Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 3. (Read 84410 times)

He just wants to be at the head of it all. Like he doesn't get that what people want is decentralized and he just won't give up on centralized. If someone wants a centralized one, it already exists. Don't ruin this one. Use what you have already, or do you want to break this too.

This guy sounds like a real douche nozel...

Will this help? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouo7Q6Cf_yc

Apology accepted.  Discussing ideas about Bitcoin development, even bad ones, is not wrong.
Even if you and I agree that this sort of antifungibility development ought be left for others to do (oh yes, it is entirely possible and will likely be done with or without us).

The fundamental bitcoin protocol is not perfectly fungible.  The bitcoins are trackable and tracable through addresses, this is part of what makes them useful and non-duplicatable.  If you want perfect fungibility, you are left with specie.

An outside entity needs nothing more than the already public and unencrypted blockchain, and the ability to determine ownership of IP address space to begin this effort.  I imagine it is ALREADY BEING DONE.  There are forensic analysis toolsets that do much of this already.
and this:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-surveillance-nsa-tech/2013/08/04/id/518590

When you add to that the tor relays and exit nodes operated by TPTB, and the back doors all over the place, there is not really any requirement to make this any easier even if Mike wanted to do so.

I think you are mistake in your intuition that everyone in the space would consider find-grained control of who used Bitcoin for what purposes to be a bad thing.

In my observation there are plenty of people who welcome this kind of control and see it as a positive and even a necessity.  This point was driven home at the San Jose 2013 convention.  As far as I'm concerned, Hearn has always been of this mindset and has never been terribly shy about promoting it (to his credit.)

In my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong about this position.  Most of the arguments make by those who take this position are completely rational in my opinion.

I hold an opposite opinion.  I'm not a Libertarian, but philosophically I do believe that if one is free to make only good choices then that is not really 'freedom' at all.

From an engineering, political, and practical perspective, my complaint against trying to enforce only 'good' behavior is that it creates complexity and opens up giant doors for abuse.  I don't believe that the Bitcoin community could ever stop 'criminality' but only push it into a different sphere and one which is probably even more pernicious.

Worse still, some Iranian family trying to sell shoes would be (and are) considered criminals because the certain power structures wish it to be so.  I disagree, and I welcome a tool which allows me to express my will.  If this is not Bitcoin, then there will be something else.

I avoid intentionally interacting with mafiosos and terrorists as much as humanly possible.

Anyone can create lists or color codes for coins. It is not a change to bitcoin rather a technique to track coins. It is already being done and just because you and I don't like it doesn't mean it wont expand in the future.
The countermeasure is not to attack someone for pointing it out, or even for promoting it. Instead focus on your elected officials who could institute a list system tomorrow that outlaws some coins. Only they can pass laws, Mike cannot.
I doubt your congressman has an account here. You will need to send him/her an email explaining why this is a bad idea. I already think it is.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that discussing the idea that there ought to be some centralized tool by which an outside party could control the BTC holdings of individuals and the value of the BTC market were frowned upon by this community. I must be mistaken. Please, do go on and tell me why the guy who has publicly said that it'd be an OK idea to negate the value of any BTC I may have some day, simply because 'they', those in control of that tool, claim that that BTC has been somewhere they didn't like is worthy of my praise and respect. Because I'm SURE that such a tool could and would NEVER be used in a manner that would benefit those controlling it, right? Fire away, I'm all ears.

Amen. What is with everyone jumping on Mike for thinking aloud? Why aren't you haters in this thread writing your representatives in Washington, or do you think you are getting more done lambasting a programmer in Switzerland?
I do not support listing coins either, but I think it is worth talking about why some support it and how it could be implemented. Chillax y'all.

Why not take him for what he says at the outset of this?
1) that his questions were misinterpreted as a statement or a goal, and
2) that he is content to observe the discussion to get a sense temperature of the users

Until there is some code written, its all just talk anyhow.  Questions such as this are worth raising even of only to dismiss them, as the process develops the reasons for the decision making.  Its a useful process in open source.  No need to tar him for raising the question.

Anything non-global or which is for other than all individual's benefit doesn't belong in the protocol.  So long as there are exchanges that trade for fiat, and people selling there, TPTB can control and or kill it anyhow.

Why would anyone in their right mind who isn't interested in seeing someone or some group have the ability to essentially steal whatever BTC they want from anyone they want want to see a tool created that would allow exactly that to happen?

Mike Hearn is either a very devious prick or attempting to win the most useful idiot award for helping TPTB attempt to control and/or kill BTC. I really don't care which of the two is true, either way the very fact that he's suggesting ideas such as this clearly prove he can not be trusted.

redlists, greenlists, whitelists, redlists ...

All of them are completely worthless. The simple fact is that Bitcoin is global. If any government (not to mention the US directly  ) tries to separate the Bitcoin amount or users into good and bad the simple consequence will be that the economy grows faster outside of the regulated space. That means BRIC countries will grow more fast than even now. And the regulated country will suffer under separation from self induced separation. This economic effect will be massive.

All in all it will be very unlikely that this will happen.

That's how we got into this mess...

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html

Remember...
Those to whom we go to for help, we also empower.

As you can see from my name I've got nothing to hide myself, however I can certainly see issues with reducing privacy for the chinese or other countries where bitcoin privacy is what's currently keeping them from being locked away in jail for currency fraud or whatnot.

I understand the problems that arise from a quasi-anonymous digital "cash" system that bitcoin is, but regulating the shit out of it and breaking the fundamental structure of what makes bitcoin such a universal tool is not the way to do it, I appologize to all the american users who want to easily buy bitcoins, however I don't share your pain because my country doesn't have draconian legislation.

"chlid pornographers use bitcoin, we must change bitcoin to stop them from doing this" - this old LE tactic has never worked and only hurts common users of new technology, you must stop child pornographers/drug dealers/ hackers from having an incentive for doing this in the first place, clearing the symptoms of the problem doesn't actually do anything besides make the LE look like their actually being productive.

For the reasons you mentioned and others, x-listing is fairly worthless on it's own.  Most people who understand the solution probably easily understand this.

Coupled with systems which dismantle anonymity, however, x-listing could be highly effective at solving 'crime' and a lot of other things which many people consider maladies of the current implementation.

Anonymity is actually considered a bug and not a feature to a LOT of people and it is certainly not limited to crypto-currencies.  If Bitcoin could be evolved to a situation where the foundations of anonymity were weakened while it still retains it's leading role in the space, that would be ideal to some.  Other more general anonymity-centered attacks could then suck Bitcoin along for the ride.

The problem is, "blacklisting" coins is actually completely worthless in the hands of a not completely incompetent fraudster, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pretend that you traded your bad coins for something else by moving them between wallets and claiming that some "other" sold you those coins, or even a portion.

The whole "redlist" idea is literally worthless, theres no good that it could possibly do and the only thing it does is do harm. Mike, prove to me otherwise please, I can't see the reasoning.

Really?

Did you not read the Snowden leaks? ... seems pretty fucking malicious to me ... unless it is just incompetence they happened to instigate an orwellian dragnet pan-opticon super-state apparatus?

Cognitive dissonance is what you should ask your shrink about ...

The comment was nothing to do with the senate hearing (which was overwhelmingly positive) - it was about black/red lists being endorsed by foundation members.

>> It's a law enforcement issue, not a bitcoin issue <<

Does anyone endorse tracking 'tainted' US banknote serial numbers?

Speaking of threats:

The recent hearings in Washington discussed:

Virtual Currency Emerging Threats Working Group (VCET).  Founded by the FBI in 2012 includes DEA, US Attorney's offices, Criminal Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

I was told that it was three full floors in the FBI's Washington office.

I've had many many experiences with police. 80% are just doing a job to pay rent (so was Hitler's SS) and 20% love their job, going way beyond the call of duty to enforce laws and get at 'bad types' they don't like (sometimes bending or breaking the law). They break into houses, arrest people for assault, beat people up (off camera), follow and harass you, ... they are not all good people and I don't support their work which is mostly being a pawn of powerful interests that collaborate with wealthy groups to fuck you.

Here's 3 PRISM slides from the NSA:







I don't know what more kind of proof people need that the police are corrupt, and we don't need to help make their work easier with applying law to bitcoin (in their own interpreted way).

you know the blacklist in the UK which was originally only for child porn and now blocks 'hate speech', copyright infringement, 'bad porn' and the pirate bay was originally formed as a consensus amongst ISPs after the metropolitan police put pressure on Demon internet. the same steps are now happening with bitcoin and it's looking semi-legit with people justifying it. but even a cursory look at internet history will show you what the slippery slope this is and we must fight hard against this tooth and nail. not later, but now. now is the time to fight for your freedom, not later once everything is compromised.

That has not been my experience. I'm sure that many elected officials have that mindset, but my family members in the FBI for example are more like boyscouts. They want to do good. Sometimes it does not work out though. Take the disastrous drug war. Which has caused so much suffering.
I approach such problems with engagement. And I see it working in places like Colorado and Washington state. Don't fight the government, make it do your bidding.