Pages:
Author

Topic: The beginning of the end? - page 2. (Read 4281 times)

sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 02:23:52 PM
#26
Honestly, if they could blacklist ('redlist') only coins that came from that cryptolocker virus, I would support it.

But it would NEVER stop there, and you know it. I don't even NEED to give examples of how governments and businesses just take this shit and RUN with it, once you give them the permission. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile before you even notice. Be vigilant. No emotional exceptions. "Oh, I oppose the death penalty... except for THIS particular convict who did THESE bad things." Next thing you know you're sitting on death row innocent because of a DNA lab fuckup that they'll discover after you're long dead.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
November 15, 2013, 02:23:21 PM
#25
The protocol probably won't change (as much as I'd love to own both bitcoins and the alt-coins that come into existence after a fork).

The black-white-red-listing can be done without changes to the protocol.

In other words, it doesn't matter if bitcoiners want this or not, it's coming. Whining on a public forum isn't going to change that.

Here is how you fight it. Don't use it. If a merchant requires coins from a certain colored list in order to sell you some products, don't shop there. If you are doing business with someone who asks for coins from a certain colored list, stop doing business with them. Money is power. Starve anyone who supports any colored lists.

Unfortunately, the world is full of uneducated consumers who will gladly hand their money over to the most corrupt institutions known (or unknown) to man. They complain about the rich and powerful while playing by their rules.

Support a mixing procedures of your choice, like coin-join, dark wallet, et cetera. Contribute money to the developers working on that mixing procedure. Contribute to bounties.

The fight for freedom is on going. Bitcoin can be a powerful tool in that fight, but you can't just sit back and watch. You have to want freedom as much as those who seek power want control. You have to take that power from them. They aren't going to easily let go.

Anyone who sees this as the beginning of the end has no spine. This was expected. What are you going to do about it?


You are mostly right. Except for the point where you say complaining about it on here doesn't help.

In reality, that's exactly what we should be doing, and luckily, we are. Evidence: this and many similar threads :D

I'm completely serious by the way. You are of course right, the protocol won't change. But how the protocol will be *used* in the future is still to be determined. And we need to convince as many people as possible that distinguishing (in whatever form, be it blacklisting, redlisting, or validating) between "good, legal coins" and "bad, illegal coins" will probably be the death sentence to Bitcoin.


Head over there yourself (if you are a member already. otherwise: pay up and join :D).

So you want me to give money (power) to the organization which has key members supporting this idea, just so I can talk to them about it? LOL.

When the Foundation releases a statement saying that are opposed to these lists and they start writing proposals on how to combat black-white-red-listing I'll consider becoming a paying member. ;)

You got cause and effect the wrong way round. I coughed up the money and became a member precisely *because* we need the BF on our side with this one. Don't sign up if you don't want to, but on the other hand, don't complain if an organization that you can join (and influence, to a degree) doesn't do what you want it to do. (well, actually, complain away. I just mean it's more fun to do so when you're actually part of it :P)
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 02:21:47 PM
#24
I love how so many people are so willing to make it OK for current holders of currency to be liable for the criminal actions of people who have used that currency for "illegal" things in the past.

We don't do that with cash dollars, why do it with bitcoins? How many cash dollars have coke residue on them?

This brings up interesting jurisdictional issues. Different countries have different sets of laws. So how do we decide which jurisdiction a bitcoin was used in if a specific law was broken? If a user in one jurisdiction uses a bitcoin for illegal means, then 10 users later it ends up in a user's wallet who lives in a different area where the original owner's "crime" is not illegal, then do businesses still blacklist those coins? IMO problems like this are just impossible to solve and invite a spaghetti-like mess of regulations to "Save the Children" which will just end up being ignored.
 
Not to mention the idea of altcoins makes this terribly difficult to implement.

NOT TO FUCKING MENTION that we are letting other people decide for us what is wrong and what is right, and potentially making US liable if someone who held our bitcoins in the past did something illegal with them. Sounds we're going back a few hundred years in terms of justice and fairness.

So, good luck supporting this, people who support this.  Grin Grin Grin
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 523
November 15, 2013, 02:14:14 PM
#23
Honestly, if they could blacklist ('redlist') only coins that came from that cryptolocker virus, I would support it.

Although, I agree that the activity of cryptolocker's designer is criminal, I would ask you: "Why the Microsoft is not responsible?". It is their fault that nowadays enormous computer power (and thus, electricity) is spent for Antivirus Software activity. The use of MS products implies hidden expenses. Is that fair?

Why you do not care if the dollar note you get as charge probably have been used some day to pay for murder?

Is it not the same thing?
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
#22
The solution to theft is responsibility. Bitcoin may be the easiest asset on the planet to protect from theft, but you actually have to take the steps required.

Storing your coins with a pool or exchange is the first mistake. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

That sounds like the guy who has all his cash stored under his bed. So, you have, lets say two USB sticks with your cold wallet stored in different locations of your house. House burns down, no insurance is gonna cover that loss.
So well i guess its more like "choose your poison".
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1010
Borsche
November 15, 2013, 02:01:43 PM
#21
If a sufficient number of people adopt that attitude, the Mike Hearns of BF are going to have their way. Luckily, not everyone's as indifferent or lazy.

You are jumping to conclusions; I, on the other hand, just summarized the thread from foundation forums. Any requirement from USA regulators should be probably considered but not necessarily obeyed, and most people on board thankfully understand that bitcoin is a global protocol while USA regulations are some (very small) nation's rules which do not apply to bitcoin much.

As for adding parallel metadata which is not part of the protocol - any spamhouse-like entities - nobody can really prevent them from existing, but it does not matter as you can simply ignore them and any merchants using them.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 01:59:41 PM
#20
To tell the truth, if been suspecting this is the way BTC was heading quite a while. Dont know how many people here have lost BTC because a mining pool or an exchange has been hacked and all their BTC stolen. Would you really like those people to go scott free or rather force them into a situation where they cant freely spend their stolen BTC?

The solution to theft is responsibility. Bitcoin may be the easiest asset on the planet to protect from theft, but you actually have to take the steps required.

Storing your coins with a pool or exchange is the first mistake. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

+1

People need to take responsibility for their actions.  Bitcoin seems to attract irresponsible people -- these same people tend to blame everyone else for their actions.  

Put down the pitchforks and torches and just learn to be responsible.  They took the BTC because the owner hadn't learned responsibility.  

We should call it the irresponsible tax.

legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
November 15, 2013, 01:33:59 PM
#19
To tell the truth, if been suspecting this is the way BTC was heading quite a while. Dont know how many people here have lost BTC because a mining pool or an exchange has been hacked and all their BTC stolen. Would you really like those people to go scott free or rather force them into a situation where they cant freely spend their stolen BTC?

This is exactly the justification they will use.

The problem is we do not curreny do this for money today. For example, if I need change for a vending machine and ask a shop keeper to break a dollar for change, the money I recieve is fully unencumbered from it's past dealings. This means that I own that quarter regardless of what was done with it in the past. If that quarter was previously stolen, it is still my quarter and the government can not take it from you. The only person liable is the person who originally committed the crime.

The protocol probably won't change (as much as I'd love to own both bitcoins and the alt-coins that come into existence after a fork).

The black-white-red-listing can be done without changes to the protocol.

In other words, it doesn't matter if bitcoiners want this or not, it's coming. Whining on a public forum isn't going to change that.

This is exactly how the US government will fight bitcoin, through regulation that defeats Bitcoin's monetary properties, not by outright making Bitcoin illegal. The arguement they will propose is "Yes you can use Bitcoin, but those who refuse to follow US regulations are criminals". And the overall population will agree with this. It is how the US maintains the illusion of freedom in the modern world. Nothing is illegal, itstead behavior is banned through regulation and red tape. Those who do not follow "sensible regulation" are deemed criminals.

Everyone in the US involved with the Bitcoin project will have to make a choice at some point. Do you put your bitcoins under the US regulatory system and stay legal, or do you keep your Bitcoins underground and use them outside the law. The choice is a personal one for each individual, history shows that the vast majority of people will take the compliance route.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 01:32:05 PM
#18
To tell the truth, if been suspecting this is the way BTC was heading quite a while. Dont know how many people here have lost BTC because a mining pool or an exchange has been hacked and all their BTC stolen. Would you really like those people to go scott free or rather force them into a situation where they cant freely spend their stolen BTC?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
hm
November 15, 2013, 01:18:17 PM
#17
Could it be implemented, that the owner of an address can be contacted? Via an central webserver. Like this: I get this crypto-locker on my computer and have to send 1btc to an address xyz. Then I send a message to the FBI and they put that output address xyz on a central, worldwide webserver. A business or an exchange don't accept money from one of this addresses. And every individual could do the same, if they want.

Would that be the same problem?



And where exactly would the line be drawn? Why not start having coins blocked of people who offer services you disagree with, or hold opinions you find unacceptable?

The goverment would draw the line. Like it will do with Bitcoin anyway. Would it be more satisfying for you when Bitcoin would stay an underground currency forever? But for sure, it depends, how the regulator would act. May such services just would be voluntary and a company just denies such "black outputs" to retain reputation...
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 01:01:20 PM
#16
Could it be implemented, that the owner of an address can be contacted? Via an central webserver. Like this: I get this crypto-locker on my computer and have to send 1btc to an address xyz. Then I send a message to the FBI and they put that output address xyz on a central, worldwide webserver. A business or an exchange don't accept money from one of this addresses. And every individual could do the same, if they want.

Would that be the same problem?



And where exactly would the line be drawn? Why not start having coins blocked of people who offer services you disagree with, or hold opinions you find unacceptable?


It's amusing that at this early stage the underpinnings on which the Bitcoin concept was sold to its userbase are threatened. By embracing the speculators and the resultant bubble they created, and the money men and their ulterior motives, Bitcoin is in danger of becoming little more than a clone of Paypal.

Well over 90% of all Bitcoin transactions are speculative in nature. The actual number of transactions undertaken on a daily basis in Bitcoin for goods and services is tiny. All Bitcoiners ever seem to want to talk about is its price relative to the USD, there seems to be little interest in anything beyond perpetuating the bubble.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
hm
November 15, 2013, 12:34:59 PM
#15
Could it be implemented, that the owner of an address can be contacted? Via an central webserver. Like this: I get this crypto-locker on my computer and have to send 1btc to an address xyz. Then I send a message to the FBI and they put that output address xyz on a central, worldwide webserver. A business or an exchange don't accept money from one of this addresses. And every individual could do the same, if they want.

Would that be the same problem?
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
November 15, 2013, 12:08:45 PM
#14
in short, that proposal is stupid and will be rejected, nothing to see here, really.
Exactly, everybody knows its total junk and nobody would ever fall for it.

If a sufficient number of people adopt that attitude, the Mike Hearns of BF are going to have their way. Luckily, not everyone's as indifferent or lazy.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 11:10:25 AM
#13
in short, that proposal is stupid and will be rejected, nothing to see here, really.
Exactly, everybody knows its total junk and nobody would ever fall for it.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1010
Borsche
November 15, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
#12
in short, that proposal is stupid and will be rejected, nothing to see here, really.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
November 15, 2013, 10:26:35 AM
#11
It already does demand bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
@theshmadz
November 14, 2013, 08:52:35 PM
#10
honestly the thing about crypto-locker type viruses demanding bitcoin instead of dollars is the part that scares me the most.

Punishing the currency instead of the criminals is just plain stupid. And the blacklisting is dumb too. As someone already mentioned, it is trivial to track coins and I'm sure the enforcement agencies already have their own blacklists. all that crap is so ridiculous that I do not see it as a threat because I think the chance of it even happening is so remote.

But that crypto-locker virus is a bitch. I've seen it now at 2 different companies, one of them was on a terminal server. If that thing (or something like it) starts demanding bitcoin, I think that would have a very negative effect on the popularity of bitcoin.

I hate that cryptolocker thing. I blame microsoft. Users that have no admin rights should not be able to launch that menace. I haven't spent too much time on it (we just wipe the infected box and restore the backups) but my hunch is that they are exploiting the bitlocker "feature" they introduced in windows 7... but that's just a hunch.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
November 14, 2013, 07:58:44 PM
#9
Yeah. I'm not easily startled, but I consider this the first "real" threat  to Bitcoin I know of since I joined this little club.

I'm in a discussion with Mike Hearn right now on the btcfoundation forum. I get the impression he genuinely believes that a) it's a good idea to implement this, and b) won't do much damage to Bitcoin. I disagree with a), and vehemently disagree with b).

Head over there yourself (if you are a member already. otherwise: pay up and join Cheesy). Otherwise, arguments I can bring forward in the thread are very much welcome.
Glad guys like you are having open discussions with them, and even more glad guys like Hearn are putting themselves out there to hear the feedback.

I think this is a positive thing, given the comparison, which is corporation suits having zero interaction with those whom they affect.

-Burger-
legendary
Activity: 889
Merit: 1013
November 14, 2013, 07:44:05 PM
#8
This would completely defeat the point of bitcoin IMO, and would result in a new bitcoin/fork, and that becoming the new bitcoin. Very unlikely to happen.  This guy has obviously been spending too much time with government regulators and has gone native.
hero member
Activity: 898
Merit: 1000
November 14, 2013, 07:07:21 PM
#7
Yeah. I'm not easily startled, but I consider this the first "real" threat  to Bitcoin I know of since I joined this little club.

+1

@OP, recognising this issue goes some way to redeeming that epic fail in your last thread.
Pages:
Jump to: