Topic: Change request question regarding limitations for sale and linking wallets (Read 137 times)

A good system that will induce a corrupt protocol. It means rewriting Bitcoin code and removing proof of work consensus thereby introducing a centralised system where a governing body which we refer to as third party or intermediary start making corrupt decisions and fake records on new or previous blocks all in the name of blacklisting wallets as claimed.


In as much as the Bitcoin ecosystem frawn at illegal use of Bitcoin it won't make any sense changing protocol just to manage how Bitcoin is been used and who uses the coin and for what purpose the coin should be used for. The aim of Bitcoin is to grant users privacy and control. It should be the duty of Financial crime agencies to monitor transactions through exchanges. And note that Bitcoin wasn't created with the intentions of working with exchanges. It is a peer to peer currency that works outside of exchange. Exchanges are sole entity outside the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Exactly, if nobody ever thought about all of that it might be time to start looking at it!
If you expect me to present you with the code before a discussion where nobody understands the issue then forget about it!


The I don't care because I don't understand time is over I think.
I am asking for opinions and if nobody ever thought about it or gasps the concept then this will not happen.
Thank you for responding on something you do not understand!

Let's end this.
Sorry for wasting your time guys!
Have a nice day or don't care!
Whatever.

The definition of "too much" will be changing constantly with Bitcoin growing in value and price. Who are those to decide at which moment the adjustment should apply? We can't implement it in the same way as difficulty adjustment because there is no reliable approach to estimating such a subjective thing as value.


Why would we do that in the first place? Why prevent people or entities from transferring coins between their own wallets without restrictions?

Sorry, seeming suspicious to whom exactly?  If anything, we should not give more power to hostile entities like blockchain analysis parasites who make money off people's fears.

Who are to curate those whitelists?

I care!
Fiat replaced the trading system where you saw directly what you would trade.
If you spend your fiat and don't care how it was earned, then my friend you have way deeper problems but you would not even care because you would not understand!

You cannot be sure! That is what the Problem is with Fiat!
The Problems Bitcoin could and should solve are way more important if you ask me.

What Problem is Bitcoin solving for you?
I say Bitcoin solves no issues if it is not "better" than fiat.

It's important that protocols, like TCP/IP, HTTP, SMTP, or Bitcoin, remain free from any religious bias or influence. These protocols are intended to facilitate communication and transactions between devices and users, regardless of their religious beliefs or affiliations.


I guess those people better stick to using physical cash or gold bars then, because we all know those are perfectly clean and have no questionable origins whatsoever. Good luck with that!


Well, my dear friend, while Bitcoin is indeed a payment system, it's also a tradable asset, subject to the same market forces and fluctuations as any other commodity. Just like how people sell stocks or gold when they see an opportunity to profit, some Bitcoin holders may choose to sell when they see a spike in demand and prices.


You're absolutely right, Bitcoin is much more than just a payment system.


I'm still not sure what you're getting at. You want to limit how many bitcoins someone can own? That's essentially a form of wealth redistribution, which has been a central tenet of socialist ideology. Socialism advocates for the redistribution of wealth and resources to promote more equality and fairness in society. However, Bitcoin operates on a decentralized network, and its ownership and distribution are not regulated by any central authority. Imposing limits on the amount of Bitcoin that someone can own would contradict the fundamental principles of Bitcoin and undermine its decentralized nature.


Well, it's definitely become more of an investment vehicle for many people, and with the price fluctuations we've seen over the years, it's hard not to see it that way. But hey, maybe we can all just start using Bitcoin to buy our morning coffee and pretend it's not an investment, right?

Yes, I also had a little trouble understanding that you were talking about the big CEX.

But the logic remains the same, you couldn't prevent anyone from holding Bitcoin in a wallet, whether it's your wallet, mine, or Binance's hot wallet, the very nature of Bitcoin leaves everyone free to dispose of their funds and coins as they wish.
If you have a problem with the volatility of Bitcoin, then it's best not to use it as cash. Personally, I see Bitcoin as a storage asset, and I would be outraged to know that a new protocol would allow wallets to be locked, funds to be frozen, funds to be redistributed. The same goes for FIAT / BTC exchanges, anyone is supposed to do what they want, when they want, and at the scale (volume) they want

I can't understand how you don't see the abuse of centralization in the solutions you propose regarding what you wrote in your first post.


Who cares ? How did they buy food with USD / EUR or any other currency in this case ?
How can you be 100% that the notes in your wallet were never used to buy "dirty" things ?
Who knows ? Maybe my 100 usd note was previously used to pay for some drugs before I own it. To be honest, I wouldn't care about it, but I am still interested to know how FIAT can be considered safer than BTC regarding the sentences I quoted.

noted, thanks!
Notice my newbie level! (It is real)

It took me a while to figure out that your post is directed at exchanges, and not Bitcoin.

I suggest that in the future, you avoid using the term wallet when referring to an account at an exchange. You don't have a wallet at an exchange, you have an account.

Why centralised? There could be a list living inside the protocol that is getting upvoted by certain rules.

Yes it should care!

If I want to buy a tesla tomorrow while we count in dollars, I also need to have the amount in dollars on my wallet.
I cannot tell if the price is so unstable.

I rather have a protocol that tells me I need to pay in 4 amounts over one month, than paying in one go and then not be able to pay the rest of the bills for the month.

For that to work also Tesla would need trust in the protocol.

Limitations provide security.
If Bitcoin wants to replace gold it needs coordinated limitations as gold has I think.  
With security functions it would not be an issue.

So for large amounts the protocol could just go: OK the amount is now in the pot and it will be transferred but it will not be transferred in one go. It could transfer those amounts in batches then and even the price out in the meantime.

Going a bit off-topic now:
This would also help to making the protocol more halal and kosher.
If Bitcoin wants to go global then it should be compatible with more cultures.
Some people would not use Bitcoin because of religious doubts.
Because your food is not kosher if you pay with dirty money

If Bitcoin is a payment system, then why did somebody sell Millions yesterday when Microtrend did the panic buy?
Bitcoin is far away from being a simple payment system imo.
What did they buy yesterday while the price should have gone up but did not move?
If Bitcoin does not want to be the next ponzi scheme, maybe it makes sense to think about how a payment system should be secured.
Just saying.
Now all kinds of people use Bitcoin. And big players might be responsible if it is not working out.
That should not be what Bitcoin is about imo.
Let's make it the peoples coin again please.

IF it would be a payment system, it could have a big order cache and people would be able to stabilise the price. It would take way longer to go to infinity then. But It is a payment system and not an investment right?

That requires centralization of the Bitcoin protocol to "censor" how people use their money. It is not going to happen.

Bitcoin is not an investment, it is a payment system and as a payment system it should not and will not care about these things.

A good system needs rules and security if people do not stick to the guidelines.
I think we are at that point now.

What do you think about changing the code to do the following:

Blacklist wallets with to much bitcoin or set limitations on those.

Add limits to bitcoin sales with a timeout.

Link the timeout to wallets that recently interacted with each other.

Have a linked timeout value for wallets that interacted and seem suspicious.

Add a whitelist for registered exchanges.

That would ensure some limits for huge accounts that go short and give more security to the investments especially for smaller size investments I think.

Thoughts?