Topic: The absolute insanity Congress is writing now... - page 2. (Read 1459 times)

larry you are going into weird stuff now.. try researching before posturing your thoughts, it will save you soo much time

your now playing the windfury game.. playing dumb, saying silly things to provoke people to correct you repeatedly as a way for you to get spoonfed answers without trying to learn/research

i now think its time you do some research for yourself before you make yourself look like an idiot and start to become described as one, even if acting like one is your intention

bitcoin core is software. people that use it can perform services to the bitcoin community franky. it's that simple. miners use bitcoin core to perform a service called mining which they get paid for. people running nodes also can perform an unpaid service of receiving and forwarding other people's transactions. those things seem like things ripe for regulating already. it's not going to matter if you throw in mixing too. services are already being performed.

apparently you think that this mixing service that miners would perform would mean that people would need to send their bitcoin to the miners bitcoin addresses and trust them to resend it on their behalf. if that's what they were doing then maybe you would have a point but that's not what i had in mind. the miners would just alter the transactions themselves so that the inputs and outputs got all mixed around but the correct amounts ended up in the correct places. no one would be sending bitcoin directly to miner controlled addresses though!  

just using mixers/AEC(anonymity enhanced currency) is not criminal in of itself. its just you are tagged as suspicious to a threshold that its a red flag where it can trigger an investigation done by the service*
thus defeating the point of using mixers/AEC
(if by hiding you then appear suspicious where people start looking at you more closely.. did hiding really help, now that people are looking at you MORE intensely)

*(and analysis services that share data with services) that could lead to being reported to authorities for further investigation.. (with can lead to court orders and other information gathering.. and can then lead to further actions if the use of mixers/AEC become found to be linked to an actual crime)


the IF is where you need to look into details and do research more.. again if bitcoin core added mixing into the software to turn it into a service and became under the jurisdiction of regulators policies.. where users of such service then get their coin flagged and their involvement pushed to follow regulations. those coins on the scale will not be treated as fungible, thus defeating the point. whilst also affecting what users can and cant do by causing further oppression by authorities
so lets not promote allowing authorities to further invade and set jurisdictional control further into bitcoin things


this is why bitcoin core should try to be more decentralised in its processes, by not only asking people to use the software in different countries, but also have different brands of protocol proposal reference clients on the network so core is not the solo central point. and also where core is not the defacto software of all services that can change the jurisdiction limits of government regulatory control

its much better to have features that are regulated be done as separate processes/procedures/software

It depends on who you ask

But if you have a few banknotes in your wallet, nobody is going to call you a criminal for the fact that they contain traces of cocaine, even though that's illegal and proves the banknotes have been used by criminals.

There will be a day where the common man will have to struggle a lot just to be able to buy bitcoin in the first place.

They will create hoops and hoops to jump through, and it'll feel like going to the damn DMV just to buy bitcoin, use bitcoin, whatever.

I'm telling people to buy BTC now while they still can, and they look at me like I'm crazy because the "price" is so "high".  

I support Monero.  And it does keep the regulators scratching their heads.  Any thing wrong with that, or am I a statiscially qualified Criminal for using Monero too?

I would support introducing Privacy by default for Bitcoin if it kept the Bitcoin Fungibility going with out lowering its Security and if did not cause more oppression from Authorities.  But we all know this is impossible, so I rather leave Bitcoin as is and use other ways to Privacy instead.

even the europeans and asians are trying to regulate parts of bitcoin usage thats defined as service providers
so trying to change bitcoin core from a software to a service will have negative effects around the world.. especially when core is the defacto sole progenitor of rule decisions and governs the protocol
it would be less of a risk if there were many different brands of "reference clients" that allow protocol and feature upgrades. but with core being the central point of bitcoin code/rule... changing it to a service then affects alot of things.

yet you are the one trying to suggest adding something that would then allow governments to invade and intervene in the operation of bitcoin via the feature you wish for reclassifying bitcoin core as a service which then allows government involvement in core, where core is currently the defact sole reference client of the rules

get it yet?

a benefit of decentralisation is not to have a sole central point that everyone has to rely on as that can then be abused and intruded on by government.. so again no benefit to include mixing as a feature of core

I do understand the distinction you're trying to make franky. But I want it all in bitcoin core. The government can then try and regulate AMERICANS if it wishes. But there is a world outside of the USA and it shouldn't be held hostage by one country. We need to get things into the protocol itself so they can't really do anything about it except try and regulate Americans which doesn't mean the same thing as regulating bitcoin...

If they want to make their little bitcoin addresses blacklists and file lawsuits against individuals then that's fine but I don't want them trying to force bitcoin to behave a certain way.   Bitcoin is supposed to be independent of any particular government and its wishes. you know that. or at least you should.

firstly(miners)
miners are just asics, that just hash.. you might have made sense if you mentioned mining POOLS which are closer to being a service, which is currently being discussed in other regulator and law makers committee meetings about possibilities of regulating mining pools

secondly(nodes)
there is a big difference between a bitcoin node relaying a transaction.. as no part of that transaction designates funds specifically to an specific entity as a processor of payment. there is no facilitator who receives the funds in full and the sends funds out to designated recipient
vs
LN routers which each router specifically gets involved with taking the value in full and sends out value they have minus a fee

..
like mixers whom receive funds in full and use other value they own/control to hand out to destination

bitcoin is already a service. miners perform a service called mining. nodes relay other peoples' transactions. already a service. everyone that runs a full node is performing a service if they allow people to download anything from them.

what if sending money becomes regulated? should they take away that feature of bitcoin core too?  

it doesn't really make sense to try and categorize bitcoin into little containers saying "if it does this then it's a service but if it does only this then it's not." mining peoples' transactions is as much a service as mixing them maybe even moreso because bitcoin couldn't exist without mining but it could exist without mixing...

i completely disagree with your disagreement.
when software changes from just being software to then become a service. it then allows governments to encroach and invade and create jurisdiction to then set laws on those services and service operators thus then getting to control the service(software) via setting terms of use for the users of the service(software)

its especially stupid to add a mixer to core directly, because its obvious by now that mixing is a known regulated thing.

for instance
a few years ago regulators started to make laws about people who create ICO (initial coin offerings) and if core was to directly do this within core instead of the ordinals/lightning software alternatives.. this would cause more issues for bitcoin via core becoming invaded by regulatory policy

and yes this would mean regulators doing things to the core devs with force-merge code privilege.. much like mixer devs got hit because their mixers were not just code/software but a service

get it yet

i dont really care who does the mixing but it just seemed to me like the miners should be doing it as part of the protocol in bitcoin. bitcoin could still be auditable too unlike what i've heard about monero. because you can't see the transaction amounts publicly.

i kind of disagree. the more things that are in bitcoin core the less the government tends to think it can do anything about them. as a compromise though, there could be 2 kinds of miners. one type mines transactions without the mix flag and the other miner mines transactions with the "mix" flag. they could co-exist. and the government can't do anything about it. what are they going to do tell people "Please don't use the "mix" flag when submitting bitcoin transactions" ? but then  you have to ask "who wouldn't want their transactions mixed?" it just enhances their privacy...

Something very similar exists, it's called Monero In the Monero model, afaik miners are not "coordinating" mixing, nodes are doing that themselves with their peers. So miners would not be MSBs.

By the way: if mining pools were considered MSBs in the US, then pools would simply leave the US. The US are only 4% of the world population, even if they think they are the center of the world. Are there any pools residing officially in the US by the way? And in the unlikely case all countries followed with exactly the same criteria, then miners would either go solo again or return to decentralized pooling methods like P2Pool.

no(not yet).. mining pools are not classed as payment facilitators,
however mixing is defined as a money service business, so adding mixing into mining pool operations would change the classification of mining pools instantly.. same goes if mixing was added as a direct feature of core would change things.
which is why core should just concentrate on the main audit, verification and archiving of blockchain

but it would be possible for congress to next try to classify mining pools as MSB's or other regulated activities.. much like the questionnaire they sent out to miners/pools already to start a consultation of treatment of pools/miners

its got nothing to do with bitcoin code. its more about demanding BUSINESSES(human managers) to follow new laws..
bitcoin itself has no eyes or ears to follow human laws. but the humans that run code or write code is a different story
many PEOPLE think they are immune to laws because they use bitcoin. but they dont realise they as people are still humans
this is why people need to learn whats ACTUALLY happening in congress so that people can use their own brains to learn the loopholes  and learn how bitcoin works to then find some work arounds or other ways to deal with things


well if you stop relying on laws to support you*. and instead take a stance to protect yourself by not revealing your life history then there would be less information revealed about you for them to even be able to find your door

*many people want to reveal things on the internet and then cry how a law is suppose to protect that revealed data.. and cry more to a judge after the fact that the info they revealed is used against them... simple solution, dont reveal info in first place, take control of yourself for yourself

its like the people that openly talk on forums saying exactly what mixers they use and show screenshots of them using it on particular days, ends up putting them on a short list of mixer used utxo's of that day(blackhatcoiner done demonstrations, thus probably on one of those lists and his coins linked to his name.. angelo).. thus linking them.. thus defeating point of using a mixer

and? aren't they already doing that? just because you throw in mixing into it doesn't change anything.

nonsense. the government can't change a single line of code in the bitcoin protocol.


that works until oneday you realize all your freedoms are gone and now they're knocking on your door because one of your bitcoins has a history of being used by someone you don't even know in the past...people should be able to use bitcoin without the government being able to trace anything. that's my opinion.

if mining pools became coordinators of mixing. then mining pools would have to register as money service businesses as they are directly facilitating the payment transfer on behalf of others for a fee. which then means mining pools then need to also do things like KYC and monitor and report..

thus again goes against the whole entire point of why people use mixing.. if you are wanting to use mixers or things that combine to amount to the feature of mixing.. you end up becoming listed with a rating which could lead directly to investigators actual eyes monitoring you and deciding if they should report you, which then defeats the whole purpose of why you wanted to use mixing in the first place

its better to just do things normally and just "hide in the crowd" "hide in plain sight" by not doing things that highlight you as trying to be evasive

maybe bitcoin should have been designed with mixing built into the mining protocol somehow so that all the transactions in a block got mixed together somehow. that would probably keep the regulator scratching their heads. but i guess we never got that far. I bet PrivacyG would support something like that though. 

funnily enough i was the one telling the other readers that laws are not preventative as an absolute guarantee and instead are dealt with after the fact in court
as for black and white.. im the one telling readers that things like suspicion, taint, mixing, tumbling are handled by monitoring/analysis algo on a scale.. not black and white

so again its doomad that cant read or understand the conversations happening in a topic

Because Chain Analysis is trying to destroy what was once known as Fungibility and ways of obfuscation such as Mixers, Atomic Swaps, Coin Joins et cetera are bringing it right back.  Not by 'removing Taint', because ultimately ALL ADDRESSES ARE AND WILL BE 'TAINTED' AT SOME POINT, but by breaking links Chain Analysis are using to destroy the Fungibility Bitcoin once had.

It is utterly stupid to believe in Taint because you most likely own UTXOs coming from previous Hacks, Crime, Money Laundering et cetera.  Why are you not collaborating with Chain Analysis companies to let you know which of your Coins are Tainted so you can throw them at a known 'Burn Address' of Bitcoin just so you know you got rid of Tainted Bitcoin?

There are no repercussions of them taking my Bitcoin.  I am not responsible for later actions of people such as using stupid Services that are able to freeze Accounts out of mere suspicions according to a subjective analysis, or even randomly.  There is a history of people depositing even Binance or Coinbase withdrawals on other platforms and getting their Accounts frozen up out of no where.  Is that my fault?  You can transfer Peer to Peer with no 'repercussions'.  You can use any non Know Your Customer Exchange.  How am I using any of these with no repercussions?

-----

And in other countries such as Austria, it is not legal to drive around with a Dashboard Camera on your car.  A few years ago at least, it was ruled in Court that it is breaking the Privacy of people.

Franky can not think outside the box and see the real problem here.  If the United States promote little to no rights to Privacy, it means the roots of the problem are much deeper.  And even if we speak from outside the United States, it is impossible NOT to have an input considering the United States are influencing the entire world.  So Franky, ask yourself, are we the problem for asking for Privacy or is it a problem that you have no right to it?

We're clearly reaching the point where the arguments being made are no longer relevant to the topic at hand. You can buy into franky1's absolutist, black-and-white view of the world, where he pretends that he and he alone can determine the outcome of all things.  Or, you can come back to reality where nuance is a real thing that people comprehend.  I personally find his wild delusions have precisely zero influence on what really happens in this world (outside of his magical world of make-believe).  When it comes down to it, a court will decide an outcome to whatever hypothetical scenario it is you're making.  Until such an incident goes to trial, it's generally considered a fool's errand to assume the outcome until the specifics are heard and deliberated upon.