Pages:
Author

Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 19. (Read 84393 times)

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
Cuddling, censored, unicorn-shaped troll.
Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.
His urge to react to Dark Wallet thread(-d+t?) compared to his urge to defend his ideas here sure looks dubious.
I sure hope silence can be explained because he's preparing a sensitive plea.

And not because he's trying to find who, in holy BF, leaked this...
maz
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.

What's his game plan then? He hoping to be the admin of this central redlisting service with a nice little 'coin cleaning' service fee directly payable to his wallet? Tongue
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
Gregory Maxwell made an excellent post on this subject, emphasis mine:

We're not going to be able to prevent well funded business people from attempting to promote horrific architectures against the long term interest of Bitcoin and the public... if we could, the same stupidity would have been prevented in the wider world and there would be less need for Bitcoin.

It's hard to count the number of times newbies have made proposals which would have centralized Bitcoin completely in the name of some fool result or another. Powerful businesses interests are now reliving the same history of bad ideas, but this time the bad ideas will be funded and they don't care if luminaries tell them that they're horrible ideas, they don't necessarily care about any of the principles that make Bitcoin a worthwhile contribution to the world.

It's not, of course, a question of "anonymity": thats silly. If you have "good" and "bad" coins, that destroys fungibility, rapidly everyone must screen coins they accept or risk being left holding the bag. Fungiblity is an essential property of a money like good and without it the money cannot remove transactional friction.  Privacy is also essential for fair markets: Without privacy your counter-parties and competition can see into your finances— get a raise and get a rent hike, and as long as there are power imbalances between people privacy is essential for human dignity.

To stop this nonsense we have to make it impractical to pull off by changing the default behavior in the Bitcoin ecosystem: We consider the lack of a central authority to be an essential virtue, which means that we can't be protected by one either. We must protect ourselves. This means things like avoiding address reuse, avoiding centralized infrastructure, adopting— and funding!— privacy enhancing technology.

Miners can play a role in this as Bitcoin users, but also by supporting mining pools and methods that promote privacy.  They want to force people to use identified addresses so they can blacklist?  What happens when miners start deprioritizing transactions that use addresses that have been previously seen?

Gregory Maxwell gets it the Foundation should be nothing more than a privately funded public lobby and leave development to the community.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
10+ years ago I went to Peru to go kite surfing with a friend.  We got searched on the way home.  Nothing was found of course.  For this travel I got "redlisted".   At that point, I had traveled internationally exactly twice in 20 years.  This "redlisting" meant I was unable to use curbside checkin.  And a manager had to be called during every normal checkin -- he would show up eventually and clickety-click for another 5 minutes sometimes talking on the phone before letting me through.  My bags would be searched EVERY TIME.  This went on for YEARS.  Even when I traveled with my wife and 2 young children.



FOR YEARS



Finally, when Congress forced the TSA to clean up the list due to searches of 12 year old girls, etc this treatment magically disappeared.  I am an American citizen, and not recently arrived.  One of my ancestors founded a town in eastern Massachusetts.


There is no possible way Bitcoin will survive redlisting.  Redlisted coins will RARELY be cleared.  Its easy to redlist someone/something, but its a career ending move to clear the wrong person.

A hidden, secret NSA redlist is not good and we should use technologies to promote fungibility... the Snowden revelations have shown that our constitutional rights need to be enforced via technology because they are not being enforced by due process.

But a notice appearing in your wallet is death to Bitcoin.  (Judge asks: surely you SAW the notice why did you ignore it).  It is ILLEGAL to knowingly spend stolen money, buy stolen goods, etc.  If the wallet says the money is stolen and you spend it you are an accessory (IANAL).  And a notice is a very small step away from automatic enforcement.

Of course Bitcoin will instantly fork.  But the existence the "blessed" version will encourage lawmakers to make the other one illegal (or exchanges illegal anyway).


P.S.  I think Mike Hearn must have sold :-) he's looking for a good entry point

legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001
Let the chips fall where they may.
Yes but others may value non-ID'd bitcoins more than ID'd ones, and reject the ones that have been ID'd. It cuts both ways. It's just another market dynamic, consistent with bitcoin's freedom and decentralization.

That still hurts fungibility;
Quote from: Investopedia
A good or asset's interchangeability with other individual goods/assets of the same type. Assets possessing this property simplify the exchange/trade process, as interchangeability assumes that everyone values all goods of that class as the same.
- http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
Yes but others may value non-ID'd bitcoins more than ID'd ones, and reject the ones that have been ID'd. It cuts both ways. It's just another market dynamic, consistent with bitcoin's freedom and decentralization.

You mean value the tainted ones more? I suppose that's possible, but I have little confidence that would happen. You'd need a majority/large group of people but most will want to be "clean".
full member
Activity: 122
Merit: 100
That's not specific enough, ...

Okay, let me rephrase it. Any measure that causes a person to view some coins as more or less legal/suspect than others.

Bitcoins are different from dollars in that they can be combined and split apart, though. (*) It is pretty much inevitable that any taint is going to quickly spread all over the place. ...

Whatever the end unit it will have a discounted market price. There is high probability some people will value it less or reject it entirely, which inhibits its ability to function as money. People will start demanding wallets that filter/reject such coins; the more people do this the less value any of those units have, regardless to whether the spender/holder is a crook or not.

Yes but others may value non-ID'd bitcoins more than ID'd ones, and reject the ones that have been ID'd. It cuts both ways. It's just another market dynamic, consistent with bitcoin's freedom and decentralization.
full member
Activity: 200
Merit: 100
Dear lord, another Google employee having fun on his 20% spare time.

legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
That's not specific enough, ...

Okay, let me rephrase it. Any measure that causes a person to view some coins as more or less legal/suspect than others.

Bitcoins are different from dollars in that they can be combined and split apart, though. (*) It is pretty much inevitable that any taint is going to quickly spread all over the place. ...

Whatever the end unit it will have a discounted market price. There is high probability some people will value it less or reject it entirely, which inhibits its ability to function as money. People will start demanding wallets that filter/reject such coins; the more people do this the less value any of those units have, regardless to whether the spender/holder is a crook or not. It's the acceptance spiral of value Bitcoin is now experiencing done backwards. That's how money works.

maz
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Wait,

This whole gig was supposed to be decentralized and free so boardroom bastards couldn't apply stupid idea's like this. Did I miss the email that said we changed all that?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
+21 million at everything conspirosphere.tk said
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1011
Monero Evangelist
I just replied on the bitcoin foundation forum and joined as a Platinum member:

If I had a way to communicate how bad an idea this is, I'd be willing to fly to the moon to do so.  Since I can't do that, I'm going to join the board as a platinum member today, and put my life savings in doing so.  Just to prevent this idea.
Respect!
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

yes, he does. Burn him at the stake!

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. ...
This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

Many, if not the most, are into BTC just to be out of the governments' ways. But yes, "they" could track "evil" coins and catch you when you spend them on an exchange or a shop under their control. So ppl will possibly resort to black market transactions only. Or to more anonymous cryptocoins. Whatever it will be, it will be good. The genie is out of the bottle.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it.

NO. Let them do what they want. Like the war on drugs. That worked marvels.
It's time that "the decision makers" are us.

  • Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario

The political scene is a crime scene. Allow me to opt out of it.

  • If you see any, do what you can to oppose them

if you "oppose" them, you reckon them, implying to legitimate their pwning of you. Can't you see it? Just ignore them and opt out of their control.

  • Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

everyone is entitled to discuss whatever he wants with everyone until he does not try to represent anyone else without a written mandate.

Between two evils

choose freedom
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
Adopting what measures, exactly?

Any measure that involves treating some coins differently than others.

How much taint is too much taint?

Any amount. Imagine our dollar system now. Bills are already able to be marked/tracked by serial number. If I hand you a bunch of fivers and one of them has a red "government" line drawn across it you will say, politely, uh no thanks please exchange this one. That's human nature, self interest.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1090
Learning the troll avoidance button :)
Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. No changes in Bitcoin are needed to start redlisting coins. Anyone can do it. All that is needed is a server (or a p2p network) that stores a list of transactions that are redlisted and allows people to make queries to the database.

This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it. If this fails, the worst case scenario is that this is done in a way that makes use of bitcoin in the country involved very impractical.

If you don't like this scenario. Here's what to do:
  • Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario
  • If you see any, do what you can to oppose them
  • Think up technical ways to combat usefulness of redlisting
  • Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.
+1 This is exactly right.

Between two evils I would rather have our dev team working on a system than some shady government agencies who might put in a backdoor
Make the code do what it does and nothing else
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
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?

Now consider the reality of today.  The NSA sees all and hears all.  Some major incident has a bitcoin connection, and they track the coins moving around from key to key.  Eventually they land in a wallet that the NSA knows is owned by a US company.  A national security letter shows up, ordering the company to divulge the info on that transaction.  The FBI starts watching the customer involved, and eventually raids their home and/or arrests them, and the interrogation reveals basically the same information that could have been provided by a volunteer in the other scenario, just in a much less civilized way.

The notion of coins becoming tainted by their history is silly, just as silly as dollars becoming tainted by the drug deals they've been through.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that there won't be a lot of time and effort put into tracking important coins just the same.  How long do you think it will take for judges to come around to bitcoin?  How many silly warrants are going to be signed until then?  How many innocent people are going to meet the SWAT team along the way?

How draconian can taxation enforcement policy get when listing is accepted by the Bitcoin community? Imagine refusing to pay the door-opening tax, and getting your life savings blacklisted?
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
... A) extending the 21 million limit, ...

This is all I need to know. The current protocol is flawed.
Each client must enforce the rules, not just the miners. That way the protocol gets written in stone.
We need an altcoin that does this in addition to improve the anonymity of users

Every client DOES enforce the rules.

Thanks.
I guess I have to take a closer look at how this really ticks
kjj
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1026
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?

Now consider the reality of today.  The NSA sees all and hears all.  Some major incident has a bitcoin connection, and they track the coins moving around from key to key.  Eventually they land in a wallet that the NSA knows is owned by a US company.  A national security letter shows up, ordering the company to divulge the info on that transaction.  The FBI starts watching the customer involved, and eventually raids their home and/or arrests them, and the interrogation reveals basically the same information that could have been provided by a volunteer in the other scenario, just in a much less civilized way.

The notion of coins becoming tainted by their history is silly, just as silly as dollars becoming tainted by the drug deals they've been through.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that there won't be a lot of time and effort put into tracking important coins just the same.  How long do you think it will take for judges to come around to bitcoin?  How many silly warrants are going to be signed until then?  How many innocent people are going to meet the SWAT team along the way?
Pages:
Jump to: