Topic: Decentralised crime fighting using private set intersection protocols (Read 33489 times)

I know this is an old message but I couldn't help but add my 2 cents as a so-called newbie (I've been into bitcoin for 2 years but never posted until the penny dropped last year) and whilst looking for discussion around identity.

What is really needed is a system where the onus is on the individual to demonstrate their trust worthy-ness much like you do on ebay with ratings but also with upload able documents for identification with select institutions.

We are humans after all and need to know to some degree the person we are dealing with. No point sending money to a wallet address to a guy who 'says' he's 'The Next Jesus' if he is actually just 'The Next Scammer'.

My point is, the individual should be in control of their own identity which can be verified by cross reference from a third party after the  identity holder volunteers information to that 3rd party. Users should also be able to rate trustworthiness of other identities associated to wallet addresses for others to see. (i.e. This guy's great. Sold me some trainers)

The coins themselves are free to do whatever they want. A criminal could have a nice proven identity with associated bitcoin address showing that he's a trustworthy office clerk with a nice job. Meanwhile, he might also have another bitcoin address which he uses for nefarious purposes. He's free to send money too/from his addresses. This won't stop law enforcement from being able to do their job which is track down criminals by following the money trail and it also allows humans to build trust between users/companies/institutions.

The problem with tainting coins is that criminals would just stop using bitcoin as a form of transacting. It would no longer be useful for them. Instead, a separate blockchain would be created that allows criminal transactions to occur with translation between bitcoin and these dark coins happening off the chain... i.e. anonymously. So you'd still end up using bitcoins that were from criminal proceeds. You just wouldn't know it.

We live in a mixed world of opportunists. Money needs to flow freely even through black markets and as a transaction tool for nefarious purposes. That's why the USD has traces of cocaine on nearly every bill.

Just my 2cents.

that's a resounding no to Taintcoin, then. Maybe someone should try this out as an alt-coin first, see how popular it becomes in an open market. Perhaps the average person really would sign up, so that political opponents can be labelled as monsters naughty people can have their ability to spend money punished, instead of their actual alleged crime

edit: in fact, the potential for the whole system to descend into a farce of claim and counter-claim, that I suspect it couldn't even work as an alt-coin, it's basically a trolls paradise. All the more reason to never accept such a change to Bitcoin itself

This is so true, and I kind of assumed that at this stage still, the type of people attracted to bitcoin for its differences with regular money already knew this, and are attracted to it because of this.

"The war on terror" is just an excuse to erect police state infrastructure, just like the "war on drugs" is, perpetrated by the power elite, their media cartel, and the posturing stooges they make available for us to elect.

If you can't see it, then ask, would real people, who actually value freedom, be truly scared enough about these or any boogeymen to strip, bend over, and throw away the vaseline? Because that's what's going on. Ask yourself how this is even possible.

Tainting money is part of this infrastructure. This same trinity waging these fake fear wars will already control, by default, what money gets tainted, starting the very moment such a system were to come online, instantly. This is enabled and allowed by sheep.

Today, they want to taint "dirty" money, tomorrow it will be to bail out a giant crooked irresponsible bank. Oh wait, that's also today.

It is hilariously ironic that the currency being talked about is bitcoin, but people who appreciate a decentralized currency for its actual decentralized nature will never go for a scheme used by self-styled protectors to abuse users of a currency in the name of a bullshit "war on whatever-we-hype-to-get-your-panties-in-a-knot".

Reminds me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU6-D3_2j5A

"If they wouldn't do that the terrorists could make a damage with the acquired weapons worth of 100 million $."

Does this guy visit you every night?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmhzw718vW1qjheq2o1_500.jpg

I'm sure some of you taint supporters will feel outraged at my post.

How dare he?
Does he not trust me?
I've never stolen from anyone!
I am only trying to help!

Please get over yourselves.

You're insignificant in my position. I have not considered your personal special unique individual character at all. It's your entire species I have a problem with.

Terrorism is a non-existent structural problem. First of all, it's not structural. It's not ongoing. Second, it's not political. It's not achieving anything. Third, it's not economical. It's not consistent. Fourth, it's not even cultural. It's a bunch of losers.

Anti-terrorism is the biggest nail hunting hammer that could possibly exist.

Tainting is a solution from someone who can't come to terms with the reality that perfecting a system is not the same as improving it and in most cases it leads to mass graves.

I will collect tainted coins and hand them out at a premium.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C S Lewis

Correct. This would be not a perfect solution but would solve some high security problems. If terrorists run a mining pool that would make additional costs and effort for them and would provide also an additional profiling info so it would contribute this way also to catch them.
For terrorism the society pays anyway a high price and this solution could be in some situations cheaper then pursuing with only conventional methods.
For example governmental agencies find out about a weapon deal between terrorists and weapon dealers and they know the BTC address from where should be payed.
A 100.000 $ deal they could block for 50.000$ network fee for 10h and in the mean time they catch the terrorists. If they wouldn't do that the terrorists could make a damage with the acquired weapons worth of 100 million $. If they would move 10.000 police officers to make investigations it would cost also much more.

This approach is much more to my liking as it is entirely free market, there is only one problem.  As law enforcement you would pay money only to DELAY their spending of that transaction.   The costs will exceed the value of the blocked money eventually and eventually that money would become available again.  Because the 'bad guys' can also run a mining pool they could profit and earn 'interest' on having their money held.

The most that this could accomplish is to slow down 'rapid movement' of funds at a very high price to society.

- Let us say somebody has a high hashing power and is thinking to attack the bitcoin network. He realize than he has more to profit if he uses his hash power if he begins to mine bitcoin and will make the network stronger with it.
- Now let us say a government agency knows that a specific bitcoin address is hold by an unpleasant person, human right activist or drug dealer or terrorist. The government will spend millions of dollars to find out the real person behind the bitcoin address and may be will prosecute bitcoiners and damage the network. Now we should use the same principle as with mining. Let us redirect their efforts for the benefit of the network.
We could introduce a specific transaction which can block spending from a specific address. If somebody pays 1% from the amount hold by any bitcoin address for each found block for the miners the miners will rather accept his reward than to introduce the transaction for a low transaction fee.
For ex. a drug or weapon dealer want to pay for a deal from a known address with 2.000 BTC. The government can buy bitcoins and pay a blocking fee available from the satoshi client 20 BTC/block and 100 BTC/h. In a critical deal for 1.000 BTC (50% ff the hold amount) they can block a trade. This fee would be necessary to avoid misuse against concurrents and to limit for really important cases. It would be to costly to block BTCs hold by human right organizations but it would be payable to stop terrorist transactions in critical moments

bytemaster this is different than what im talking about which is the btc network tainting money that was somehow deemed stolen, used in commerce for "contraband", being the victim of abuse of the term "terror", or for whatever future arbitrary politically correct reason, etc, making it unspendable and extinguished no matter who owns it at the time, decided by what algorithm or person it doesn't matter, it's a bad idea IMO.

It sounds like you're talking about something like bitcoin-otc, except not with trading integrity reputation, but whatever law abiding reputation people choose to care about in their counterparty. People already do this face to face or by word of mouth with local transactions, so i don't really have a problem with it. Your thing might be subject to the same abuses like slander, fraud, pseudonyms, etc that word of mouth or bitcoin-otc might be prone to, just saying. Sounds like you got a lot of thought in it though. Sounds pretty useful actually

Who said anything about a computer doing it?   Bitcoin doesn't solve banking/money on its own, it is just a tool for people to use.   My system would only be software tools to facilitate the creation of:

  Secure Identity that can be used to sign 'open contracts' or 'commitments' to follow well published and accepted 'laws'.
  Software to quickly validate in seconds whether the person you are about to transact with has already signed a minimum subset of laws and a compatible arbitration path.
  Software to do a 'background check' for published arbitration decisions that have not been followed.
  Software to quickly verify surety deposit for an individual.
  A website to publish / publicly shame individuals whom fail to agree to ANY arbitration path or whom have to followed the result.

In theory the purpose of this software is to allow 'instant' background/credit checks on the individuals you associate with.  It would be a tool to allow honest individuals to recognize one another at a distance and have a high degree of confidence in their transactions. 

   There is nothing for the computer to 'get right' every single time, the computer is merely indexing / searching / comparing digital signatures and web-of-trust graphs.   Ultimately this is enforced by people choosing to trust one or more surety funds, arbitration courts, and insurance funds.

with just one exception: provable BTC theft. In spite of this, I think the personal responsibility route is the right one. I've given it some careful thought, and there's no way around how it damages Bitcoin's acceptance. You just wouldn't accept BTC if it could be labelled tainted at any given time in the future, it's pretty much taking the uncertainties of future chargebacks when using electronic payment cards and giving Bitcoin it's own (worse) version of the problem.

It damages Bitcoin's properties as a medium of exchange, hence, no.

I couldn't agree more as I have already pointed out in this thread. Following the money, especially following bitcoins is untenable.


Now this is starting to sound a lot like what I envision is the solution. I will definitely check your site although I'm still clueless how once can create a secure unique and yet anonymous digital ID which is essential for any type of such a solution.

I dont follow, is mike trying to get a government job?

You won't be able to do this. This is a subjective matter, not an objective problem that a computer can be programmed to get "right" every time.

It's unavoidable.

There's no way to taint money accurately. There's no way to do it securely. There's no way to do it impartially. There's no way to keep it out of hands that will ultimately use it to suit themselves. Quit trying already.

Money itself should not become unspendable anyway. That's a harmful solution. Fight crime the real way instead of being a control freak and grafting a tumor onto the monetary system. What's going to happen after a long period of time when half the money is tainted?

A criminal steals a bunch of bitcoins and then all of a sudden he can't spend them? Big effing whoop, he doesn't lose anything. And this is pretty much the best case scenario. It's hilarious.

It's a total waste of time. A control freak's fantasy toy. It's a boondoggle. It will cause 100 times more problems than it will fix. It will be controlled by people and those people will use it for their own purposes. Forget about it.

The problem with this idea is that it does not address the real problem, crime, but instead attempts to provide a decentralized solution to an existing tactic (following the money).    Unfortunately, following the money is a terrible and ineffective tactic that has tremendous negative externalities.

I have been playing with various ideas on providing decentralized 'law enforcement' with the ultimate goal being that it should, in theory, be able to also prevent 'legal plunder' and 'official crime'.

The problem is how do we define 'crime' in a universal / decentralized manner that 'no one can disagree with'.   It seems to me that the only standard that anyone can be held to is 'their own standard' and if someone were to break their 'own law' as judged by 'their own court' that it indisputable that they are in the wrong and owe RESTITUTION to someone.    What is needed is the following:

1) A crypto-graphic secure / unique identity.
2) A set of laws 'independent' laws that are 'brand name' and widely known.  The market would provide these contracts.
3) An individual would select the subset of these laws they agree to follow and sign them with their ID.
    - this subset need not be public, but can be presented only to those you do business with.
4) An individual would select a subset of trusted courts to be judged under.
5) Before doing business with an individual, validate that they have agreed to a compatible subset of laws  AND that they have no judgements against them by their own courts.
6) Shun anyone who has unsatisfied judgments against them.
7) Charge people without a trusted ID more than those who validate their ID.

I started to put my ideas together on a new website: the-iland.net 

The iLand is a new free market solution that aims to secure life, liberty, and property for its members.

The key ingredients to this solution include:

• Individuals publicly commit to abide by their own standard of law.
• Individuals publicly commit to arbitrate via one or more courts of their own choosing.
• Individuals deposit a security bond with one or more trusted agencies.
• Individuals share the burden of injustice by contributing to a common fund.
• Individuals shun anyone whom fails to arbitrate or abide by the outcome.

If such a system could gain wide-spread adoption (read details on my website) then ultimately peer pressure and 'self interest' would eliminate anti-social behavior by government agents.  Public judgements could be issued against cops, IRS agents, etc and these people will end up having to change their ways.  Politicians would have to explain why they will not abide by the same laws as the rest of us or why they will not appear for arbitration in a 'fair court'. 

This is good shit, Mike.


As a supplement to law and order this is a good idea.  I think it has it's place.  The concept of Nexus to define scope is good.


And I would like to see this realized.  Society's collective apathy let's far too many of ill repute continue to operate without repercussions.


If something like this can be designed to not be gamed by a rogue or powerful entity, and is voluntary - then why not?

Exactly this, look at the founding fathers and what America is currently is and then think about what will happen to your decentralized crime fighting about 50 years, it will be a mere tool to enforce a system of modern imperialism upon the free.