Cross extension
Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3581480
Topic: 2013-11-13 Forbes: Sanitizing Bitcoin: Company Wants To Track 'Clean' Bitcoins (Read 4727 times)
November 14, 2013, 06:22:32 PM
November 14, 2013, 05:56:59 PM
The fundamental fact is if you treat a SINGLE coin differently on the network, you're interfering with the underlying tenet of freedom that Bitcoin provides.
All bitcoins must be treated EQUALLY or they are no longer fungible. Of course, an empty-suit MBA has backstabbed us, what a surprise.
All bitcoins must be treated EQUALLY or they are no longer fungible. Of course, an empty-suit MBA has backstabbed us, what a surprise.
November 14, 2013, 03:10:27 PM
On topic - this general notion of controlling and sanitizing bitcoin can actually work as a side thing. Let's say we have a separate government controlled system, where they issue flagged wallets. You can transfer money in and out of these wallets, and you can pay your taxes or bills (things you actually want to be seen by goverment, so you can later be subjected to tax redux, etc). Less fiat going around is a good thing in the end. Also less converting money into fiat and vice versa.
If you are employed by state or a reputable firm - it's a way to enable those bodies to pay you without fiat (again less converting).
If you are employed by state or a reputable firm - it's a way to enable those bodies to pay you without fiat (again less converting).
And what if that doesn't happen? Then where will we all be, having accepted this great advice of yours? Stuck with a form of money that WILL drop in exchange rate. Because fiat cash will be the far superior privacy and fungibility combination.
November 14, 2013, 01:06:59 PM
And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.
circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com
this guy who started the campaign has thousands of bitcoins. he can make this with his own cash.
Why not earn something in the process. If you are rich, does it mean you should work for free further on?
On topic - this general notion of controlling and sanitizing bitcoin can actually work as a side thing. Let's say we have a separate government controlled system, where they issue flagged wallets. You can transfer money in and out of these wallets, and you can pay your taxes or bills (things you actually want to be seen by goverment, so you can later be subjected to tax redux, etc). Less fiat going around is a good thing in the end. Also less converting money into fiat and vice versa.
If you are employed by state or a reputable firm - it's a way to enable those bodies to pay you without fiat (again less converting).
November 14, 2013, 12:20:05 PM
Somehting else that has occurred to me.
This is inviting issues with security of funds stored at all green addresses. Fundamental problem.
The more frequently an address is used, the easier it is for an attacker to compute valid signatures to sign transactions made from that address (knowing the private key is not required). This is one of the reasons it is discouraged to re-use addresses. The more valid signatures in the blockchain that exist made from a single address, the more information the attacker has to work with.
This scheme needs to be drowned at birth. Hopefully we can arrange for Yifu's mother to conduct a post-natal abortion, too.
This is inviting issues with security of funds stored at all green addresses. Fundamental problem.
Quote from: Myself, in another thread
The more frequently an address is used, the easier it is for an attacker to compute valid signatures to sign transactions made from that address (knowing the private key is not required). This is one of the reasons it is discouraged to re-use addresses. The more valid signatures in the blockchain that exist made from a single address, the more information the attacker has to work with.
This scheme needs to be drowned at birth. Hopefully we can arrange for Yifu's mother to conduct a post-natal abortion, too.
November 14, 2013, 06:22:58 AM
And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.
circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com
this guy who started the campaign has thousands of bitcoins. he can make this with his own cash.
November 14, 2013, 06:03:47 AM
And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.
circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com
DarkWallet really isn't struggling though.... over half of their goal with still 30 days to go? That's spectacular!
November 14, 2013, 01:57:17 AM
I like this discussion and the general concent of the community. It is important and it is important that it happens now.
People will do taint analysis. They always did. This awareness helps to get ideas like ZeroCoin and other anonymity features into the protocol.
I have much hope to see off-chain-transactions make transaction analysis way more inefficient but lets see what solutions we can come up with. Glad we agree there is a problem.
People will do taint analysis. They always did. This awareness helps to get ideas like ZeroCoin and other anonymity features into the protocol.
I have much hope to see off-chain-transactions make transaction analysis way more inefficient but lets see what solutions we can come up with. Glad we agree there is a problem.
We are close ... just wait and see.
November 14, 2013, 01:47:55 AM
I like this discussion and the general concent of the community. It is important and it is important that it happens now.
People will do taint analysis. They always did. This awareness helps to get ideas like ZeroCoin and other anonymity features into the protocol.
I have much hope to see off-chain-transactions make transaction analysis way more inefficient but lets see what solutions we can come up with. Glad we agree there is a problem.
People will do taint analysis. They always did. This awareness helps to get ideas like ZeroCoin and other anonymity features into the protocol.
I have much hope to see off-chain-transactions make transaction analysis way more inefficient but lets see what solutions we can come up with. Glad we agree there is a problem.
November 14, 2013, 01:13:06 AM
Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.
circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com
circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com
Does it really matter if creeping regulation entraps "legitimate business", forces them to spy and snitch on their customers, and everyone loses their financial freedom?
November 14, 2013, 12:37:22 AM
And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.
circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com
November 14, 2013, 12:32:23 AM
The solution is counterintuitive. It means less business with centralized entities like exchanges and big businesses but that of course means a lower valuation which the holders both large and small don't want. At least these "solutions" are less idiotic then just an outright ban which gives bitcoin more time to grow to hopefully a point of no return when it's too big to control.
November 14, 2013, 12:19:19 AM
Actually to FinCEN:
A financial institution or association of financial institutions that intends to share information...shall submit to FinCEN a notice described in Appendix A and shall be effective for the one year.
But not to the users
Which is why this tracking is going to happen, one way or another.A financial institution or association of financial institutions that intends to share information...shall submit to FinCEN a notice described in Appendix A and shall be effective for the one year.
But not to the users
Public outcry is merely going to cause them to do it with no public announcement.
November 14, 2013, 12:16:42 AM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party?Actually to FinCEN:
A financial institution or association of financial institutions that intends to share information...shall submit to FinCEN a notice described in Appendix A and shall be effective for the one year.
But not to the users
November 14, 2013, 12:11:21 AM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party?Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act (31 CFR 103.110) addresses this...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title31-vol1-sec103-110.xml
a financial institution or an association of financial institutions may, under the protection of the safe harbor from liability described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, transmit, receive, or otherwise share information with any other financial institution or association of financial institutions regarding individuals, entities, organizations, and countries for purposes of identifying and, where appropriate, reporting activities that the financial institution or association suspects may involve possible terrorist activity or money laundering
November 13, 2013, 08:07:33 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
What's going to happen is that every Bitcoin-accepting business in US jurisdiction is going to be told that they participate and enforce this database, or else they'll be prosecuted for violating money transmitter laws.Yep, no doubt about it - clear as daylight. It's either this, or preventing this vile scheme from ever getting off the ground with a massive shout down and boycott. The choice is yours, Bitcoin community.
E-mail your favorite Bitcoin business(es) if you must. Let them know that if they as much as think about participating, your business goes elsewhere.
And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. You know you can afford it. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
But Darkwallet ,coinjoin , will kill this database , dont fear it....
November 13, 2013, 08:01:54 PM
My two satoshis:
UNNECESSARY
1. Banks that have anti laundering laws *still* launder money, HSBC cough cough
2. They got DPR with out needing this system.
UNNECESSARY
1. Banks that have anti laundering laws *still* launder money, HSBC cough cough
2. They got DPR with out needing this system.
DPR was a fool , sharing his BTC andress on this forem.
next he was talking about silkroad on this forem,,,
well that was very easy to detect for anybody ,,, he was just not carefull was a understement.
November 13, 2013, 07:51:08 PM
My two satoshis:
UNNECESSARY
1. Banks that have anti laundering laws *still* launder money, HSBC cough cough
2. They got DPR with out needing this system.
UNNECESSARY
1. Banks that have anti laundering laws *still* launder money, HSBC cough cough
2. They got DPR with out needing this system.
November 13, 2013, 07:49:51 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
What's going to happen is that every Bitcoin-accepting business in US jurisdiction is going to be told that they participate and enforce this database, or else they'll be prosecuted for violating money transmitter laws.Ok, I get that. I can only guess but I think something would rise up to counter it. Oh yeah, dark wallet & mesh networks.
All goverment resistance is futile
At worse US will introduse a self boycott
November 13, 2013, 07:43:36 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
What's going to happen is that every Bitcoin-accepting business in US jurisdiction is going to be told that they participate and enforce this database, or else they'll be prosecuted for violating money transmitter laws.Ok, I get that. I can only guess but I think something would rise up to counter it. Oh yeah, dark wallet & mesh networks.
November 13, 2013, 07:42:34 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
What's going to happen is that every Bitcoin-accepting business in US jurisdiction is going to be told that they participate and enforce this database, or else they'll be prosecuted for violating money transmitter laws.Yep, no doubt about it - clear as daylight. It's either this, or preventing this vile scheme from ever getting off the ground with a massive shout down and boycott. The choice is yours, Bitcoin community.
E-mail your favorite Bitcoin business(es) if you must. Let them know that if they as much as think about participating, your business goes elsewhere.
And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. You know you can afford it. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
November 13, 2013, 07:15:08 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
What's going to happen is that every Bitcoin-accepting business in US jurisdiction is going to be told that they participate and enforce this database, or else they'll be prosecuted for violating money transmitter laws. November 13, 2013, 07:14:56 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
(shakes head) It is. But, everyone will be forced to opt in eventually, because no-one wants their choices restricted when it comes to money.
November 13, 2013, 07:13:23 PM
Then, all businesses have to comply, ...
Big assault on Bitcoin, make no mistake.
Big assault on Bitcoin, make no mistake.
yes for the US citizens. Then I would buy in China and forget about US products. Not because I want to buy illegal things but because I do not want to support a spying country with their 3-letter agencies. Apart from this most products come from China or Taiwan already now.
It's not about what you choose to do with the money, it's about the choices the person who will receive it from you would like. If the Chinese or Taiwanese merchant, or whoever next receives it from them, wants to spend tainted coins in the US, they will be rejected because the coins are on the taint list. No-one wants the hot potato, don't you understand?
November 13, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?
November 13, 2013, 07:03:54 PM
Then, all businesses have to comply, ...
Big assault on Bitcoin, make no mistake.
Big assault on Bitcoin, make no mistake.
yes for the US citizens. Then I would buy in China and forget about US products. Not because I want to buy illegal things but because I do not want to support a spying country with their 3-letter agencies. Apart from this most products come from China or Taiwan already now.
November 13, 2013, 06:58:06 PM
Forget them. They will at most scam the US authorities or goverment. Reality is that Bitcoin will spread over the world and China is currently the most surging market. How will they force any Chinese individual to give them their ID ?? What they can achieve at most is advanced regulation for the US customers which cooperate - I am wondering sometimes how much US people let their goverment do to themselves. But even against US citizens who are not willed to cooperate these guys would not be able to do anything - that would be similar to Torrent.
What's the point of creating a coin taint database, which cannot possibly make any significant revenue from anywhere except government funding, and then not using it to enforce some new cryptocurrency taint law?
Then, all businesses have to comply, as the cost of accepting potentially tainted cryptocurrency will be too much to bear. It's receiving money where you're restricted in where you spend it, the network affect of doing this will very gradually tighten around everyone using Bitcoin. People all over the world will have easy access to check the status of the coins they have received or will receive, and will reject people who wish to send from "unregistered" addresses, afraid they will (eventually) be unable to spend them.
Big assault on Bitcoin, make no mistake.
November 13, 2013, 06:47:35 PM
Forget them. They will at most scam the US authorities or goverment. Reality is that Bitcoin will spread over the world and China is currently the most surging market. How will they force any Chinese individual to give them their ID ?? What they can achieve at most is advanced regulation for the US customers which cooperate - I am wondering sometimes how much US people let their goverment do to themselves. But even against US citizens who are not willed to cooperate these guys would not be able to do anything - that would be similar to Torrent.
November 13, 2013, 05:47:13 PM
Incidentally, this should cause miners some concern; what if this leads to illegalising the use of mined coins if they cannot be associated with a miners "licence"? May as well start making the coins clean at the source, don't you think?
This is an attack on the Bitcoin model, pure and simple.
And a major ASIC manufacture is backing it.This is an attack on the Bitcoin model, pure and simple.
Not as major as they once were. I think the total GH shipped, GH/mm2 and GH/W crowns are held by KnC and Bitfury at the moment. Avalon brought their new chip out only a week or two ago, and it still doesn't compete with Bitfury on hashing energy efficiency, and they're both fabricated suing the same node feature tech (55nm).
November 13, 2013, 05:36:07 PM
Incidentally, this should cause miners some concern; what if this leads to illegalising the use of mined coins if they cannot be associated with a miners "licence"? May as well start making the coins clean at the source, don't you think?
This is an attack on the Bitcoin model, pure and simple.
And a major ASIC manufacture is backing it. This is an attack on the Bitcoin model, pure and simple.
November 13, 2013, 05:35:45 PM
Did you have access to reputable and accurate figures as to how often your bank infringed on this part of their contract with their customers?
I worked for a small regional bank and was unaware of any intentional misuse of client data. If a bank was intentionally making these violations, I would assume they would hide/disguise that information.
November 13, 2013, 05:30:52 PM
Incidentally, this should cause miners some concern; what if this leads to illegalising the use of mined coins if they cannot be associated with a miners "licence"? May as well start making the coins clean at the source, don't you think?
This is an attack on the Bitcoin model, pure and simple.
This is an attack on the Bitcoin model, pure and simple.
November 13, 2013, 05:23:23 PM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party?I used to work in banking and we were required to give out privacy disclosures (when you opened an account) that stated what we can and cannot do with your information. I doubt that has changed since I left banking earlier this year.
Did you have access to reputable and accurate figures as to how often your bank infringed on this part of their contract with their customers?
November 13, 2013, 05:15:16 PM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party?I used to work in banking and we were required to give out privacy disclosures (when you opened an account) that stated what we can and cannot do with your information. I doubt that has changed since I left banking earlier this year.
November 13, 2013, 05:10:08 PM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party? November 13, 2013, 05:08:31 PM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party? 
November 13, 2013, 04:41:34 PM
All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.
November 13, 2013, 03:45:55 PM
I suppose the CORRECT response of the community should be to BOYCOTT any business that even remotely associates itself with this evil spynet.
Absolutely:http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/11/is-it-time-to-boycott-all-us-bitcoin.html
November 13, 2013, 03:17:35 PM
They're also inviting the worst possible outcome by trying to use draconian tactics; people refusing to co-operate with government at all. About any matter. The one thing they've forgotten is how resistant cryptocurrency is to confiscation. So, if a culture developed where people are fined as part of administering "justice" to consumers and retailers that don't comply, alot of people will prefer to keep their money, then move to a less authoritarian country.
The state and the financial sector lose so much from this trend we've started, but I think this sort of thing proves they're scared they may be outright losers. Truth is, they lost as soon as the concept was developed. Paradigm shift, bitches.
The state and the financial sector lose so much from this trend we've started, but I think this sort of thing proves they're scared they may be outright losers. Truth is, they lost as soon as the concept was developed. Paradigm shift, bitches.
November 13, 2013, 03:01:10 PM
So they plan to divide bitcoins to black and white and then make money letting dark guys legalize their btc ?
They probably should contact HSBC who will gladly accept their schemes.
They probably should contact HSBC who will gladly accept their schemes.
November 13, 2013, 02:41:31 PM
The only information Avalon have are the identities and addresses used to pay one-off "clean" large sums. Mostly from several months ago.
My point is, if they convince companies to join this program, they have the ability to force their system on a lot of people. Not 100% coverage, but a lot of data anyway. I don't know if anyone is interested in joining up.
Let's see if Bitcoinstore.com joins up, they've probably got a measurable number and flow of customers compared to Avalon (who sold to less than 2000-3000 individuals as a guesstimate).
November 13, 2013, 02:33:47 PM
If they get it to work, it'll catch a large share of the uninformed masses just using bitcoin on common platforms. There's no way though it'll stop anyone from staying in the dark. That's why, in the end, this is snake-oil-software, no more, no less.
+100,000,000
There is no person on this planet who deals in shady business and isn't fully aware of all the risks involved. As usual with these half-baked plots, only honest people get the shit end of the stick.
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”
--B. Franklin
November 13, 2013, 02:30:20 PM
All this is ignoring one very important development: there is to be a blockchain stored Identity Protocol at some time in the future anyway. It's opt in or out, and you can buy as many Id's as you like. Why would anyone trust a third party overlay to track coins and their previous owners, when the blockchain based solution solves more problems, isn't mandatory and doesn't impact fungibility?
November 13, 2013, 02:29:48 PM
The only information Avalon have are the identities and addresses used to pay one-off "clean" large sums. Mostly from several months ago.
My point is, if they convince companies to join this program, they have the ability to force their system on a lot of people. Not 100% coverage, but a lot of data anyway. I don't know if anyone is interested in joining up.
November 13, 2013, 02:25:29 PM
It's only an overlay service, it can't be forced on anyone
Avalon is joining the program, as per the article. Assuming that means they're going to give up data on their existing customers, that sounds like forcing it on people to me. Same for any other company signing up.
The only information Avalon have are the identities and addresses used to pay one-off "clean" large sums. Mostly from several months ago. Avalon are also far from the front of the pack when it comes to their line of business anyhow, not unless they've got some game changing 20 or 14 nm chip up their sleeves, which looks a little unlikely right now.
They've also got a big deficit in trust capital to make up for, the majority of their customers got badly burned.
November 13, 2013, 02:21:46 PM
Yifu talking about sanitazing bitcoins...
what a joke.
what a joke.
November 13, 2013, 02:19:59 PM
I can see this looking like the AOL venture of early internet days in the long term ... a walled garden, where the walls have crumbled, weeds grown and everybody's moved on elsewhere. And it may be that this is just some conscious window-dressing to legitimize bitcoin activity in the new, fast growing workshop out back.
Exactly. Force sanitising on one legal jurisdiction, then watch how all the money flows to the places where it's not used. This is the kind of capital flight problem that can't be solved with aggressive tactics, or at least, without the most unprecedented ubiquity of aggressive tactics.
November 13, 2013, 02:18:12 PM
It's only an overlay service, it can't be forced on anyone
Avalon is joining the program, as per the article. Assuming that means they're going to give up data on their existing customers, that sounds like forcing it on people to me. Same for any other company signing up.
November 13, 2013, 02:13:39 PM
Technically a bad idea. Even very rich people can be naive about the fundamental nature of good money I guess. Fungibility is not just a difficult to spell word.
I can see this looking like the AOL venture of early internet days in the long term ... a walled garden, where the walls have crumbled, weeds grown and everybody's moved on elsewhere. And it may be that this is just some conscious window-dressing to legitimize bitcoin activity in the new, fast growing workshop out back.
Edit: and don't those lovely young boys look pretty in their shiny new suits and ties lined up in a row? An exquisite "road to hell is paved with good intentions" moment.
I can see this looking like the AOL venture of early internet days in the long term ... a walled garden, where the walls have crumbled, weeds grown and everybody's moved on elsewhere. And it may be that this is just some conscious window-dressing to legitimize bitcoin activity in the new, fast growing workshop out back.
Edit: and don't those lovely young boys look pretty in their shiny new suits and ties lined up in a row? An exquisite "road to hell is paved with good intentions" moment.
November 13, 2013, 02:04:41 PM
i agree. i would not use such a service.
"With Coin Validation, he’s proposing a centralized tracking system that he knows won’t sit well with some hardliners in the community."
iam not a hardliner, but he can track his ass, not mine.
"With Coin Validation, he’s proposing a centralized tracking system that he knows won’t sit well with some hardliners in the community."
iam not a hardliner, but he can track his ass, not mine.
This is the sort of Machiavellian rhetorical language being employed by Kashmir Hill. "Hardliners" like the creator of the whole system? She should get as close to zero traffic as we can give her. Jon Matonis was basically ousted from the Forbes roster, in favour of this sort of angle.
November 13, 2013, 01:59:41 PM
It's only an overlay service, it can't be forced on anyone. I really don't know how they're expecting to be able to offer any definitive proof of illegal activity connected to certain outputs anyway (except by starting off by calling everything in the network tainted or unknown). How they're planning to deal with coinjoin and SCIP, I'm not really sure. I expect they've barely heard of them.
Forbes need to stop promoting this sort of thing. And to say they're "just reporting" is highly disingenuous. A taint tracking service can't get off the ground without communicating their existence, they have a real chicken and egg problem, with very little incentive to participate. This company is currently a website with no customers.
Besides, why aren't they offering the same service for cash in the US? Is it because no-one taking cash would be keen on helping them to make that work? Government mandate is the only thing that can get this well and truly off the ground.
Oh, and once again, Kashmir Hill go home. "Ignoramus" is giving way to "establishment shill".
Forbes need to stop promoting this sort of thing. And to say they're "just reporting" is highly disingenuous. A taint tracking service can't get off the ground without communicating their existence, they have a real chicken and egg problem, with very little incentive to participate. This company is currently a website with no customers.
Besides, why aren't they offering the same service for cash in the US? Is it because no-one taking cash would be keen on helping them to make that work? Government mandate is the only thing that can get this well and truly off the ground.
Oh, and once again, Kashmir Hill go home. "Ignoramus" is giving way to "establishment shill".
November 13, 2013, 01:58:49 PM
i agree. i would not use such a service.
"With Coin Validation, he’s proposing a centralized tracking system that he knows won’t sit well with some hardliners in the community."
iam not a hardliner, but he can track his ass, not mine.
"With Coin Validation, he’s proposing a centralized tracking system that he knows won’t sit well with some hardliners in the community."
iam not a hardliner, but he can track his ass, not mine.
November 13, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
Interesting note about someone in the Mellon family has bought some Bitcoins. Seems like there is a new article every week about someone notable in the top 1% who has bought into bitcoin. I think it's a lot more widespread than news reports, but the financial elite are keeping hush until they finish buying their stash.
November 13, 2013, 12:51:56 PM
As far as I understand what they're trying to do is write a piece of software, sell it to "the government" and convince them that this'll solve their troubles with bitcoin enabling illegal activities and tax dodging.
Sounds like a solid business plan, there are a lot of companies out there selling software of that kind, like tracking ebay sellers for the IRS and stuff.
If they get it to work, it'll catch a large share of the uninformed masses just using bitcoin on common platforms. There's no way though it'll stop anyone from staying in the dark. That's why, in the end, this is snake-oil-software, no more, no less.
Sounds like a solid business plan, there are a lot of companies out there selling software of that kind, like tracking ebay sellers for the IRS and stuff.
If they get it to work, it'll catch a large share of the uninformed masses just using bitcoin on common platforms. There's no way though it'll stop anyone from staying in the dark. That's why, in the end, this is snake-oil-software, no more, no less.
November 13, 2013, 12:36:26 PM
Quote
He predicts in the future that every user will have at least one address that’s self identified, “or at least every user who wants to do business in the U.S.”
Oh dear. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
November 13, 2013, 12:27:15 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/
From the comments:
From the comments:
Quote
This service is extremely dangerous as it undermines one of the key characteristics of Bitcoin as a MONEY: their complete fungibility. Further, since all Bitcoin transactions are public and pseudonymity given by opaque addresses is our ONLY financial privacy protection, services like this should be considered a direct and malicious attack on Bitcoin system.
I suppose the CORRECT response of the community should be to BOYCOTT any business that even remotely associates itself with this evil spynet.
By now, you should probably know enough about Avalon's dishonest and deceptive business practices to boycott it on its own merits, anyway...
I suppose the CORRECT response of the community should be to BOYCOTT any business that even remotely associates itself with this evil spynet.
By now, you should probably know enough about Avalon's dishonest and deceptive business practices to boycott it on its own merits, anyway...
Jump to: