key—it's enforced at the protocol level by miners agreeing to include it as valid under the DAR rules. Essentially, the network consensus temporarily overrides the standard requirement for private-key-signed transactions for these specific cases. This could involve forcing an "invalid" transaction (by normal Bitcoin rules) or using a new transaction type enabled by BSV's consensus changes.

Addressing the Private Key Concern

You're correct that in standard Bitcoin (and most blockchains), a private key is absolutely required to sign and broadcast a valid transaction moving coins—without it, the network would reject the spend as invalid. However, BSV diverges here by design: it embeds legal compliance into its ecosystem, allowing miners to act as enforcers of court decisions. This means the "ownership" is determined by law, not just cryptography. Critics argue this centralizes control and undermines decentralization, but BSV proponents claim it aligns with Satoshi Nakamoto's vision of a law-abiding system and makes the blockchain more practical for real-world use by deterring theft and enabling recovery.

This DAR mechanism is unique to BSV and not available on other major blockchains like Bitcoin (BTC) or Bitcoin Cash (BCH), where lost private keys typically mean permanent loss. If you're dealing with a specific case, consulting legal experts or BSV's Token Recovery services is recommended.


QUESTION: Show how the exact same DAR could be done on the BTC chain too?


Hypothetical Implementation of DAR on BTC

While Bitcoin SV (BSV) has built-in support for Digital Asset Recovery (DAR) through its protocol design, the original Bitcoin (BTC) chain does not currently allow for the reassignment of coins without the private key. BTC's core philosophy emphasizes immutability, decentralization, and cryptographic ownership—once coins are lost or stolen, they're generally irrecoverable at the protocol level, as transactions require valid signatures from private keys to be considered valid by the network. This aligns with the "not your keys, not your coins" principle, and there are no active proposals or forks in BTC's history that have implemented a DAR-like mechanism for court-ordered recovery without keys. Attempts to recover assets on BTC typically rely on external methods, like third-party services cracking encrypted wallets or legal actions against exchanges holding the funds, but not direct protocol enforcement.

However, to show how the exact same DAR process could hypothetically be implemented on BTC through protocol rules, it would require a significant fork (likely a hard fork) to alter the consensus rules. This would mirror BSV's approach, where the network embeds legal compliance into its operations, allowing miners and nodes to enforce court orders by freezing and reassigning unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) without needing the original private key. Such changes would centralize aspects of the network (e.g., making nodes more identifiable for legal notices), which contradicts BTC's decentralized ethos and would face strong community resistance. Below, I'll outline the step-by-step process for how this could be achieved, based on BSV's model adapted to BTC.

1. Protocol Fork and Consensus Changes

  • What BSV Does: BSV forked from Bitcoin Cash (which forked from BTC) and restored elements of the original Bitcoin protocol while adding features like unbounded block sizes and opcodes that enable more flexible scripting. This allows for protocol-level interventions, enforced via Network Access Rules (NAR) that require nodes to comply with legal orders or risk being out of consensus.

  • How on BTC: Initiate a hard fork to update BTC's protocol rules. This would involve:

    • Reinstating disabled opcodes (e.g., OP_CAT, OP_MUL) from Satoshi's original design to enable advanced scripting for "special" transactions that can freeze or reassign UTXOs based on external signals (like court orders).

    • Removing or increasing the block size limit (currently 1-4 MB effective) to support larger, more data-rich blocks that could include metadata for legal notices or recovery instructions.

    • Adding a new consensus rule set, similar to BSV's NAR, mandating that miners and nodes honor court orders from specific jurisdictions (e.g., UK or US). Non-compliant nodes would have their blocks orphaned by the majority hash power.

  • Challenges: Achieving miner and community consensus for this fork would be difficult, as BTC prioritizes resistance to censorship and state intervention. Historical examples like the Ethereum DAO fork (which rolled back the chain to recover funds) show it's possible but divisive.

2. Legal Framework Integration

  • What BSV Does: Recovery starts with a court order proving ownership (e.g., via evidence of theft). This order is submitted to a steward like the BSV Association or a partner (e.g., Token Recovery), which verifies and broadcasts it to the network.

  • How on BTC: Post-fork, introduce a "steward" entity (e.g., a Bitcoin Association equivalent) or decentralize it via a multisig notary system. The protocol would define rules for accepting machine-readable court orders (e.g., as OP_RETURN data in transactions). Nodes would validate these orders against predefined criteria (e.g., jurisdiction, digital signatures from courts). This could use Bitcoin's scripting to create "recovery scripts" that trigger on external proofs.

3. Freezing Assets

  • What BSV Does: Upon receiving a valid order, nodes use tools like the Blacklist Manager (a software add-on) to reject transactions spending targeted UTXOs. Miners enforce this by orphaning non-compliant blocks, creating a network-wide freeze.

  • How on BTC: Add a similar "Blacklist Manager" as a required node software module in the fork. Protocol rules would update the mempool validation to check against a shared blacklist (maintained via a sidechain or oracle). Miners would be incentivized to comply through economic pressures—non-compliance leads to wasted hash power on orphaned blocks. To make nodes traceable (as in BSV's professional data centers), the fork could encourage or require larger, identifiable mining operations.

4. Reassignment Without Private Key

  • What BSV Does: After freezing, the steward or notaries issue a reassignment, and miners include a special transaction that moves the UTXOs to a new address. This bypasses the need for a private key signature because the protocol rules treat court-ordered transactions as valid by consensus.

  • How on BTC: In the forked protocol, introduce a new transaction type (e.g., via a new opcode or soft fork extension) that allows "forced spends" validated by proof of court order instead of a signature. Miners would collectively mine this transaction into a block, overriding standard signature checks for these cases. This could be scripted as a covenant (using proposed features like OP_CTV) that enforces the reassignment.

5. Enforcement and Compliance

  • What BSV Does: Miners must run compliant software; non-compliance risks legal action or economic loss. The system assumes nodes are operated by accountable entities.

  • How on BTC: Post-fork, update node software (e.g., Bitcoin Core) to include DAR modules. Compliance could be enforced via hash power majority, with laws in key jurisdictions (e.g., US mining hubs) holding miners accountable for ignoring orders. This might involve oracles for broadcasting orders to all nodes.

In summary, replicating DAR on BTC would transform it into something more like BSV—prioritizing legal property rights over pure cryptography—but at the cost of its core principles. No such fork has been proposed or implemented, as it would likely split the community (similar to past debates over block size). If pursued, it could make BTC more "enterprise-friendly" but less resistant to government overreach. For real-world cases, BTC users are better off with preventive measures like multisig wallets or insurance.
Labels:

Popular Posts

PETITION: Government to indicate countries of the UK are open to accede to the US

Sign the Petition A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States Executive Summary This initiative seeks to foster a formal dialogue regarding the potential accession of the countries of the United Kingdom , to the United States , as individual states.  Simply put, this petition is asking the government to start a conversation about the benefits of leaving the UK and joining the United States. The objective is to evaluate the benefits to citizens and stakeholders, encouraging a constructive discourse on the political, economic, and social implications of such a union. If Wales , Northern Ireland , Scotland , or  England were to leave the United Kingdom, it would end their system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy . Instead, if they joined the United States as separate states, they would govern themselves under the U.S. federal system while receiving its protection. This proposal recognises that immediate change is unlikely but urges a serious con...
Read more

Facing Draco, Mining Dorado

This is a proposal to show how the 18.6 year real estate cycle is a hang over from times where the mechanics of the lunar month were used by high priests of the time to forecast ancient agricultural cycles - what we would today call a business cycle culminating in a financial crisis or a great recession. The 18.6 year period is governed by the intersection of lunar and solar eclipses. It is known scientifically as the Saros Cycle. Where all 3 harmonics of the orbit of the moon coincide once every 18.6 years. The ancient scholars knew this. And the politicians of the time used it to signal the day when the economy would be deliberately reset by fiat. This reset was necessary because this period was about how long the people of nations could abuse the economy before it was too late to recover on its own and much worse effects would have emerged. So it was the wisdom of the leadership of the time. As the aeons went by, the meaning and rationale of this policy became normalised - people an...
Read more

Who Said There Was Anything Wrong With a Worldview?

Who Said There Was Anything Wrong With a Worldview? I didn't. But it's when I believe my worldview, is truth, that I become violent without realising it. This is extremely hard for people to accept as possible. The resistance to seeing it and the temptation to escape from looking, is built into its foundations. So, I never said worldviews are bad for us. I did say that when I believe my worldview is a fact, then "I" become root cause of the worlds problems. Thought creates an image of the world. Then thought worships the image that thought created. I am scared of death. So I create an existential worldview about immortality - an image. This can be a God, a political ideology, scientific religiosity, atheism, planet saving activism, anything which my fear of death can hide behind. So if I do 'good' through this image I created, I will ultimately get a 'seat on the right hand side of God' , or whatever the image I created has defined as heaven. Then I w...
Read more