Topic: Donning tin foil hat concerning multisig transactions - page 3. (Read 3798 times)
I don't see the problem with the OP scenario. I have suggested this numerous times. It simply gives tracking capability to law enforcement. It does not remove privacy and doesn't give away control of your balance. Now if you are saying that this WTF (nice) can actually control your spending, that's another story and I doubt anyone would allow any government to do that to the Bitcoin network law or no law.
Quote
Pardon me while I don't let the government have control of my second key, regardless of various laws that might be passed.
Basically, if people give up their responsibilities, and end up oppressed, it's not the system's fault, it's the people's fault.
Basically, if people give up their responsibilities, and end up oppressed, it's not the system's fault, it's the people's fault.
Pretty much this.
Let's not mince words. Bitcoin has the potential to be a tool of financial freedom so powerful it could completely shake up the status quo.
It also has the potential to be a tool of financial control so complete it could qualify as a Mark of the Beast(tm).
It all depends on the people. If everyone rejects government involvement and refuses to allow centralization, we win. If everyone just accepts government controlling it and forcing you to use it a certain way, we're doomed.
Quote
Basically, if people give up their responsibilities, and end up oppressed, it's not the system's fault, it's the people's fault.
Hence, the State of the World Today.Quote from: John Kirk link=topic=61836
Unfortunately, not all members of the U.S. government are happy about their loss of control over the world's finances that bitcoin brought about.
They would declare Bitcoin a terrorist plot, and nations not making it illegal an "Alliance of Evil" long before that ever occurred. They'd probably arrange for some lucrative (for them) false flag financial meltdown event and blame it on Bitcoin as the impetus for making it illegal. "They" would never allow loss of control like that. Some people would whoop and holler but the average peon would be happy that their safety is being watched over by the govt. 
LMAO at WTF! I like how you think. I also like how you write.
~Bruno~
~Bruno~
I have been pondering over the ramifications concerning multi-signature transactions in bitcoin. While there are some very useful capabilities that can be enabled with this feature, I am concerned that there are some highly undesirable potential consequences as well. Please convince me that I am just being paranoid, and that these fears are unjustified.
Suppose all of our grandest dreams are realized, and bitcoin has become a world-wide currency. You buy gas with it, you purchase your groceries with it, and you pay your taxes with it. There are no central banks, inflation is a thing of the past, and bitcoin has been declared a world-wide legal tender.
Unfortunately, not all members of the U.S. government are happy about their loss of control over the world's finances that bitcoin brought about. Consequently, they pass a law that all payments made by the U.S. government must send to addresses set up with multi-signature transactions. The receiver of the bitcoin payments retains one signature, but the U.S. government retains the other. The law is sold to the public as a security measure. After all, if a thief steals a person's bitcoin wallet, the thief cannot spend the coins without first getting approval from the U.S. government. Of course, this requires that the valid owner of the bitcoins must have some form of government ID, similar to a credit card, to identify himself when he tries to spend his bitcoins so the U.S. government can validate the transaction as authentic.
The receiver has no choice but to accept payment in this way, because bitcoins have been declared legal tender, so it is illegal to refuse bitcoins as payment. Having to identify oneself to spend bitcoins is somewhat annoying. However, the added security is worth it to most people.
Several years pass, during which the U.S. government convinces other governments to adopt the same policy and form an alliance. Collectively, they form the World Transaction Federation, or WTF. After the vast majority of countries have adopted this practice, the U.S. government decides that security can be tightened even further and gets all of the WTF members to sign a treaty stating that bitcoins signed by WTF members can only be spent to receiving addresses similarly signed by WTF members.
Several more years pass, and the world-wide bitcoin economy keeps chugging along, with a greater and greater percentage of the total bitcoin supply falling under WTF control. Finally, after the WTF controls 99.9% of all bitcoin currency, the WTF collectively decides that the world economy would greatly benefit if the WTF could control the supply of money directly, rather than having to perform its work in the straightjacket of bitcoin. Consequently, they pass a law that states that no WTF member can sign any bitcoin transaction, except those that exchange bitcoins for some lovely freshly printed bank notes. Not to fear, though. The notes are backed in value by gold. So there is nothing to worry about...
Suppose all of our grandest dreams are realized, and bitcoin has become a world-wide currency. You buy gas with it, you purchase your groceries with it, and you pay your taxes with it. There are no central banks, inflation is a thing of the past, and bitcoin has been declared a world-wide legal tender.
Unfortunately, not all members of the U.S. government are happy about their loss of control over the world's finances that bitcoin brought about. Consequently, they pass a law that all payments made by the U.S. government must send to addresses set up with multi-signature transactions. The receiver of the bitcoin payments retains one signature, but the U.S. government retains the other. The law is sold to the public as a security measure. After all, if a thief steals a person's bitcoin wallet, the thief cannot spend the coins without first getting approval from the U.S. government. Of course, this requires that the valid owner of the bitcoins must have some form of government ID, similar to a credit card, to identify himself when he tries to spend his bitcoins so the U.S. government can validate the transaction as authentic.
The receiver has no choice but to accept payment in this way, because bitcoins have been declared legal tender, so it is illegal to refuse bitcoins as payment. Having to identify oneself to spend bitcoins is somewhat annoying. However, the added security is worth it to most people.
Several years pass, during which the U.S. government convinces other governments to adopt the same policy and form an alliance. Collectively, they form the World Transaction Federation, or WTF. After the vast majority of countries have adopted this practice, the U.S. government decides that security can be tightened even further and gets all of the WTF members to sign a treaty stating that bitcoins signed by WTF members can only be spent to receiving addresses similarly signed by WTF members.
Several more years pass, and the world-wide bitcoin economy keeps chugging along, with a greater and greater percentage of the total bitcoin supply falling under WTF control. Finally, after the WTF controls 99.9% of all bitcoin currency, the WTF collectively decides that the world economy would greatly benefit if the WTF could control the supply of money directly, rather than having to perform its work in the straightjacket of bitcoin. Consequently, they pass a law that states that no WTF member can sign any bitcoin transaction, except those that exchange bitcoins for some lovely freshly printed bank notes. Not to fear, though. The notes are backed in value by gold. So there is nothing to worry about...
Jump to: