If that's the address of the thief, then he most likely will mix the coins at some point before spending them.
Banning certain mixers won't help as there are exchanges/services/sites, etc, that can help you to get rid of dirty coins and get clean coins or fiat in return.
Topic: A theft solution? - page 2. (Read 1645 times)
We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.
Fungibility of coins is essential. There should be no blackmarking of specific coins. The money trail may be used to catch the robbers, though.
What evidence do you have the coins are actually stolen and not just stamp claiming it would be so?
Just because someone claims to have been "hacked" doesn't mean they automatically were.
Just because someone claims to have been "hacked" doesn't mean they automatically were.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Quote from: jonald_fyookball link=topic=917558.msg10074885#msg10074885
Then you're starting to lose fungibility.
Fungibility returns after seizure, e.g. Silk Road.
seizure isn't the same as regulating non acceptance of coins. not at all.
OP, you mean for the better, but you haven't though about the other implications. A few has been brought up already. Another one is accountability. Any time some BTC are hacked or stolen, someone has to be held accountable for them and eat the loss, whether it's the exchanges or the depositors. You can't just "burn" the coins and call them useless.
Imagine receiving coins for a legit deal and later finding out they are tainted and can't be used. Now the con man has swindled 2 people, the person he stole the coins from before they became tainted and you.
We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.
This idea is presented every time there is a well publicized theft.
This idea is shot down and ignored by knowledgeable people every time it is presented.
This is not the first time we've heard someone suggest this, and it won't be the last.
Tagging unspent outputs as "bad" and trying to associate any future transactions that make use of some portion of those outputs destroys fungiblity and is impossible to enforce.
Lets imagine for a moment that the thief randomly chooses one of your addresses from the blockchain, and sends you 0.001 BTC. Should we now consider all of your bitcoins to be tainted too and refuse to accept any bitcoins from you in the future? How do you prevent the thief from creating his own mixer and mixing the bitcoins?
There are MANY reasons this is a bad idea. If you want to read about more of them, take some time to search through old posts here at bitcoin talk.
Someone already built website that marks some coins as "bad", but to make it work all bitcoin merchants would have to follow its decision.
Not to mention it would undermine the core idea of bitcoin - it wouldn't be longer decentralised, that person/ organization which decide that some coins are "bad" would work like central bank.
Bitcoins should be treated similar to gold, there is no "bad" gold as long it's real, pure gold
Not to mention it would undermine the core idea of bitcoin - it wouldn't be longer decentralised, that person/ organization which decide that some coins are "bad" would work like central bank.
Bitcoins should be treated similar to gold, there is no "bad" gold as long it's real, pure gold
Quote from: jonald_fyookball link=topic=917558.msg10074885#msg10074885
Then you're starting to lose fungibility.
[/quote
Then you're starting to lose fungibility.
[/quote
Fungibility returns after seizure, e.g. Silk Road.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.
Only if its self regulation.
Regulation from authorities is bad because once you
start down that path, who is going to regulate the regulators?
Then you're starting to lose fungibility.
We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.
Great idea! I'm heading to the gas station to inform them to no longer accept fiat script having the following serial numbers due to how said fiat coinage was used in the past:
You are not the law.
We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.
Great idea! I'm heading to the gas station to inform them to no longer accept fiat script having the following serial numbers due to how said fiat coinage was used in the past:
We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.
Jump to: