Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 15. (Read 84393 times)

no, No, NO, NO.
Ransomware have existed before most bictoiners were born.
This is very, very old news.

CryptoLocker is forcing people to rethink their computer security.  In our post-Snowden world, I believe this is a long-term good thing, despite the harm and frustration it is causing people in the short term.  

I actually met one of the victims, BTW.  A late-60's women from Vancouver trying to buy coins from the Robocoin ATM:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/so-i-went-down-to-the-bitcoin-atm-today-330720

What she didn't like about bitcoin was the difficulty she had in buying one.  I thought it was interesting that in her mind cryptolocker was "evil Russian hackers" and bitcoin was just some unrelated thing she could buy from the ATM.

Here's a thought - why don't people keep their virus definition files up to date? Microsoft deserves a huge amount of blame for leaving their OSes unprotected for such an incredibly long time, but windows 8 actually does include Microsoft Security Essentials for free.

Anyway, how many people have actually gotten the cryptlocker virus?  I think it's pretty unlikely that this will be anything more then a fringe thing affecting people who probably don't have any valuable files anyway, because they don't even know how to use their computer. A virus writer will have to be extremely selective in targeting people if they don't want their virus to end up in virus definition, which in turn means not very many people will be effected.  If they try to spread it all over the place it'll end up blocked everywhere, which in turn, again, means no one gets it.

DPR tried to have people whacked for bitcoin, and this stupid virus is what people are worried about "ruining bitcoin"?

Good point!

Ransomwares are as old as internet. They've always been around, and they have no more power than they had before bitcoin.
And even if you are right, Ipsum, can you PLEASE explain to me how redlisting coins would help fighting CryptoLocker copycats ?


That's a relief. I guess.

This was exactly my biggest concern when the idea of the foundation was initially floated, and I stated it.  Fungus grows in the dark.  As it happened, the level of opacity is far worse than I even dreamed it might be.

In order to protect my own ass I need to understand the way things are progressing and I'm not going to buy a seat at the foundation just to do this because I feel that they are not acting in the best interests of what I'd like to see Bitcoin become.

The only solution is to fast forward development of CoinJoin/ZeroCoin type systems.

If Mikes/US Governments lists all work based on tracking coins ("taint analyses") then now moving towards a fully anonymous Bitcoin is the only way to go.

I argued almost a year ago (different account I think) that the future must be Bitcoin with some built in anonymous capability otherwise evils like coin tracking will emerge.

Already if you make a payment you risk the merchant discovering your a millionaire and risk life and limb (In this way Bitcoin can be less private than a normal bank account, at least my local IGA has no idea what my bank balance is)

The solution is to make it commonplace to anonymize almost every transaction or set of transactions by default. This will stop NSA tracking, the redlist and people discovering your networth.

This doesn't even make any sense.  Coins already carry "taint", you can see where they come from. If someone wants to publish a list of transactions they don't like, they're obviously free to do that. I could setup a website with my own "redlist" today. What problem is this even supposed to solve?

The problem of course, is who maintains this list? The bitcoin foundation? every government in the world? If I'm in Iran do I have to apply the US government's redlist?  What happens when the US government tries to use the redlist to help stop the Iranian nuclear program, is some Iranian nuclear scientist supposed to reject his own paycheck?

It does illustrate the importance of keeping mining decentralized, though. If there are a few central, major mines in the world, they'll have an incentive not to mine blocks with 'redlisted' addresses, and on top of that they can even refuse to mine off blocks with redlisted addresses in a government-coordinated 51% attack.

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

Mike's example is Tor, which is a network that failed to clean up the abuse that goes through it, resulting in all sorts of networks and sites now banning access from Tor exit nodes, drastically reducing the ability of someone to use Tor to normally use the internet. The same thing can happen with bitcoin, and as someone who does want to be able to transact in bitcion someday, failing to look at ways to isolate bad actors from the bitcoin network is a mistake.

I don't think -anybody- at the Foundation is happy about even having to have this discussion. But the discussion has to happen, because Cryptolocker is a real issue that's going to become a lot bigger soon. There are very few vectors of attack against Cryptolocker (and inevitable copycats), whereas stuff like Silk Road is almost guaranteed to fail long-term due to the huge number of vectors for law enforcement to use against it. Unfortunately, one of those very few vectors usable against Cryptolocker is bitcoin.

I think it's unlikely the Foundation will end up making coin redlisting/tainting/blacklisting/whatever an official policy they try to push, but the idea that we shouldn't even be having the discussion is crazy. The process at arriving at a solution for problems usually involves many dead ends and dark caves before you find the route to the top of the mountain.

You're a persistent one.
I'm just telling you that ransomware will not magically become more efficient than it is now just because people acknowledge bitcoin being worth more than murrikan dollar.

Ransomware today is a pain. Ransomware tomorrow will be a pain. Ransomware won't be more dangerous tomorrow than it is today.
Your coins are safe as long as you have a backup+strong passphrase or cold wallets.
Just smile and go to sleep.

Developments like this redlist thing played a big role for us in our decision to add a wallet and off-chain transactions to our service. Especially off-chain transactions can help to fight such nonsense. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/playtin-wallet-anonymous-mixing-no-fees-333350

Foundation should be dismissed right now  ! They are Bitcoin Destroyers!

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet

Who is 'us' exactly?

Well said.. If something does work properly, instead of trying to patch/fix it, why not create something else, something new that make the issue non-existent.  This is Bitcoin.  Cope with it or stick to other form of exchange.

This is the way forward. Technology, not politics.

Really ?  the idea of 'redlisting' coins is very bad.

I'll oppose as much as I can, as a miner, and as a user.

It makes me wonder "where this come from ?"  Mike personal oppinion ?  I dont think so.. seems like he's being influence / get presure from some entity that dont like Bitcoin.

Just to propose this is Anti-Bitcoin IMO !

We cant let it be !

Edit : The "treat" that seems to motivate such redlisting are actually done with current money, and they are not killing the use of money.  I dont think that the principle "to protect the old lady from extorsion by a malware" is a sufficient reason.  The old lady should ask a cimputer tech to repair her computer.. This is an education issue, not a Bitcoin issue..

No, they cannot.

And...

Have you been hit by a ransomware before?
Do you know anyone who have been?

Quit being paranoid. Ransomware did exist, still exist, and will exist. With no more power than they had before, provided you have a safe backup of your wallet.

Where is Jon Matonis in this conversation? My understanding is that he is opposed to such things, it would be nice to hear from him on this.

I find it encouraging to read all of these responses. Everybody in the community understands that removing the fungibility of coins will most likely lead to Bitcoin's demise.

I'm going to repost this because I think Melbustus is spot on:


I think we should all be thinking of how best to direct our attention towards projects/innovations which will solve this problem.