Topic: A Warning Against Using Taint - page 6. (Read 16323 times)
"How to undermine confidence in a currency by destroying fungibility"
"How to piss off friends and customers."
"Playing judge, jury and executioner when receiving bitcoins merely accused of being stolen some number of txs ago"
Let's use this thread to suggest titles for this thread.
"Confiscating bitcoins from innocent people. But what if there was a large bounty?"
"Confiscating bitcoins from innocent people. But what if there was a large bounty?"
There's no good solution for taint as the burden will be placed on the innocent.
yeah more like "disempowering bitcoin users".
Want to see empowering honest users?
The power of escrow and a diligent buyer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wts-memory-foam-mattresses-valued-at-2700-usd-for-400-usd-worth-of-btc-85207
Want to see empowering honest users?
The power of escrow and a diligent buyer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wts-memory-foam-mattresses-valued-at-2700-usd-for-400-usd-worth-of-btc-85207
Could you change your title? Just opened this again and forgot it was about a blacklist.
You introducing a system that imposes a form of taint does nothing to prevent theft but does make using Bitcoin a hassle for those who are innocent.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
yet another +1
Because you don't yet understand this is a bad idea dscotese
You introducing a system that imposes a form of taint does nothing to prevent theft but does make using Bitcoin a hassle for those who are innocent.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
+1Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
That's just not the right way to address the problem of thefts! Why not spend your time on making Bitcoin more secure and educate people how to prevent thefts instead?
You could try doing a third party thing. But then everyone would have a reason to mix their money into Mt Gox every now and then.
Sorry, but
You introducing a system that imposes a form of taint does nothing to prevent theft but does make using Bitcoin a hassle for those who are innocent.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
A big problem with tracking 'taint' is that it quickly gets everywhere. MtGox mixes most of the coins they receive into a few large value addresses, so once they've accepted tainted coins you're getting tainted coins pretty much every time you withdraw from them.
In other words, when you look at the previous addresses through which the coin(s) came to you, it would make sense for the blacklist to stop when it hits a MtGox address. So getting your BC from MtGox or another another assumed-reputable - let's say "whitelisted" - address prevents the report from showing it as tainted. It's a good argument for having a whitelist too.
The fact that coin passed through an MtGox account in the past gives MtGox some ability to earn any reward offered by victims, but I haven't found any reward offered by victims. Has anyone?
If you found out that a chain of transactions that didn't include any MtGox (or other well-known) addresses preceded your receipt of bitcoin started with one of the addresses used in a heist and the victim of that heist was offering rewards, would you just ignore it, talk to your counterparty, or report it to get a reward? Would the size of the reward matter?
What the hell are you talking about?
Why not just keep the whole thing and call it your reward if you are a thief?
To break it down one more time.
Person A steals and buys candy from Person B who buys sex toys from Person C who tips Stripper D who deposits the money with you (lucky girl). Now you notice that once upon a time someone reported a theft so you confiscate the girl's money and get your reward. (I bet you'll want to subscribe to the service that accepts all reports and offers fat rewards, eh!?)
Probably Stripper D, now learning about the various taint reporting sites, goes and reports the same coins to have been stolen by you. But it's not all bad maybe the coins will find their way back to you again and you can claim that reward too.
1MFGnisygrRQhFPj7WGapJW7Noh7i3DE2T Just send tainted coins here and ill send you an indulgence. If the pope can sell them so can I.
A big problem with tracking 'taint' is that it quickly gets everywhere. MtGox mixes most of the coins they receive into a few large value addresses, so once they've accepted tainted coins you're getting tainted coins pretty much every time you withdraw from them.
In other words, when you look at the previous addresses through which the coin(s) came to you, it would make sense for the blacklist to stop when it hits a MtGox address. So getting your BC from MtGox or another another assumed-reputable - let's say "whitelisted" - address prevents the report from showing it as tainted. It's a good argument for having a whitelist too.
The fact that coin passed through an MtGox account in the past gives MtGox some ability to earn any reward offered by victims, but I haven't found any reward offered by victims. Has anyone?
If you found out that a chain of transactions that didn't include any MtGox (or other well-known) addresses preceded your receipt of bitcoin started with one of the addresses used in a heist and the victim of that heist was offering rewards, would you just ignore it, talk to your counterparty, or report it to get a reward? Would the size of the reward matter?
I think what bitcoin's honest users need is not a system of following taint but a system of following and ensuring reputation. Something better then btc-otc ratings or following users on this board.
What I would propose is a site with both proof of stake, proof of past transactions and proof of digital identity. Basically it would be btc-otc ratings on steroids.
What I would propose is a site with both proof of stake, proof of past transactions and proof of digital identity. Basically it would be btc-otc ratings on steroids.
We need DROs ( Dispute Resolution Organizations ) in the Bitcoin world. They would provide a form of law and order yet do it in an anarchist and decentralized manner.
A big problem with tracking 'taint' is that it quickly gets everywhere. MtGox mixes most of the coins they receive into a few large value addresses, so once they've accepted tainted coins you're getting tainted coins pretty much every time you withdraw from them.
Oh dooglas, I've been meaning to tell you, your last deposit to Seals was rejected. About 6 steps back some mybitcoin coins got mixed in. So yeah.. please resend your deposit.
Since this is serious business I'm not going to assume anything. I'M TOTALLY KIDDING. WE'LL NEVER DO THAT.
A big problem with tracking 'taint' is that it quickly gets everywhere. MtGox mixes most of the coins they receive into a few large value addresses, so once they've accepted tainted coins you're getting tainted coins pretty much every time you withdraw from them.
Can you seriously not see the foolishness of suggesting people, once they receive coins for which there was a mere accusation of theft made many transactions ago, that they'll turn around and tell the sender: "hey these coins were once accused of being stolen and I'm now going to keep/delete/return them, so if you still want to do this deal with me, you need to send me new coins.."
Are you really this thick to suggest something like that?
Are you really this thick to suggest something like that?
If you do try that then you are not an honest user.
If you say "this item costs 3BTC from any address except 1blehkljf or 1crapjkfd or 1pointlessjkfs5lkj or 1lamejkeil3q or..." then you are nuts but not dishonest I guess.
Can you seriously not see the foolishness of suggesting people, once they receive coins for which there was a mere accusation of theft made many transactions ago, that they'll turn around and tell the sender: "hey these coins were once accused of being stolen and I'm now going to keep/delete/return them, so if you still want to do this deal with me, you need to send me new coins.."
Are you really this thick to suggest something like that?
Are you really this thick to suggest something like that?
The coins are already tainted. The choice is whether or not to make it easier to see. Right now, it's very difficult. I don't see a problem with making it easier. For example, I support the second amendment, because when everyone has a gun, the bad guys worry more about getting shot and therefore do less damage. The "taint" is really up to the user anyway, programmatically based on the threshold which I originally misrepresented in the worst way, but also in real time when they see how many transactions have passed between the thief's address and their counterparty's.
If the +1s don't have the same objection (inconveniencing the hapless middlemen), I'd appreciate more explanation from you.
It is possible the person I am trading with was not actually the thief though. Perhaps that party I am dealing with exchanged cash with the thief and got the private key in exchange. That would be stupid to do and I would argue that the reason for transacting in that manner was more likely than not an effort to launder the stolen money to me [edit: transact in a deceptive manner with me]. And that wouldn't be acceptable to me.
This helps me understand you better. Your goal is to avoid inconveniencing anyone who may have received stolen coin. This is a goal I agree with. It is already possible for any user receiving it to inconvenience the sender, and my proposal makes it easier, but doesn't require it. I think I can go further toward agreeing with you by suggesting that one choose not to inconvenience a sender of "tainted" coin unless the tainted coin comes from a victim who has offered a reward - and even then, it's better to invite the sender to participate in the back-tracking rather than refuse to honor the transaction.[Update: I probably didn't win any brownie points with that response. But I did mean to qualify that as something I'ld find acceptable to do only on 100% (not 99.99999%, but 100%) pure coins that were claimed to have been stolen.]
Oh you did win brownie points. Your concern for the "hapless" middleman is something I should have considered in my original proposal.If the +1s don't have the same objection (inconveniencing the hapless middlemen), I'd appreciate more explanation from you.
Jump to: