Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 20. (Read 84396 times)

+1

The funny part is that that is actually enforceable too, by redlisting people who don't pay "tax" to the government wallet on their business transactions.

Every client DOES enforce the rules.

I'm disappointed that Mike Hearn would advocate for the use of blacklists, tainting and reduced fungibility of bitcoin . As one of the significant members of the The Bitcoin Foundation, he has the ability to make this kind of scheme a reality. For someone who just went on a rant against the NSA for violating Google's privacy, this kind of betrayal of the bitcoin user's privacy is really heinous. Who will dictate what constitutes a crime? Who will dictate when a bitcoin will no longer be listed? I doubt that he's given much thought to such questions beyond "whatever the police say", which, in this current political climate, is a very ignorant stance. I suggest those who want to keep bitcoin a viable and fungible currency let Mr. Hearn and all of the The Bitcoin Foundation members know that this idea should not be implemented and produce policy positions rejecting it.

+ 1

Why are those who claim to be protecting free markets so passionate about shutting down the experimentation of other parties? What is the problem with private companies compiling publicly available information and voluntary contracts? Again, this doesn't involve any change to the bitcoin code whatosever. The witch-hunt mentality seems more consistent with totalitarian tendencies than free markets.

It's the second sentence that's key, not the first. The nature of money itself inherently means its value rests with how many will accept it. It's the fact an influential player like the Foundation might champion such a scheme. Imagine BitPay then adopting the measures, for example. As regards Bitcoin that would mean large swaths of businesses automatically participate.

As I think about this it seems very similar to 2nd Amendment arguments. People try to keep some power away from bad guys but unintentionally weaken the good guys along the way.

It's like a balancing act where you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have enough control to be effective against certain actors, but not so much control it hurts the good guys.

The dollar system we have now is that balancing act. There are stringent money transfer regulations, and at the same time it's quite easy for dollar payments to Wikileaks or Edward Snowden for example to be blocked and/or traced, as that favors government.

When it comes to crime the real bad guys will find a way to get guns. They will also find a way to sell (lots of) drugs with dollars etc. The regulations hamper the little voices/actors more than real bad guys I'd say, the people who won't bother circumventing them. Anyone sufficiently intent on getting dollars to Wikileaks or Snowden could probably do it. It's the fact that it's not easy for anyone to do it that's key. Same with access to acquiring/keeping guns. The feasibility of an action is what's politically important.

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

This is just the beginning.

Let's hope that the foundation intends "the government charged 2% per transaction" but the advantage is that bitcoin would be legal! let's foundation! Satoshi would be ashamed.

You can see the whole thread here:

https://jumpshare.com/v/FCGnW40vMhG8ETE8i57h?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR
https://jumpshare.com/v/vhfhpMIGKpxnbREHf3kS?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR

In my opinion, if Mike keeps pushing this, he should not be in the board anymore.  I've also seen him make some remarks that give me the shivers.

No, the only way we can prevent this from happening is adjusting the ecosystem— the software and the common behaviors of users— to make it non-viable. The challenge is that people who want it to happen will argue against those adjustments.

Uncertainty around Bitcoin's regulatory environment already drives many Bitcoin businesses to extreme reputability theater ... things like exchanges in outer Mongolia enforcing a sad parody of mtgox's sad parody of the US AML compliance. This stuff doesn't actually accomplish anything but they hope it will be a totem to ward away disruptive regulators by virtue of it seeming like they were trying really hard. In may ways fear of regulation is much worse than regulation itself. When there is regulation it has boundaries, but fear has no boundaries. These bad ideas don't need government support or authority support, and they reoccur often enough that negotiating with everyone who promotes them will not scale.

We don't have all the answers but there are immediate short term measures that can be taken to drastically complicate life for anyone trying something like this.

Getting involved with politics or lobbying in any way is a pure waste of resources at best, or grossly counterproductive at worse.

The current proposals that are being floated are a direct result of "opening a dialogue" with regulators.

If you want to do something effective focus entirely on technological solutions which make politics and regulation moot.

Done

+1 This is exactly right.

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.

anarchy, well done!

Could you re-post Adam's brilliant explanation onto the BF legal forum (if it is not already there)?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coin-validation-misunderstands-fungibility-and-could-destroy-bitcoin-333882

He rebuts coin validation, but his argument also applies to the redlist clone-concept.

Not sure. Still waiting for Mike or anyone to help me with that:

Let's simplify:

1. Can any such scheme produce significant defense against using Bitcoin illicitly? (if so who decides what is illicit?)
2. Is there any way to insulate the value in using Bitcoin from such mechanisms being abused by the state?

Thinking through only those 2 questions I can't see much point to these lists.

donation address pl0x
oh, and also: PARAGRAPHS :-D

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.  If you'd make me choose with a gun to my head, between A) extending the 21 million limit, B) give control to the banking cartel or C) coin taint - I'd rather have A + B together over C.  (not that anything of the currency would remain under either circumstances).  To be honest, I have had your idea 2 years ago.  At that time I thought it was great, and very innocent.  Until after a while I came to the realisation that it was disastrous.  If you want this currency to be controlled by the government, you need to install coin taint, and promote it at the next government hearing.  I could only say in return (and I'm being extremely polite here), that you would pull down your pants and bend over - while the government just wanted to talk to you.  Obviously they will take the fact that you're already bending over and totally abuse it.  Did you ever see a government say NO to handing them over more control?  What will happen is very predictable.  First, the government will adore you.  Oh, we can get even more control over people's money and behaviour with this?  Great!  This is so much better than cash!  We know cash is being abused all the time, and 99% of cash has coke on it!  So with this, if you'd ever get coins that were involved in something we do not condone (like, passing through countries we don't approve of, poltical dissidents or whatever nonsensical reason), we will make those coins blacklisted in the United States!  (You think the voter will have anything to say about it?), Welcome to Bitcoin total monetary control!  The government and banks will be overjoyed with tears.  Compared to giving the government a master key to all global encryption software, this one is 100 times worse. The foundation has to make a clear stand, that they will fight coin taint until the very end.  If they do not do so, not only will this currency perish in no time, but you will have destroyed the greatest opportunity for mankind to take control back into their own hands.  It's THAT serious.  DONT DO IT, DONT PROMOTE IT, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.  IT'S THE WORST IDEA EVER.  Bitcoin will make humanity free.  Bitcoin will put money back in control of the people.  With that, it will prevent government from going to war without full consent of the governed.  If you look at history, you see why the US does not need to try to get people's gold impounded anymore to fund wars.  They just press a button and create 1 trillion dollars out of thin air.  Install coin taint, and you will have given them the power over the people's money (and in return, the people itself).  Welcome to Big Brother 2.0, bitcoin is your friend.

HELL NO

is the only rational response. The manifestation of it being vocal complaints, technical workarounds, public outing and shaming of anyone with such poor judgment as to implement this, and if all else fails, the nuclear option (hard fork into a currency where such tracing is impossible.)

Here's a hint to those who don't get this yet: If you think the concept behind the U.S.'s monetary control laws is a decent one, and that with the right tweaking those laws could be made perfect, then you really have no business being involved with bitcoin. And if you think this while being an influential developer of the software, you fit about as well as the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.



No, it doesn't. But that's not the issue. The issue is that an influential bitcoin developer is openly supporting it--proposing it, even (and obviously, that means support for implementing it into the main client.)

That's just pathetic beyond words.