Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 21.

crazy_rabbit

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 14, 2013, 01:32:29 PM

If any kind of blacklist or redlist ever happens i will definately create a fork of Bitcoin without the blacklist.

I already created and maintain one, so no problem with that there.

Bitcoin testnet. Everyone with the client already has it. We can use it to evaluate a different type of system. Coinjoin, zero coin, etcetera and find what works. We already have another bblockchain. All of us with bitcoin already have it. No need to fork, no need to get some dodgy Altoona.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Realpra on November 14, 2013, 02:28:34 PM

I agree, it also makes me further question the BIP70 proposal as it came from the same guy:

I could see BIP70 POTENTIALLY leading to SSL key signatures being used to transfer Bitcoin instead of ECDSA. Since SSL is corrupted deeply this would hand control of Bitcoin to the government.

I made somewhat of a nuisance of myself finding out exactly what BIP70 will mean in practice, and I am content that it's no more unsafe a way to pay than what you might be doing already.

Mike's a good guy on balance, but he's got this authoritative leaning streak that's sooooo inappropriate. The correct approach is something that he already advocates for; using secure hardware wallets to prevent thefts.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: drawingthesun on November 14, 2013, 12:01:01 PM

Mike is being naive thinking it will only be used to stop bad guys. We have all seen this before, the filters and restrictions eventually move outwards and infect all areas of a system.

This "redlist" will eventually only allow approved coins that are matched name and address to a government database. In one fell swoop Mike destroys all the positives Satoshi installed in the Bitcoin system.

If the government is not satisfied with your credentials, you will not be allowed to buy things with your coins, the coins will start to have two different values, one value for the government approved coins that can be used to buy things, and another for those dark coins that are no longer useful.

Also no one will have any incentive to accept dark coins because they run the risk of having their business shut down because their wallet got added to the dark coin list by their government.

This will allow the government to trace everyones money, decided what businesses are allowed to do business and quickly destroy the wealth of dissidents and opposition.

My question: Is Mike really this naive?

It strains credulity to imagine he is. Which really leaves us with only a few, more sinister options.

(Including that he's simply an authoritarian at heart, whether he would admit it to himself or not.)

phillipsjk

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.

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).

Realpra

hero member

Activity: 815

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 14, 2013, 02:23:09 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2013, 02:16:28 PM

Mike's an idiot. This attacks not 1, but 3 principles of what makes Bitcoin useful as money. He needs to shut up, or abdicate his seat.

Redlisting/blacklisting/greenlisting/ IS stoppable

The mining software must allow miners to choose whether a transaction to or from a certain list can be processed.

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

This is definately a direct attack on the bare basic fundamentals of Bitcoin.

We need to stop it. NOW.

I agree, it also makes me further question the BIP70 proposal as it came from the same guy:

I could see BIP70 POTENTIALLY leading to SSL key signatures being used to transfer Bitcoin instead of ECDSA. Since SSL is corrupted deeply this would hand control of Bitcoin to the government.

At any rate:
As a board member of the Danish Bitcoin Foundation I can say we will work against this.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2013, 02:16:28 PM

Mike's an idiot. This attacks not 1, but 3 principles of what makes Bitcoin useful as money. He needs to shut up, or abdicate his seat.

Redlisting/blacklisting/greenlisting/ IS stoppable

The mining software must allow miners to choose whether a transaction to or from a certain list can be processed.

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

This is definately a direct attack on the bare basic fundamentals of Bitcoin.

We need to stop it. NOW.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2013, 02:16:28 PM

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

That will be the day I cash out till the last satoshi.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Mike's an idiot. This attacks not 1, but 3 principles of what makes Bitcoin useful as money. He needs to shut up, or abdicate his seat.

Redlisting/blacklisting/greenlisting/ IS stoppable

The mining software must allow miners to choose whether a transaction to or from a certain list can be processed.

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1094

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

Will not work the Fungibility aspect is important.
That said a solution like controlled outputs seems in-viable
Mastercoin and building on the protocol might be able to create restrictions on coin spending
But pretty stuck on the solution
Guess were back to tainted coins
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7966/what-are-tainted-coins-exactly

rtt

newbie

Activity: 48

Merit: 0

Quote from: 2weiX on November 14, 2013, 01:27:20 PM

The Foundation, if they support this in any which way, is actually bringing a quick, traiterous, back-stabbing death to all ideals, hopes and high goals that millions, billions (!) of people could have lived up and through bitcoin.

Thanks for nothing, ass-wads.

The "Foundation" needs to make it crystal clear that such measures of censorship are DIRECTLY contradictory to freedom of transaction, which is one of the main properties of the bitcoin network.

Should I be able to maintain any respect for any of the boards' members, they would have to leave the foundation TODAY and renounce the implementation of these principles.

^^^ this

This Mike dude is so brain-fucking-dead on so many levels it's not even funny!

1. He wants to destroy bitcoin's fungibility as pointed above.
2. He wants to put a central governmental body in place to mark certain coins "criminal".
3. He's telling Microsoft & Oracle: "DO NOT fix your shitty bug-ridden code that malware authors exploit so nicely. Instead we'll put totalitarian financial & currency controls on the WHOLE WORLD'S POPULATION to stop virus-writers harming a little old lady (TM)".
4. He wants to insert this blacklisting & tracking mechanism into every client (?)
5. He wants to be in charge of deciding "what crime is", naturally.
6. or at least delegate deciding "what crime is" to the Power-Hungry-Blood-Thirsty-Control-Freaks, who have turned 200 million living human beings into corpses just last century (government for short).
7. He has no idea of morality.
8. He has no clue of economics & human action.
9. He is seriously damaged goods.
10. He believes in Tooth Fairy (or that 'Law ENFORCEMENT' is there to protect you, despite their name).
11. He needs to go play in traffic, Real Fast!

... now, do not ask me how I really feel about this whole mind-fuck ...

DeeSome

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Adam Back sums the situation up nicely.

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

bg002h

donator

Activity: 1466

Merit: 1048

I outlived my lifetime membership:)

Others are working on whitelists:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

We need to fully think this stuff through. It's happening. We should be clear to separate what is part of Bitcoin the protocol and what is a possible feature/crippleware in a wallet program.

There is no do discussion of making any such listing part of Bitcoin the protocol (which is silly anyway).

bluemeanie1

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 257

bluemeanie

Quote from: corebob on November 14, 2013, 01:21:10 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).

By all means put it in the protocol, because if you succeed we all need to go back to the drawing boards

I already went back to the drawing board.

moderate

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

nearly dead

Dear lord, another Google employee having fun on his 20% spare time.

gweedo

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

I just want to say I am very disappointed in this...

First Yifu...
Now Mike...
Who next?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

If any kind of blacklist or redlist ever happens i will definately create a fork of Bitcoin without the blacklist.

I already created and maintain one, so no problem with that there.

Kouye

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Cuddling, censored, unicorn-shaped troll.

I don't understand how redlisting coins that are sent to CryptoLocker would help fight threats like CryptoLocker at all.

1 - CryptoLocker coins are redlisted.
2 - CryptoLocker buys something using those coins from a legit merchant.
3 - Legit merchant sees the warning on his client, and clicks the "I'm honest" button.
4 - Coins get unlisted and are now clean.

Ok, that looks like a lot of fun, but what's the point?
Can anyone enlighten me, please?

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: FreeMoney on November 14, 2013, 12:45:24 PM

If people making lists and refusing to honor valid transactions can kill Bitcoin then Bitcoin sucks. To be clear, Bitcoin doesn't suck.

Bitcoin doesn't suck, but some of the persons pretending to represent Bitcoin do suck.

2weiX

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 1006

this space intentionally left blank

I have some time now been of the opinion that the path of that salad-tossing, self-empowering, self-interest-serving "Foundation" towards Washington (and selfproclaimed rulership of bitcoin associatens) was what might be able to bring a slow, regulation-choked death to bitcoin.

Boy was I wrong!

The Foundation, if they support this in any which way, is actually bringing a quick, traiterous, back-stabbing death to all ideals, hopes and high goals that millions, billions (!) of people could have lived up and through bitcoin.

Thanks for nothing, ass-wads.

The "Foundation" needs to make it crystal clear that such measures of censorship are DIRECTLY contradictory to freedom of transaction, which is one of the main properties of the bitcoin network.

Should I be able to maintain any respect for any of the boards' members, they would have to leave the foundation TODAY and renounce the implementation of these principles.

edited to remove the impression that the Berlin crew was of the same opinion - I would assume some are, but this is just me WTFing.

corebob

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

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).

By all means put it in the protocol, because if you succeed we all need to go back to the drawing boards

Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 21. (Read 84410 times)