Topic: Project Idea "Whitelist" (Read 719 times)

Very valid criticism. But what is to prevent the NSA from locating "mixing pools" or similiar? Sure, protesting against wiretapping might mean actually standing up for your rights instead of hiding behind a computer. And yes, i guess those problems are somewhat related. Obviously if there is no authority you would trust to whitelist something then this idea is superfluous.


Actually i´m more like trying to figure out ways to achieve broader acceptance for bitcoin as a general payment method.
I know, it may be a pretty weird idea to old timers, to be actually able to buy something with bitcoin (aside from silkroad).
But well, assuming thats the way its headed im looking for real advantages above fiat or even PayPal-like services that can positively impact usage of bitcoin. I mean, after all, the more it gets used, the more its worth. And well, if i can make cash, of whatever type, by coding something usefull, sure. Thats what devs do.

Just last month, it was revealed that unbeknownst to Google, the NSA had tapped into Google's datacenters.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304391204579177104151435042

If the NSA can do this to Google, the "health care service" or "gun control" place you speak of don't have a chance in hell. And if NSA has gets the data, they all get the data.

This notion of yours seems to be at odds with everything bitcoin represents.
Selling this idea to Bitcoiners will be like trying to sell fur coats to members of PITA.

Good luck - (not really).

Well, if bullshitting is my first talent i might as well call out writing as bullshit, you know, i should know what bullshis is after all.
You have failed to give a single quote on why bip32 is even relevant to this topic. As such i wont even answer any further replies unless you actually provide facts or at least relevant quotes.
Thank you for wasting my time.

Reminder:



You didn't even read the entire Motivation section from the BIP32, come on. HINT: the section does describe why it is in fact different from your broken idea and why it can be used to do such thing while actually working without fucking up the basic usage; it is clearly written, but since you know everything you might not get why something that you don't understand solves a problem that you don't understand.

Reading is your secondary talent, bullshitting is the first.

Explain how whitelisting a master public extended key is conceptually different from whitelisting a bitcoin address.

It does change, you are stupid.

Please don't ever code crypto related programs, go back to your professional developer job.

Geez, i assume you talking about the master public extended key specified there. Oh great, instead of an adress you share that instead. You know, that totally changes the concept. NOT.
Unless you have constructive criticism i will assume you are trolling from now on.
Point out an error and i will gladly revise my opinion, and "No, you are stupid" is not an argument.

No.

Saying that QT-Bitcoin, or Bitcoin-QT, is the one responsible for what you mention just demonstrates how much you are lacking here. When you start accepting help and reading things then I can start helping. And, yes, you missed how BIP32 is useful and how it can be used here.

"secondary talent", right...

Ok, to tell the truth i didnt read through all of bip32 specs. But got a fairly good idea its used to tackle a different problem (please correct me if any of the following statements are incorrect, drunk and just did a quick overview after all).

Bip32 is supposed to be determistic on newly generated bitcoin adresses, basicly every generated new address is basicly "imprinted" in the key.
While usefull if a recent copy of a wallet is lost (it can easily be replaced by an old backup) this wont provide accountability without transfering the whole wallet to whatever "trusted authority" instead of just a btc address.

As far as i can see with a quick overview this tackles a completely different unrelated problem. If you can provide me with info why this should relate i would be glad, allways like to learn stuff.

Yeah, i know, e.g. QT-Bitcoin creates additional addresses every time. Depending on how you look at it that can be usefull or even harmfull feature.

The reason is to obfuscate ownership, which may, depending on usage, the opposite of what is wanted.

Looking into it, may take a while, crypto is more a secondary talent for me. Sucks. Just like DBs. But necesarry often enough.

You're missing the basic usage of bitcoins, have you checked on that ? Except for rare instances, like some place holding a large amount of bitcoins in a single address to demonstrate that it owns that amount to others, you shouldn't be reusing addresses. If you don't understand the reasons for this, and by the very own idea you mention you don't, then you shouldn't be managing bitcoins and I hope you don't follow the idea. So your whitelist idea to single addresses is just incorrect.

There are other ideas, like BIP32, that can make this work without violating the basic usage just mentioned.

No one is stopping you to do anything, so just ignore me and go ahead. If people will use it... that is up to you to show that it solves a problem that isn't already solved. I recommend you to better search for what is already available, or what is about to become available.

Sure, would require the holder of such an address to take care, and mention theft or whatever. But a BTC address is unique. If you dont loose your private keys somehow it cant just be used.
I mean, i hope you got better arguements. I was really hoping someone would talk me out of wasting time on something like this.

Well, I think BTC address are more easily moved than IDs, and IDs aren't foolproof either, take HackBB for an example.

Geez, you could also sell your driving license or license plates. If something bad happens then you would be accountable for not mentioning that. Sorry, at least that part is fairly stupid.

Short answer: No

Bitcoin users highly value their anonymity, and any centralization is seen as satanic Secondly, because of the nature of bitcoin address, whitelisted address could be bought. And finally, for other reasons, buying guns through the internet without a in-person id check, will never become mainstream for a number of reasons.

Hi everyone,

basicly i´m looking for input if the following idea i have been thinking about for a while is worth pursuing.
The blockchain, among other things, allows for accountability while still providing general anonymity. Basicly this means BTC can be used for transaction where a monetary transaction without further identification cannot be used, e.g. a patient could order prescription drugs simply by using a whitelisted address, a customer could order, say, guns online just for having a whitelisted address.
The idea is to write a very general infrastructure where a "central authority", be it health care service, gun control, whatever, decide to whitelist certain bitcoin adresses after verification and provide that information via web-services to any interested (possibly registered) party without disclosing any other information (e.g. bitcoin adress whatever may be used to buy marihauna for medical reason, customer has a valid gun license et...).
Possibly write plugins for a couple of common ecommerce plattforms as well.

So, what i am looking for here is feedback. Do you think, is this a usefull idea or not worth following?

Disclaimer: I am fully capable coding something like this, im a professional dev, and dont need any help, though i wouldnt mind it someone wants to hop in if he or she thinks its something worthwhile coding.
Plan would be to release the core on an open source development plattform like sourceforge and then see if such a project can be sustained via donations or if it would be necassary to provide proprietary plugins to provide additonal functionality for specific areas.