Why is the title of the thread "A Warning Against Using Taint" and then you proceed to recommend a system to give a measure of taint?
The answer is in the thread.
Thanks to Stephen for bringing this thread up again. It's still fun for me to read.
If you look up a BTC address at
https://blockchain.info/, you get a "Taint Analysis" button which will then show the % of funds received by an address that can be traced back to other addresses, or if you reverse it (drop down top right), the % of funds sent from an address which passed through other addresses. It's fun to play with. It was added around
6/24 this year.
Any recognition of taint then potentially penalizes innocents and thus cannot be allowed, regardless of the opportunity to do whatever good is intended. Fungibility trumps all.
So are you mounting any effort to get blockchain.info to remove that feature? The address to which the Bitcoinica heist went is public knowledge, so the potential is there, I guess. On the other hand, every capability and piece of information that can be used to penalize others has the same potential. I don't think the answer is censorship, but rather education and decentralization.
I'm glad they added that tool. It should make my investments in mixing services do well, and also discourage thieves. Exactly what I wanted! Has anyone suffered from it? Gotten an email from someone they paid with BTC, asking nosy questions? Perhaps so, but are they willing to bring it up? I guess it's kind of like admitting you've been mugged or raped.
Personal decision, I suppose.
To suggest that prices should not be equal for everyone is to suggest that everyone's dollars are not equal, which is not only absurd, it's downright stupid if you are in a competitive business.
Ok, but I run a competitive business (selling my programming skills) and I charge assholes more than I charge nice people all the time. Same thing goes when I sell stuff at garage sales. I suppose it might leave me with less cash at the end of the day, but I feel better about myself and the world in general. So for me, everyone's dollars are certainly not equal. The indiscriminate nature of your view on selling seems a bit creepy to me. But I think you extrapolated a bit too far:
The dollars themselves are equal, but they are a medium of exchange, which requires two parties making an exchange to be useful. I imagine that the view each party takes of the other reasonably has some influence over what they demand in return for what they offer. I think your description extrapolates the equivalency of the medium of exchange to the equivalency of the parties. That seems a lot like the propaganda subtly imposed on us in public school, that we are all the same, just interchangeable consumers, non-individual and unimportant pawns. That is the propaganda I recognized and rejected when I realized that different prices for different people makes sense.