Topic: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) - page 15. (Read 61198 times)

That is also a possibility.

Actually, no.

A pseudonymous reputation is one of those things that's possible in theory, but utterly fails in practise because humans are involved.

We need to make trade between anonymous parties so safe that reputation (thus, identity) is not needed at all.

Heavily misrepresented ?
But how is your representation ?

Oh you forget some small details:
www.veteranstoday.com/ 2013/ 04/ 20/ the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/
And not only Americans like to live.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256
BBC News - Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000
For what did they died ? For a non existent nuclear program ?
This is what happened and not a fictive scenario like yours.
Killing people with pushing buttons in sovereign countries:
news.yahoo.com/ blogs/ ticket/ drones-killed-4-700-u-senator-says-141143752--politics.html
Who is financing this and with what money ?
Do you want to rollback the money which would come in the hands of those who are killing thousands and would you give it in the hands of those who are killing millions ?


Here I must give you right. But Namecoin ID is exactly the proper solution for it.
A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need.

I don't see any past, present or future foundations as rulers of anything.  they are funded to promote Bitcoin and it's adoption, not to influence it.  so this all could be flak or is going to be a rude awakening for the board members (IFF any of this is true) to stick to the mission only.

Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links.

Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed.

You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies.

The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt.

It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers

Utility in bitcoin derived from popularity had to be established before someone proposed centralized influence in the name of social "justice." People prefer freedom to coercion.
 
The implementation of taint means groups would wage an endless struggle for privileges. Everyone would want to have direct access to this power of forcing their subjective view of what actions ought result in a tainted coin and what ought not. The system should wash it's hands of such judgements of morality.

If such interventions are imposed, the utility derived from liquidity and popularity will be outweighed by the loss of utility from being "tagged and tracked"--especially if for taxation purposes. I can see the code base being forked and more robust systems created.

None of what you said has anything to do with what I said. Talk about someone not reading...

I'm just saying I came here looking for a solution for this CoinValidation business. I got none. And not only that, but the foundation is actually talking about its merits.

Regulators, debates, meeting the government... cool story bro. But it's off topic. I'm just talking about how I'm not seeing any solutions to the CoinValidation issue coming from the Foundation.

Because people are clearly not even reading what has actually been said.
If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool.
if you think the regulators understand bitcoin, you are a fool.
If you think meeting the government and openly discussing the issues in a way that they can understand is unhelp, you are a fool.
If you think discussing some of the possibilities (even though none of them are feasible anyhow) is somehow a crime, you are a fool.

What urks me more than anything is that people are jumping up and down and getting all heated over stuff they a) have not read, and b) don't seem to understand and c) are just jumping on the bandwagon like a bunch of medieval villagers with pitchforks to go burn down the next village.

It's not possible to have intelligent conversation with such people. 

You find it medieval? How old are you?

What does debating have to do with this? I'm not trying to win some debate, and I don't want to debate you. I'm just saying that you guys are saying the outrage is uncalled for, and I disagree. If the Foundation's sole purpose is to debate regulators, then fuck it, we don't need it. Or at least I don't need or want it. The whole thing should be about finding solutions. Not debating the two-bit whores in congress.

While the idea is good, wouldn't it harm the anonymity of bitcoin?

Clearly you lack any education in debating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8#t=6m42s watch George Galloway run rings around a US Senator. THAT is being prepared, and THAT is how to debate - I suggest you watch it. This is what Bitcoin is up against: to be unprepared would be the most foolish thing in the world.

I find it medieval that you would censor any discussion of debates. Seriously - watch that video and get some clear idea of how debating works before you open your mouth again.

So, Redlists / Blacklists and Cointaining is OUT ! Got it...

So what can we do about stolen coins being used... because lets imagine you have 100 BTC stolen from you.. you can see it in the blockchain and want to catch this guy right ? Thats the idea behind the cointainting.. except, the coin tainting only creates more issues... So whats the solution ?

Blockchain Analysis Police
So, let us propose that a company [from MIT because why not? lol] who have developed some really cool algorithms for analysing the blockchain really fast and finding common connections.

Now, with the new merchant style address, ie: IF you pay for something in BTC you just pay the same BTC address as everyone else only include some meta data like order ref for example.. this company could quite quickly build up a list (from google and more) of commonly known addresses.

When I get my 100 BTC stolen, I go to this company website and plugin the transaction id(s) of the theft, maybe upload some documents (such as previous proof of addresss payment, police report, id..etc?)  and this company then logs this theft and begins watching the coins.

Now imagine is doing it with loads of stolen coin thefts over a long period..  

Eventually, these coins would find there way into a publically known address.. at which point, the question can be asked, 'who did you get the coins off ? ' . .they might tell, you, they might not - this email could be automated to a form on the site ?

Over time this goes on and on and on until eventually a profile is made to a certain degree of certainty as to who the criminal is.

--

Now, I'm not saying this idea is how it would / should / could work, I'm just saying it's an idea of how I could possibly see coin thefts being resolved in the future..  feel free to add / amend / change / improve / bash idea as much as possible.

Tom

@ffssixtynine

I see you like government involvement, or at the very least - you think that there's no use in resisting it. With your little crafted example of Bin retard, for instance. Fear as a tactic? Its working for the DHS rather well, isn't it? So naturally you adopt this stance and say "Well, look - we can catch bad people if we do X, Y and Z" without stopping for one second and looking at the principles being violated.

Personal freedom and financial freedom are worthwhile, no matter how many horrible counter-examples you can give. For every system there are positives and negatives, and I'm not going to give up this fight just because someone is scared the "bad guys" will abuse it.

As for the "Bitcoin Foundation", all they've done is raise Bitcoin's visibility towards the very forces that can cause us harm (Depending on where you live, I guess.). Thanks a load, guys, you're really pals. Entertaining or "just discussing" these issues with government aren't helping anyone, at all.

All they'll end up achieving is crippling U.S. involvement with Bitcoin, and then other countries will take the torch and leave them in the dust.

This is simply idiocy.

No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents.

You are missing it all over again. CoinValidation is not the Bitcoin Foundation nor the devs.
CoinValidation can be done, by anyone. And you can bet the NSA is already compiling a list, and linking address to email addresses (since so much is emailed these daya like the idiots at Coinbase.com do). Emails are easily linked to real identities. It's all there already so STOP YOUR CONSPIRACY BS.

The Foundation is discussing things that regulators are going to ask. Informed debate requires good understanding of all opposing views.

This is not bitcoin level. The Bitcoin devs are not going to implement stuff that hurts bitcoin - end of.
The foundation has no say over the bitcoin development team. end of.
Any changes made by the bitcoin devs still need to be adopted by miners, none of whom are going to hurt bitcoin interests.

So please, stop all this FUD and nonesense.

Here's the thing. I'm a just a casual user, not a developer, or a programmer or anything. But I do spend a lot of time reading and understanding Bitcoin for years now.

After reading all the stuff that you've quoted, I'm afraid I'm even more dismayed than before. I see what you were trying to do. You're trying to show that the foundation is merely discussing this issue and not actually trying to implement anything. That this backlash is an over-reaction. But what I'm seeing in the very stuff you've quoted is people suggesting that it could be a good idea. Now, you're saying that this is their job, to explore this issue. But that's unacceptable to me personally. I just expect more from them.

What I mean is, I have a casual view of Bitcoin. I like it for its real-world application. So when I come to forums to read up on the latest and greatest, I hope to see the latest and greatest. When in the last few days the idea of coin-listing came up (again!), I fully expected to come on here and read all sorts of ingenious solutions, in true open-source fashion. Instead I'm seeing secrecy and attempts to appease would-be regulators. This forum even has an Alternative Cryptocurrency subforum with stuff derived from the original Bitcoin code. This is only possible because of the open nature of Bitcoin. Yet the going-ons of the foundation itself is closed? It's not even read-only. This stuff had to be "leaked"? What is this?

CoinValidation is real. So it's not simply a matter of a theoretical debate. This shit's real. And as far as I can tell, nobody in those documents is suggesting any way to counter it. Even if the discussion would have been on the topic of how to counter something like CoinValidation, and the conclusion would have been that it's impossible, that would have been fine. At least the discussion was had. But instead there's some secret discussion on the possible merits of lists! That's not what I want to hear from the people running the show. In fact, this was stated in one of the parts you quoted:
And I know, you could say he's not promoting anything, but that's just BS really. Do you hear people say let's have a discussion on the roundness or flatness of the Earth? Why not discuss it? Because we've already decided that the Earth is round.

Bottom line:
CoinValidation and its kind are bad for Bitcoin. What I expected was an open discussion on how to counter them. What I got was a closed discussion on why it may have merit.

Aaaaaaaaaand that's how we create a breeding ground for a new state of rulers.

No. You just defund them. Make them pay for their bullshit themselves. Educate people.

For the nth time there are no changes of this type, the foundation hasn't said they wanted anything, and the foundation members who posted on those threads made their views very clear that it ain't gonna work. Will people please just read the actual thread.

As someone else posted, mike has discussed this in public but in this forum it ends up full of people who just troll or react or don't read properly - as this thread is perfect evidence of.

I've had it confirmed that any one here can go join the other one for $20 or so and take part in adult discussions with rather less pitchforks and trash posts.

Bitcoin is so important to all of us yet some of you can't be bothered to try to properly read about this topic, which I think says an awful lot about you rather than mike or anyone else. If you want to react to what mike actually said and the actual discussions (ie go and read them) then fair enough but barely anyone who is shouting and screaming is doing that.

I want to know what the operators of the largest pools have to say about the changes being made to bitcoin, they hold a lots of the power in endorsing these new features that the foundation seems to want to add to our bitcoin. Does anyone have any idea what the operators of the major pools have to say or think about all of this?