Why did tradehill decide not to cooperate with this blacklisting thing? Was it the moral hazard?
Topic: Bitcoins are not, in practice, fungible - page 6. (Read 9555 times)
blacklisting is never a good idea
locked because it could be traced back to a theft ? Really ? 
Why did tradehill decide not to cooperate with this blacklisting thing? Was it the moral hazard?
Why is mtgox still locking down those accounts? The bitcoins were probably sold long ago at Tradehill.
Almost certainly - that's where the person depositing them reckoned they got them from originally. Though in theory I guess the amount of tainted bitcoins should be increasing over time until we hit the point where Mt Gox give up...
Well it won't stop the bit coin network from transacting in those coins (and ultimately laundering them) unless there's a change in the software to create some sort of address blacklist. The worrying aspect is MtGox deciding to act as a policeman. If they are going to do that I think they should make it quite clear.
Why is mtgox still locking down those accounts? The bitcoins were probably sold long ago at Tradehill.
This already happened once before, I've been searching but I can't find it, just tons of results about the original theft (it was allinvains coins).
Something interesting happened in #mtgox last night. A user got their account locked down and MagicalTux said that the reason for it was that the coins could be traced back to a theft a long time ago. He unlocked the account in question, but it means that the widely-held assumption that Bitcoins are fungible - that it doesn't matter which you get paid with - isn't true and hasn't been for some time. Some Bitcoins are tainted and will cause you problems when you try to exchange them while others aren't, and there's no easy way to tell which is which just by looking at them. (Wonder if there's a way to require payment with recently-mined bitcoins...)
I have no idea whether or how this will affect Bitcoin though.
I have no idea whether or how this will affect Bitcoin though.
Well if that were true (which I personally doubt)......
That would only mean that bitcoins are not fungible at mtgox and with any merchant or exchange that wanted that behavior. Customers could choose if they wanted to deal with exchanges like that or not.
I was wondering when we'd see some of the first cases of this.
Long term I expect it'll be the same as it is with fiat: if you deposit some bills at a bank with serial numbers associated with a robbery or ransom, you'll probably get some extra attention and questions, but ultimately the value remains yours.
Long term I expect it'll be the same as it is with fiat: if you deposit some bills at a bank with serial numbers associated with a robbery or ransom, you'll probably get some extra attention and questions, but ultimately the value remains yours.
Something interesting happened in #mtgox last night. A user got their account locked down and MagicalTux said that the reason for it was that the coins could be traced back to a theft a long time ago. He unlocked the account in question, but it means that the widely-held assumption that Bitcoins are fungible - that it doesn't matter which you get paid with - isn't true and hasn't been for some time. Some Bitcoins are tainted and will cause you problems when you try to exchange them while others aren't, and there's no easy way to tell which is which just by looking at them. (Wonder if there's a way to require payment with recently-mined bitcoins...)
I have no idea whether or how this will affect Bitcoin though.
I have no idea whether or how this will affect Bitcoin though.
Jump to: