Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 5.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: kjj on November 15, 2013, 12:08:49 AM

The bottom line is that right now today, with no changes to anything, if you end up with coins bearing an interesting history, you take the risk of someone becoming interested in you. You cannot prevent this risk. You cannot mitigate it. If you ditch the coins, you are still part of the chain, and you may get a knock on your door from people wondering how they came to you.

Correct:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3634918

Quote from: kjj on November 15, 2013, 12:08:49 AM

Widespread mixing, if and when it arrives, will hopefully muddy the trail of every transaction, maybe even to the point that most investigations become futile.

You are highly uninformed, mixers don't help:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3634390

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Seems most are breathing a sigh of relief thinking that the hearing added no push for new regulations or laws. What they said was the existing AML and KYC is sufficient for now.

Hello? KYC means what? Know Your Customer.

That means merchants required to know who you are. That means reporting to the government.

Electronic currency on a public ledger means they can ramp up these existing laws to require e-file reporting on smaller and smaller transactions.

The NSA is mopping everything. Soon the FinCEN or DHS or... will be mopping up all transaction identities.

If you aren't whitelisted, the merchant can't accept you.

666 anyone?

Don't be so naive. These transformations move slowly enough that you boil like a frog.

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1090

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

The Senate Committee conversation today definitely was interesting this seems almost like a moot topic as the government itself is still working on Guidelines

jedunnigan

sr. member

Activity: 279

Merit: 250

Quote from: Cyberdyne on November 17, 2013, 12:01:10 AM

Every time someone asks "Why do we need [altcoin] when we have bitcoin?" I'm reminded of the disturbing bitcoin-related proposals like blacklisting. If bitcoin goes down that road, and [altcoin] doesn't, I can see a lot more people making the switch.

As of now, none of the altcoins implement protocols that would protect them from such blacklists, so any sort of safe haven would only be temporary or otherwise imagined.

Cyberdyne

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Every time someone asks "Why do we need [altcoin] when we have bitcoin?" I'm reminded of the disturbing bitcoin-related proposals like blacklisting. If bitcoin goes down that road, and [altcoin] doesn't, I can see a lot more people making the switch.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 15, 2013, 11:17:36 PM

Quote from: Luckybit on November 15, 2013, 11:08:37 PM

Only criminals use cash. The rest use plastic. Wink

the highest tiers of criminality just ~~use~~ are the regular, recorded banking system. They evade law enforcement agencies through being ~~connected to~~ corrupt high-level banking types, as well as to corrupt politicians.

FTFY

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html

US$670 Billion in money laundering unmonitored. In just that one bank. And their fee is less than 0.5%, a lower fee than we pay for trading on an exchange.

Bitcoin is legitimate, but if it weren't, and even if there were zero non-money laundering use of bitcoin and was only used for money laundering, it could barely make a dent in the way the big bad guys play.

Valerian77

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 255

My recommendation: blacklabel all Bitcoins hold by the US goverment and forget about this nonsense. I propose a tool with WEB interface which replys a simple output for an input:
0 - the given address is clean
1 - the given address is holds US coins

Anyhow - the whole thing is completely ridiculous. After one transaction coins are clean. The idea behind this nonsense is to break up the blockchain . But it can only work if the majority of Bitcoin users cooperate. If nobody cares for then it will not work.

coinft

full member

Activity: 187

Merit: 100

Quote from: Loozik on November 16, 2013, 08:21:51 PM

...

I wouldn't like to see the tainting mechanism introduced in Bitcoin (Bitcoin should not be messed up with).

There should be a new crypto asset that I would like to have the tainting of coins incorporated on the protocol level: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-call-for-creating-a-new-type-of-crypto-asset-313151

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the tainting of coins is a good idea (I think it is - it would protect the users from unknowingly using coins previously extorted / stolen by the so called governments or the so called states), then Mike is an ideal candidate to start this new crypto coin project. I would like to see Mike Hearn creating such new, taintable (competing against Bitcoin) crypto coin.

It would be a disaster rather than a good thing.

Redlisting not only reduces fungibility, it also removes finality of transactions (or their worth), even if they have a high number of confirmations. Taint doesn't appear magically at the moment of a crime, it is applied afterwards on complaints. So it can happen at any time to any coins, including coins you got in a perfectly legal way, while they were still clean. Any clean bitcoins must be regarded as hot potatoes to be spent fast, to reduce risk to future taint exposure. There goes the store of value. There goes the usefulnes of bitcoin.

If that's not enough, I believe a new type of fraud will spring up pretty fast: blackmail to not taint. A past holder of bitcoins can threaten all future holders to apply taint, and no amount of confirmations or number of transactions will mitigate this. This is actually worse than CryptLocker, because it can hit everyone, and keeping good security and backups of your data is no defense. There is no defense which does not invalidate the goal of redlisting to start with.

-coinft

Loozik

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass

Quote from: Mike Hearn allegedly

I would like to start a discussion and brainstorming session on the topic of coin tracking/tainting or as I will call it here, "redlisting". Specifically, what I mean is something like this:

Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion.

I would use the mechanism for blacklisting / tainting the coins which were stolen or extorted by the people doing business as ''governments'' or ''states''.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't like to see the tainting mechanism introduced in Bitcoin (Bitcoin should not be messed up with).

There should be a new crypto asset that I would like to have the tainting of coins incorporated on the protocol level: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-call-for-creating-a-new-type-of-crypto-asset-313151

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the tainting of coins is a good idea (I think it is - it would protect the users from unknowingly using coins previously extorted / stolen by the so called governments or the so called states), then Mike is an ideal candidate to start this new crypto coin project. I would like to see Mike Hearn creating such new, taintable (competing against Bitcoin) crypto coin.

User705

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1006

First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold

In the long term of course a truly free bitcoin would be worth a lot more then a government co-opted one. But publicly identified large holders and especially devs would certainly see an easier way to wealth by joining up with the powers that be.

rocks

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1000

Quote from: LightRider on November 16, 2013, 06:17:40 PM

The Bitcoin Foundation: Because if there's one thing Satoshi Nakamoto approved and endorsed, it was private forums protected by pay walls participated in by easily identifiable individuals supporting institutional bureaucracy and false authority to the detriment of all bitcoin stakeholders.

He would be so proud.

Satoshi's vision was to re-establish the rule of law by creating a technology based system that enforces a set of fixed rules everyone agrees upon. He saw how in the current system the rules were constantly broken and rewritten by those in control and the rule of law (which the US system was originally based on) had failed. The establishment will try to break these rules and restore the ability to make up new rules as needed.

It will be interesting to watch if these efforts are successful or if the original properties of Bitcoin hold. It will also be interesting if early adopters (such as the devs) will continue to fight for Bitcoin's original purpose, or if they will be co-opted by the establishment (after all doing so makes their BTC holdings very wealthy).

IMHO the easy part of Bitcoin's growth is over.

Valerian77

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 255

Quote from: PrintMule on November 16, 2013, 05:24:58 PM

Quote from: Rez on November 16, 2013, 05:21:35 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 02:15:51 PM

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Engrave this in stone. Somewhere stony.

Being simply ignorant of all these changes will end you nowhere.
You can bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing happens, until your pretty ostrich ass is fucked hard.

I do not think we will have to care on anything. Look at this:
https://blockchain.info/de/nodes-globe?series=onlineNow

You will see the two biggest nodes in Russia and in China. Even they do not care about US blacklists.

User705

legendary

Activity: 896

Merit: 1006

First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold

Quote from: Raoul Duke on November 16, 2013, 02:26:59 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: kjj on November 16, 2013, 01:12:23 PM

This isn't even remotely close to being true. Miners do not vote on rule changes.

One of the recent videos Vessenes in one of his public talks said people should mine because it allows them to vote on protocol changes.

Kill all (centralized?) mining pools and that might be true. Right now it's like the fake democracy that plagues most western countries. 5 or 6 clowns to choose from with only 2 having a real chance of winning. Pick your poison.

There's always litecoin. Wink

LightRider

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1022

I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.

The Bitcoin Foundation: Because if there's one thing Satoshi Nakamoto approved and endorsed, it was private forums protected by pay walls participated in by easily identifiable individuals supporting institutional bureaucracy and false authority to the detriment of all bitcoin stakeholders.

He would be so proud.

PrintMule

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 500

FREE $50 BONUS - STAKE - [click signature]

Quote from: Rez on November 16, 2013, 05:21:35 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 02:15:51 PM

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Engrave this in stone. Somewhere stony.

Being simply ignorant of all these changes will end you nowhere.
You can bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing happens, until your pretty ostrich ass is fucked hard.

Rez

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 02:15:51 PM

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Engrave this in stone. Somewhere stony.

callem

member

Activity: 130

Merit: 10

Quote

Satoshi would neither have proposed nor supported any form of black/red listing.

The determination of what constitutes illegal activity and enforcement thereof is in the realm of national governments, not payment systems. And certainly not a payment system that has no borders or national affiliation.

Each country has laws and mechanisms to deal with what it considers to be illegal. Bitcoin does not belong to any nation, and definitely not to any single foundation, regardless of what it calls itself.

Bitcoin belongs to its user-base alone, no one else can or should speak for it.

Peter Todd

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1152

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: kjj on November 16, 2013, 01:12:23 PM

This isn't even remotely close to being true. Miners do not vote on rule changes.

One of the recent videos Vessenes in one of his public talks said people should mine because it allows them to vote on protocol changes.

Vessenes is correct in practice, and somewhat correct in theory. SPV clients, which many expect the majority of Bitcoin users will use, do no validation of transactions, leaving the protocol rules up to miners to decide by majority vote.

In practice even users of full clients can be forced to follow whatever protocol rules miners decide upon, because without a majority of miners the blockchain isn't secure.

Now would the people with mining hardware make a protocol change that the economic majority were opposed too? If they did, what would happen? We don't really know - that's a political, sociological and economic question, not a technical question.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: kjj on November 16, 2013, 01:12:23 PM

This isn't even remotely close to being true. Miners do not vote on rule changes.

One of the recent videos Vessenes in one of his public talks said people should mine because it allows them to vote on protocol changes.

Kill all (centralized?) mining pools and that might be true. Right now it's like the fake democracy that plagues most western countries. 5 or 6 clowns to choose from with only 2 having a real chance of winning. Pick your poison.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: kjj on November 16, 2013, 01:12:23 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 16, 2013, 12:57:37 PM

Quote from: rocks on November 15, 2013, 09:43:55 PM

Bitcoin was designed so that it is the miners who vote. If 51% of the miners agree to a rule change, then that rule change happens. Yes pools may become somewhat cetralized, but they are comprised of individuals who can move to different pools.

So? How to do this? When the Foundation is building shit, for example putting something in the official client that the community doesnt like, and i believe the foundation practically controls the client because the coders are in the foundation too, then how should the 51% react?

And would 51% react at all? Or simply download the newest client and live with it?

But even when... so how to fork? I mean the official client has no functionality included to fork the chain isnt it? But all miners and all wallets need to switch to the fork... otherwise they still would use the official chain.

This isn't even remotely close to being true. Miners do not vote on rule changes.

No one, not the developers, not the foundation, not the miners, not anyone, can force a rule change on you.

Thats the theory. So how can this practically work?

Topic: Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now - page 5. (Read 84366 times)