Topic: A call for creating a new type of crypto asset (Read 5494 times)

The solution would be a dead man's switch that if not logged into every 24-48 hours, sends the coins to a Coinjoin/mixing service which gets paid out to another BTC address.

Why mad?! ''Law enforcement'' are just people like you and me. They are not gods or semi-gods. There is nothing divine about them.


If I bought the coins then the coins are mine and only I could blacklist / taint the cons (not the previous owner / owners).

what on earth does that have to do with color coins?

do you even know what color coins are?

You could build some interesting functionality into a new altcoin, but the idea of preventing law enforcement from spending seized coins by something like a blacklist is mad.

The problem is that if the blacklist mechanism exists, law enforcement will use it against you. They will blacklist coins that you have (because you bought them from an undercover agent or whatever) and hoist you for having the 'illegal' assets.

Some other ideas that have been mentioned here (like putting coins in escrow for certain merchants etc) could help with the seizure problem but are perfectly do-able with bitcoin or whatever.

The idea that coins auto-transfer after a while is an interesting one, but that just leads the police to demand the address to which they are about to transfer, the same way they demanded the address they're about to transfer from (warrant, subpeona, whatever).

You have to remember that you don't get to play by any different rules than the governments/police with respect to the protocol; the protocol does not care who is whom, so they can do anything you can.  The fact that they have warrant/subpeona/writ authority is strictly in addition to what the protocol allows everyone to do.

TBF guys deal with Bitcoin. TBF people are large Bitcoin holders. I am probably calling for something that is not Bitcoin and might be contradictory to Bitcoin protocol. Although mining might be merged.

Surely it does not fuck up fungability of any crypto assest simply because such a crypto asset has not been yet devised. No protocol to my knowledge envisages this.

This mechanism would simply display a message that a legit owner of a crypto asset has tainted / locked / whatever his coins. Does it fuck up fungability? - I don't think so. Thieves might still exchange the tainted coins between themselves. Nobody could force you not to accept payment in tainted coins.




That does not mean messing with the coins which belong to someone else (that means ''messing'' / doing whatever pleases you with your own coins)!

It is perfectly fine to have a crypto coin's protocol that envisages for all the miners not to process transactions with tainted / locked coins.



That does not mean to be able to reverse a transaction. It only means the person who had originally tainted the coins (while still in his address / wallet) can in any point of time un-taint the coins which were / are in use by the thief.

Imagine the following situations:

1. You are a burglar. You are breaking into my house. When you do it I taint my coins. You put a gun in my head, I give you my private key. You and your buddies leave my premisses with my two cars. The next day you call me and tell ''hey, I stolen the coins that I cannot do much with unless you un-taint them''. They I say ''hey, I've got a proposition for you: bring one of my two cars you stole to me and I will un-taint a certain amount of coins for your kindness''.

2. You are doing business as an ''ethical authority'' in Iran. You caught me doing something illegal, e.g. selling alcohol. You confiscated my margarita drinks and my crypto coins. You want me dead for selling margaritas. I place you an offer. Let me live and I will un-taint my coins for you.

3. You are a kidnapper. You want my money. You and your mates are shooting at me, at my children and at my bodyguards. Imagine a real mess. People are bleeding to death. I happen to carry a small wireless device. I press a button and taint my coins. I can now negotiate. If you release my kids, I can un-taint some of the coins, if you release my wife (who is needed in a safe location to countersign the un-tainting of a larger portion of coins), I will un-taint another portion of the coins, etc.

These are just hypothetical examples showing that tainting the coins can be useful for people.



1. I have just painted my 5 euro bill black. I hear no police siren sound. Nothing happens. I wonder why  

2. ''Your government'' this and ''your government'' that - you know what? I don't have any government.

I agree. Why not simply address this issue to the Foundation and see what they can do about it.

From your writing:


That fucks up fungability.


That means Messing with the coins in someone else's wallet, rendering the coins useless after someone else has received them.


That means to be able to reverse the transaction with which the coins were stolen / confiscated.

Please tell me where did I missinterpret you?



No. Decentralised crypto-currency is, but that does not mean one cannot make a centralised and controllable crypto-currency, and that is what central banks would want to do if they wanted to use crypto-currency. That is not my imagination, it is pretty obvious.



Look, I don't make laws nor do I support them nor do I find them reasonable.

Please research if it is legal to destroy state currency in your jurisdiction (you will find out that it is not) and then ask your government how this is a crime, not me. I can only tell you that it is.

Regards

Joe

 

I am not suggesting what you imply I am doing. ''Reverse transactions or somehow render them useless for the receiver after having received them''? - where the heck did you get it from, dear?



This is how Bitcoin works. I do not want to mess with Bitcoins in your or my wallet.



Why central bank? Aren't crypto coins about eliminating central banks? Your imagination would take cryptocoins back in time.



Maybe you want to have a closer look at my post and conclude I do not want to get rid of any of Bitcoin advantages.



Imagine, you run a banking business. You have vaults full of notes. Robbers are drilling your vaults with drillers. You are sitting in a safe room. You have every right to press a magical button that will taint the notes deposited in your vault with paint. Why the paint? To make the robbers' lives miserable. Such stolen (and tainted) notes will be worth 1% of the original value on the market (someone will need to take pains to clean the notes, etc). Crime should not pay!

Now imagine robbers drilling your door while you are running your anti-FBI client. You simply taint your coins (you are the banker in the crypto realm) thus making the robbers' less profitable. How is that a crime?

That is correct.

So why are you suggesting to take the disruptivenes and innovation and its beauty out of it by fucking up the fungability of the asset and by introducing mechanisms to reverse transactions or somehow else render them useless for the receiver after having received them?

Any coin needs to be treated exactly like any other coin on the chain and it is nobody's business to mess with a coin in my wallet once I have received it. Period.

I could well imagine a central bank issuing a cryptocon like that but that would not be to 'innovate in the crypto realm' but to try to turn back the wheel and it would fail anyhow.

Maybe you want to take a closer look at Bitcoin and gain deeper understanding of the advantages of a fungable, irreversably transactable crypto-commodity.


By the way: no.

In all jurisdictions I know it is an offence or a crime to purposly destroy state currency. I believe this is also true for the USD.

Joe

I like your creative way of thinking a lot.

Many people I know budget a certain amount every week for the purchase of foodstuffs at their local mart. They also do most of their shopping at the same stores over and over throughout the years.  For a family of four or more, the amount they spend on food and other necessities is not trivial.  Hundreds of dollars per week, many thousands of dollars per year.

In effect, this makes your alt-coins only useful locally for the things you buy in the normal course of your life, such as food.  Once you spend your coins as you deemed fit, those coins are now available for the new owner to flag - note that they do not have to flag their coins as spendable only at a certain store, just that the can if they want to in order to make confiscation by the powers that be problematic for the confiscators (or the people that may steal your coins).

Just one example of thinking outside the box and exploring the possibilities.

The first idea is nearly useless as it requires people to plan out all their purchases ahead of time, and in effect deprive themselves of the money used to make the purchase before they actually make it.

The second idea is kind of pointless because people may as well already set up this system for their bitcoins, except no one seizes bitcoins by holding them in the other person's address.  Bitcoins are seized by transferring them to your own address.

Some bitcoins/currency will always have to remain at risk as they will be somewhere seizable, but by keeping the bulk of them in cold storage or a brain wallet, you can mitigate the consequences of a seizure scenario.

Just thinking...

How about "FlagCoins" - you can flag your coins ahead of time so that they can only be spent on certain items when you choose to do so.  Once flagged, the coin cannot be spent in any other way until you spend it on what you flagged it for.  Then the new owner of the coins can flag them in any way they choose.

For example, you flag one coin that can only be spent on a certain size and brand of running shoe sometime in the future.  Anyone who confiscates it will have to buy that particular type of running shoe with it.  Or maybe groceries at a certain store.  Or produce at a certain organic farm.  Not worth the time for a .gov agency that has confiscated your flagged coins to sift through them, make the purchases, and then try to re-sell the eggs, shoes, gas, and everything else.  In effect, the coins are useless to them but useful to you for purchasing the everyday items you use.

Another idea might be to put a timer on each coin.  Every 7 days, say, the coins are automatically transferred elsewhere (accessible by you) if they haven't already been spent by you.  This means that if .gov confiscates your coins it had better move them quickly because POOF, they are suddenly transferred back to you at another location.

 

That's because Bitcoin protocol (or Bitcoin protocol clones) based assets are being issued at the moment. For the same reason I am interested in only Bitcoin protocol based assets at the moment.

If there were an asset based in 70% on what Bitcoin protocol accomplishes now and in 30% on new ideas I might partially switch my interest.

i personally only insterest in BTC protocol based Virtual assets  

I think I am not describing coloured coins, but maybe and hopefully I will be proved wrong.

Sounds like you are describing "coloured coins"

1. Bitcoin is a disruptive innovation as far as currency and payment systems go.

2. There is no sustaining innovation in the crypto realm that would address the needs of some current and potential new users of crypto assets. Altcoins like Litecoin, PPcoin, Whatevercoin offer no real advantages over Bitcoin (differences like faster confirmation time, CPU vs ASIC mining are negligible / non-important) and altcoins (98% - 99% clons of Bitcoin) will eventually die. It is a matter of time.

3. I think there is a hidden / (yet) undiscovered demand for a new type of crypto asset. I have been having an idea in my head for a new type of crypto asset (and its protocol) since:
                                                                      anarchist version   /  statist version
- Ross Ulbricht was:                                           kidnapped               /  arrested
- Ross Ulbricht's crypto assets were:                     stolen                    /  confiscated
by a gang of thieves and liars doing business as the state                     /  by a FBI agents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What if someone brainy devised a new crypto asset's protocol that would envisage in cases when coins get stolen / confiscated:

a) a mechanism for tainting the stolen / confiscated coins (if you do not like the gang doing business as the state you wouldn't buy coins / transact with coins which had been previously stolen by them, but if you like FBI, NSA, CIA, police etc. you would be perfectly fine with purchasing the coins / transacting with the coins which had been confiscated by them), or even

b) a mechanism for making the stolen / confiscated coins unspendable (hey - you are the legit owner of your assets! you should be able to do with them whatever pleases you; same case is with the cash you keep in your suitcase - if you own USD 1 million in fiat it is your right as the legit owner to burn it in your oven thus making it unspendable), or even

c) a mechanism for making the stolen / confiscated coins retrievable by the victim of the kidnapping / subject of the legal arrest (if you get out of jail, after having been cleared of the charges or after having served the sentence, wouldn't you like to get your assets back and start a new life?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. I have no clue how this new crypto asset would work technically. E.g. the client might be programmed to google your name once a week in conjunction with words like police, fbi, silk road or arrest and if the search turns out positive it would automatically taint your coins and - if you so wished - would make them even unspendable.

6. The above is just a basic idea for guys who want to innovate in the crypto realm.

7. Creating another Bitcoin clons is pointless.