Topic: MINERS UNITE! Block the FBI coins. Do not fund violent underground organizations - page 4. (Read 10019 times)

You should note that this is only 27 people. The other choices are really not much better then "yes, block the coins"

This is certainly not a scientific poll.

OP is a fool and a delusional man child.

'violent underground organizations' LOL maybe you should follow anonymous and try to go toe to toe with mexican drug cartels instead.

No balls for that?

Seems like the number of people who don't get it is growing :

Yes, block the coins!   - 27 (20.5%).
If they aren't trolling , It's not a good sign.

The last wave of adopters seems to have brought a few extremists with it.

The US government can, just like anyone else, buy BTC, hold BTC, and use BTC - their choice.

simply, do not do such things, if you do it one time, it will happen more and more
dont want bitcoin like this

As much as I hate the US government for their mistreatment, deception, and coercion of We the People, I'd be perfectly alright with them getting Bitcoin rich, as Bitcoin taking over world currency would ultimately make this planet a less violent, more honest place.

That's called the greater good.

Those and wasting bandwidth.

You're always so rational, concise and correct. I love reading your posts.

Not true.  This change to the client that blacklists those coins does not follow the Bitcoin protocol.  It rejects blocks that are valid using the client prior to the change, therefore this client is imposing a change to the protocol that is not backward-compatible.  (It is still forward-compatible though, meaning clients that don't implement the blacklist will still validate and accept blocks solved by this "blacklisting client").

Miners will be taking a risk by adopting a client that uses the blacklist.  They risk that there truly won't be enough miners using the blacklist.   If this happens, there will be a blockchain fork and those miners using the blacklist will be working on blocks that may not ever become part of the longest chain.   Miners are not gamblers -- they will not switch to a client that is not backward-compatible without first being really confident there is almost no chance the changes will cause a blockchain fork.

Even if there were something like 80% of the miners onboard, however, that doesn't guarantee success.

See, the buyer of these disputed coins has an economic incentive for them to be fungible.   So all this party would need to do is to spend some of the coins and include significant fees on those transactions such that miners are leaving a significant amount of money on the table by implementing the blacklist.   So if the block reward paid to miners is 25 XBT, then maybe adding a transaction fee of just a few bitcoin would be enough to sway over some miners such that the longest chain continues to extend off a block which includes the blacklisted coins.  That action requires no change to the protocol and no change to the client.  And once these transactions start to circulate, a blacklist on taint starts to harm others who are innocent and thus there's more "backing" available to ensure that the blacklist fails.

Wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/01/31/silk-road-vendor-filing-claim-for-seized-bitcoins-argues-he-sold-only-legal-items/

OP likes authority and censorship.  OP wants to centralize bitcoin and have man-made decisions to control bitcoin's store of value and ability to transact.

OP, get the fuck out of bitcoin and go back to federal reserve notes.  Sounds like a perfect currency for you.  Maybe you should join the government too and try to assert more control over other people's lives.

Beating dead horses and pulling the wings off flies are big hobbies for OP.

My vote would have been a most definite "no" if BTC was free to use, decentralized and anonymous. Since that is not the case, FUCK THIS SHITCOIN.   .. And it's religious/ cult like aspects.

@BruceFenton I prefer to look at it as a form of peaceful civil disobedience. Democracy FTW !

"Home" by Roger Waters ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q3sP1ZyYHw

This would be a horrible idea.

First of all the FBI had put out a public notice allowing for anyone to claim ownership in the coins to do so and no one came forward.

Next, the concept of Bitcoin is that whoever controls the private key is the person who controls the subject coins. Since the FBI (I think it is actually the US Marshall service now, but this really does not matter) controls the private key to the subject BTC address, they are the ones that control the coins. To blacklist certain coins just because you think/feel they were "stolen" would create huge problems with bitcoin. Anyone could claim and present some kind of evidence that their coins were taken unjustly regardless of if the coins were stolen or not.

Third, once the coins are sold and disbursed to the buyers of the coins, the buyers will do their thing with the cons. They may keep some of them, they may use a mixing service to transfer some to another address, they may use some to buy goods/services, they may transfer some to an exchange to sell some. Assuming the transactions get confirmed then the majority (if not all) of the coins would be in the hands of someone who have nothing to do with the FBI nor had anything to do with the sale of the coins. It would be unjust to punish people just because they received coins from some unknown party (and would likely not have known prior to the transaction).

I voted not sure, but the fact that the FBI is willingly auctioning them off means they silently acknowledged one thing, Bitcoin has value, I don't think that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin should be controlled by anyone no matter the political reasons, otherwise it's no better than the dollar. The problem is like with free speech restricting the free flow of a currency means that it will lead to other blockings and so on, how do we know that we're doing the right thing, if we truly believe in free trade then we should stick to it, no matter who is making the transactions.

Frankly, I'm more amazed that people haven't done this in rage against Mark Karpeles, I'm a bit baffled that someone is doing this to stick up for a known drug dealer instead.

I will just for once assume that you are asking seriously.

Because making any bitcoins worse than other would destroy fungibility of Bitcoin, could possibly create endless chain of dependencies which could then pollute "clean" Bitcoins and, most importantly, would require a hard fork therefore ultimately and completely obliterating the whole idea of Bitcoin.

Making any coins worse than other because of somebody's stupid desires is a no-go and I (and most of early adopters) would leave Bitcoin the minute somebody tries something like this.

Was that clear enough for you?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

Agreed.  What will likely happen with the proceeds of this sale:

A special unit, section, bureau, or organization will be funded in the government (yes, I said the G-word) to help prevent fraud, theft, ML, etc. in the crypto-currency world.  What this means is that there will potentially be an official entity specializing in investigating the bad guys that screw others out of their BTC.  They will HELP those of you that lost big.

Some of our community believes the proceeds will be used to buy more black suburbans or helicopters to follow us around.  Drones to keep tabs on us.  Anything that weakens our privacy one more notch.  You have to get over this nonsense.  The ratio of law enforcement to population is probably 1000:1 if you included every single police official out there.  And about half or more of those don't investigate anything at all.  They're administrative people or housekeepers if you will.  In that realm there are a hell of a lot more bad guys than there are able-bodied people to work them.  So prioritization takes place on the bad guy that is the most significant threat.  Today's buzzwords in this community are terrorists of all types (foreign, Eco, hate groups, etc.).  So this idea of the crypto community being harassed to the point of killing it is utter and complete radicalism.  Save that crap for the corporate bodies, who just happen to be members of our community.  Yes, those are the ones you should be worried about.  The very people that will try to, say, fork the freaking blockchain to benefit their business agenda.

If you successfully fork this thing, I'll do everything in my power to advocate against a "decentralized" crypto.  You will have undone everything Satoshi Nakamoto intended.

Bitcoin suicide in order to "stick it to the man"^(TM)

In other words total supidity.

Create a decentralized currency, they said.
Prevent ANY price manipulation they said.
Result: let's try to manipulate it?
WTF are you guys advocating here?