Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 10.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: RodeoX on November 15, 2013, 09:35:44 AM

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

Use it while giving zero fucks to what some bureaucrats think or do. That's what I'm doing until they mess with the protocol. Then I'll just give up.

mikegogulski

sr. member

Activity: 360

Merit: 250

Quote from: RodeoX on November 15, 2013, 09:35:44 AM

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements?

None. Existing legal requirements, and the power interests they serve, are the problem. Their absence or irrelevance is the goal.

Quote

Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies like it are an existential threat to lawmakers and the power interests they serve. Trying to convince them of anything is futile, and akin to attempting to bargain with the slavemaster while you're under the lash, when what you should be doing is everything in your power to escape the last and the slavemaster.

millsdmb

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: RodeoX on November 15, 2013, 09:35:44 AM

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

NOTHING. Mikes Proposed change is unacceptable.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

retrend

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

So the biggest threat to bitcoin currently is the bitcoin foundation. Great.

cdog

hero member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 500

Here is the Achilles Heel of Bitcoin. Between the traceable public ledger and a handful of people deciding on where development of the client goes, its too easy for there to be an instance of incompetence or malicious intent. We have to remove the possibility of such a mistake from Bitcoin, but I dont know if thats even possible.

MicroGuy

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1030

Twitter @realmicroguy

Quote from: jdillon on November 14, 2013, 10:58:51 AM

Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.

In my view, this "redlist" process has already gained enough steam that it will be implemented in one form or another. If Satoshi were still in this 3d reality I'm sure he would be opposed to this ridiculous perverting of his ideal and supportive of altcoins that are true to the principles of freedom and independence.

Bitcoin is now the bloated IBM of the 1970's and destined to become a secondary player to these emerging altcoins stars.

mikegogulski

sr. member

Activity: 360

Merit: 250

Quote from: justusranvier on November 14, 2013, 09:34:03 PM

Cryptolocker is not Bitcoin's issue any more than it's Ford's issue if a bank robber drives off in one of models.

If somebody should be thrown under the bus here it should be Microsoft for being unable or unwilling to build secure operating systems.

Anyone who says they are worried about Cryptolocker's effect on Bitcoin adoption is lying. By every objective measure: transaction rate, blockchain.info wallets, frequency of conferences, exchange rate, etc, growth is exponential and shows not the slightest sign of being negatively affected by Cryptolocker.

This idea of a Cryptolocker backlash is a fake problem used to scare the community into accepting a compromise that's against their best interests. These plans have been in the works for years, as evidenced on this very forum, and the proponents have just been waiting for a suitable excuse the put their plans into effect.

+1

mikegogulski

sr. member

Activity: 360

Merit: 250

Quote from: matonis on November 15, 2013, 05:14:21 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 15, 2013, 05:01:44 AM

Why do it in secret?

I believe the thread was originally posted in the open on the membership forums.

... which still haven't become at least read-only to people not members of the foundation. Therefore, secret by some definitions.

felipelalli

full member

Activity: 229

Merit: 103

Quote from: niothor on November 15, 2013, 08:34:16 AM

Quote from: felipelalli on November 15, 2013, 08:30:35 AM

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

Why not , there are only male users on this forum?
Or only , straight male users?
=)))))

99,9%

UncleBobs

member

Activity: 103

Merit: 10

It From Bit

Quote from: kjj on November 14, 2013, 04:04:24 PM

Just FYI, this isn't a proposal to make any protocol changes.

This is an external system and a UI change. The goal is to provide a point of contact as close as possible to an event that may require investigation. If someone pays a ransom, for example, they can provide details to the service. The service tracks those coins, and hopes that they end up in the wallet of someone that subscribes to the service and cares. Now if law enforcement is investigating the ransom event, they can go talk to that person and ask them where they came from, possibly tracking back to the criminal.

Doesn't seem quite as sinister in those terms, does it?

Why, yes, yes it does seem sinister. I do not want to become part of a law enforcement apparatus.

See something, say something?

"Be the hero when working harmoniously with authorities"? https://robocoinkiosk.com/compliance

Join Infraguard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfraGard

NO! NO! NO NO!

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: felipelalli on November 15, 2013, 08:30:35 AM

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

Why not , there are only male users on this forum?
Or only , straight male users?
=)))))

felipelalli

full member

Activity: 229

Merit: 103

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

Valerian77

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 255

Quote from: jobe451 on November 15, 2013, 06:44:48 AM

Quote

1. the owner of blacklisted cowns can change them into not listed coins within minutes

You can declare all outputs illegal which had part of the coins origin from that address.

Quote

2. the blacklist must be accepted legally worldwide . otherwise the listed coins can be spend for services which do not care for the list

The us can impose FATCA onto the rest of the world, why should they not be able impose any other law to the rest of the world. If a major part of economics would happen in Bitcoin and they would enforce that their companies/citizens must only accept clean coins, then you would have two prices on MtGox (for clean and unclean coins).

Within the US they can do anything what they want - even make war against their own citizens. But in Asia their influence is very limited. Since Edward Snowden each and every country is aware of the danger going out from the US espionage. My opinion is that firstly the world with the US as a leading country may be stabil in some aspects. But on the other side they have no chance to continue in the future. For Bitcoin it means - forget US regulations and blacklists - they cannot make war against the whole world.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Well , I have the feeling the Bitcoin foundation is taking the wrong road here

*it was supposed to be a national road Cheesy

ErisDiscordia

legendary

Activity: 1133

Merit: 1163

Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos

Quote from: ?? on ??

What opposed vehemently, tracking coins and maintaining blacklists? ITS ALREADY POSSIBLE WITH JUST THE BLOCKCHAIN. Mikes inviting discussion on it and implementing it in the reference client would do is make it accessible to all instead of the small number capable of doing it atm.

I get the fact that creating such a list is possible right now. And people are free to do so. I'm just here arguing, that it is a VERY BAD idea to take such lists seriously on any sort of voluntary basis and that implementing them into wallets or satoshi-forbid, the protocol is unacceptable to me.

bg002h

donator

Activity: 1466

Merit: 1048

I outlived my lifetime membership:)

Quote from: phillipsjk on November 14, 2013, 02:37:06 PM

Quote from: bg002h on November 14, 2013, 12:56:59 PM

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

The answer is "no." If Bitcoin conflicts with AML/KYC laws, then those laws have to go. They are dragging down the non-bitcoin financial system for the same reasons they are not acceptable to Bitcoin users.

Money tainting hurts fungibility. Without fungibility, you don't have money. "Know your customer" means that you lose a lot a privacy even in the traditional banking system. With Bitcoin, the transaction record is public. "knowing your customer" means killing pseudonymity (and privacy).

Blockchain.info reports taint analysis. Is this bad or wrong?

What do you think of this company that is creating a whitelist? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

Tge question is, how are we gonna point out the ill defined nature of such a task and the impossibility of doing it perfectly? The people who will be making decisions that will heavily effect the value of your bitcoins are likely to want this in the Bitcoin protocol. That's not on the table, but, they might even think they can demand it.

We done white or black list our dollar bills by serial number. Why should we do this to our bitcoins? Such arguments are more helpful than an angsty "NO NO!".

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

first they forbid coins that are connected with crime. after that, they forbid coins that are connected with kuba, iran etc etc.

thats the wrong way. bitcoin should be free international, unbounded money (but not anarchy).

jobe451

newbie

Activity: 2

Merit: 0

Well not that rediciouls because

Quote

1. the owner of blacklisted cowns can change them into not listed coins within minutes

You can declare all outputs illegal which had part of the coins origin from that address.

Quote

2. the blacklist must be accepted legally worldwide . otherwise the listed coins can be spend for services which do not care for the list

The us can impose FATCA onto the rest of the world, why should they not be able impose any other law to the rest of the world. If a major part of economics would happen in Bitcoin and they would enforce that their companies/citizens must only accept clean coins, then you would have two prices on MtGox (for clean and unclean coins).

Valerian77

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 255

Blacklists are ridiculous because of two facts:
1. the owner of blacklisted cowns can change them into not listed coins within minutes
2. the blacklist must be accepted legally worldwide . otherwise the listed coins can be spend for services which do not care for the list

Finally it is what I wrote at a different point. If the US goverment decides to declare use of bitcoins illegal or blacklist a subset of the coins they just separate themself from the international market. And the latter one is growing faster in Asia than in the US.

The only feasible way to control the use of Bitcoin (that is core point) is to trace the Bitcoin addresses. And that is already part of the blockchain. The longer I think about Bitcoins (since one year now) the more respect I have to Satoshi Nakamoto who really created a genius system.

Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 10. (Read 84410 times)