Topic: Proposal to help stop thieves - page 3. (Read 4778 times)

Has there even been any "theft" yet that was not basically some idiot or incompetent basically throwing coins out a window because they couldn't be bothered to secure them?

If people are going to be more motivated to do something after a theft than before it maybe we should just automatically steal from everyone once to motivate them and provide more info on preventing loss?

-MarkM-

That's a great point! Here is what a watch-only wallet could do:
- Indicate the amount received that is blacklisted.
- Don't add that amount to the total.
- Automatically create a transaction sending the blacklisted coins back to the address from which they came from.

The next time I am signing transactions, I will have the option to sign this one as well.

You seem to have missed some rather major points here:

1) Are you going to pay the fees to return the "tainted" bitcoins?

2) How are you going to change the software to make sure the next tx doesn't try to send the same "tainted" coins again?

maybe if someone did something all these exchanges wouldn't get "hacked" every week.....

On the contrary. The option to use a blacklist is completely voluntary. Which list to use is completely up to the user.

It might happen that after some time, there will be only a few lists. There is nothing wrong with centralization or semi-centralization as long as it evolves by itself and as long as anyone can walk away at any time. Look at this forum. It's a centralized place to discuss bitcoins. It's completely voluntary and anyone can walk away, so there is nothing wrong with it.

No, this is impossible.


No, this is a lie.

That Someone continuously updates?

This notion violates Bitcoins decentralized nature.

You do understand that will result in transaction fees?  So you willing to pay it out of your own pocket?  

Also if the client has the ability to sign tx then the wallet is unlocked.  You like the idea of your wallet being unlocked 24/7/365 in order to return coins you don't "like"?

The real problem technically is to do with coin control and although the latest release has low level RPC commands to construct a tx manually for 99.99% of Bitcoin users this would simply be not practical (little own Gavin's grandma).

So in actuality the software cannot do what you are wanting to be done and although you are welcome to create a patch to achieve this I think you will have little to no interest from the core development team and most users.

I think the time and energy is better spent on securing ones coins (with multi-sig) than trying to chase "tainted" coins.

CIYAM Pty. Ltd.,

I am only asking that the software gives people the option to easily do what they already want to do and already can do, though it's difficult right now.

Let's give people the option and see what happens. Maybe it won't catch on. But maybe it will. Maybe there will be a million lists, but I think there will be very few lists. If someone using a list annoys you, you don't have to deal with them.

FreeMoney,

It does not make me a thief because I return the coins that I don't accept immediately.

But more to your point -- I have no problem in announcing up front that I do not take coins listed on list X. That is actually a good idea. It will encourage others to do the same.

If you won't take my bitcoins you need to make it clear before you offer to take them for good or services or you are the thief. A full list of coins that you won't take needs to be sitting next to the request for payment at the very least imo. Probably you should say that you only accept a Special Subset of Bitcoin Called and not Bitcoin.

Unless everyone agrees to use a single list then you are most likely going to end up with a situation that you cannot send a tx to someone because your lists differ in their opinions about what is tainted. No one is going to want to use Bitcoin if every time they try and make a payment small portions get sent back and they are told to make another payment (which in all likelihood their client will actually just try and send the same rejected inputs again).

Taking this problem further forward then eventually (after all mining has finished) every single "coin" will end up with some input that was "stolen" as some time in the past (especially if it is decided that coins stolen from previous heists should also be included) so unless you are limiting the transaction history and only ever using the one list then this will simply make Bitcoin unusable.

This is a proposal to help stop bitcoin thieves. Especially pertinent in light of recent thefts. The coins stolen from bitfloor have not been spent yet! We still have a chance to make this thief's life more difficult. Please discuss.

People have proposed blocking tainted coins. There are good arguments against this. Who will decide which coins should be blocked? What happens if the thief spends the coins before they are blocked? The person who took the coins might not know that they are stolen.

My proposal is similar, but it relies on giving people (bitcoin users and miners) options, as opposed to forcing everyone to do something. In principle, those who want to do this can do this already. But it's difficult, so no one will do it. I would like the software to give people the option to do what I propose. This will make it much easier to do, and a lot of people will do it.

Part 1. Clients should have the option to block tainted coins -- coins that have passed through specific transaction ID's. If this option is turned on and A receives payment from B that contains blacklisted coins, these things happen:
- The blacklisted coins are immediately sent back to B.
- A's client indicates that he did not receive the full payment, that some of the received coins were stolen and were sent back.

So A tells B "I did not accept some of the coins you sent me. To complete the transaction, send me more coins, ones that have not been blacklisted."

Who controls the blacklist? The software should give the option to manually enter blacklisted transaction OR to subscribe to a list that someone continuously updates. This would work like the AdBlock Plus browser plugin for blocking ads. It's up to the user to choose which list they want to use. After awhile, most people will use one of a few lists.

In the beginning, this option should be turned off by default, so that people don't freak out that their client is doind somethign that they don't want. I predict many people will turn the option on. After some time, clients can have it on by default. People can still opt out if they want to.

EDIT.  Here is what a watch-only wallet could do:
- Indicate the amount received that is blacklisted.
- Don't add that amount to the total.
- Automatically create a transaction sending the blacklisted coins back to the address from which they came from.

The next time I am signing transactions, I will have the option to sign this one as well.

Part 2. The bitcoin software should give miners the option to reject transactions that involve coins that have passed through specific transaction ID's. Again, strictly optional. If we convince a few of the big mining pools, the thieves will lose their ability to spend coins.

Also add a whitelist. The whitelist is a list of addresses -- blacklisted coins can only be spent to these addresses. With this option, thieves can only send the coins back to their rightful owner. All other transactions will be blocked.