Topic: The Red List - page 2. (Read 3706 times)
A case for multisig? A mutually agreeable, er, discrete 3rd party is designated as the arbiter. The Bitcoin transaction requires only 2 of 3 signatures. If the original parties are, er, mutually satisfied then both sign and the arbiter is not engaged. If there is a dispute then each makes their case and then the arbiter signs or not accordingly.
The problem is how to define a 'guilty' party? I could send you money, then claim you stole it. How would you *prove* you didn't steal my money? I suppose you could 'send it back'... But I already consumed what ever good/service you gave me 'under the table' for that money. Thus to protect myself we would need to have receipts for every transaction. Then we have the race condition on the receipts... if I give you the receipt before you give me the coin... opps.. if I give you the coin before you give me the receipt... screwed again.
End result is that you would need even more infrastructure along the lines of Open Transactions as well as custom block-chain support for 'conditional exchanges of information for coins'.
The result of this is that bitcoin could no longer be used for any transaction that you would want 'kept private'. Ie: I purchased sex then claim the prostitute 'stole' my money. The prostitute would then have to 'prove' she gave me sex in exchange for that money AND what the agreed price was. The mere existence of such proof would threaten her liberty in todays society.
Otherwise the red list can be abused like the no-fly list or any other 'list'. What is the burden of proof for 'stolen' money?
End result is that you would need even more infrastructure along the lines of Open Transactions as well as custom block-chain support for 'conditional exchanges of information for coins'.
The result of this is that bitcoin could no longer be used for any transaction that you would want 'kept private'. Ie: I purchased sex then claim the prostitute 'stole' my money. The prostitute would then have to 'prove' she gave me sex in exchange for that money AND what the agreed price was. The mere existence of such proof would threaten her liberty in todays society.
Otherwise the red list can be abused like the no-fly list or any other 'list'. What is the burden of proof for 'stolen' money?
As for those Bitcoin users who like their coins to be fungible, I'm one of a few people looking into how to create a mixing capability within Bitcoin itself that will let you automatically mix your coins with others, potentially as often as every transaction you make.
You're not alone. Fungibility is an important property of money, and I'd be opposed to anything which reduces Bitcoin's fungibility and therefore value.
I think the OP's proposal does not take into account how the Satoshi client/server works. Accounts are not equivalent to addresses. If bitcoind is used to operate an online wallet, then a withdrawal from any given account will not necessarily use the same coins that were deposited. It all depends on how many other transactions have occurred and in what amounts. So, a thief could deposit his booty in an online wallet, and some innocent person will very likely receive the tainted coins.
If the thief uses a mixing service, we will flag that mixing service as a money launderer and will flag wallets the funds ultimately get mixed to, disincentiving users of mixing services
As for those Bitcoin users who like their coins to be fungible, I'm one of a few people looking into how to create a mixing capability within Bitcoin itself that will let you automatically mix your coins with others, potentially as often as every transaction you make. This mixing is done in a trust-free manner; you're coins can-not be stolen by mixing them. This will increase financial privacy for all Bitcoin users, and as a nice side-effect reduce transaction costs by about %10 (large transactions are more efficient than multiple small ones)
Also, with built in mixing governments cannot impose regulation and cannot track transfers - sort of like the whole legalities of the Mega in-browser encryption bit. But, for the time being, without built in mixing, we still need The Red List or Bitcoin companies will be taken down like Mega (for accepting stolen funds rather than hosting copyrighten content).
If the thief uses a mixing service, we will flag that mixing service as a money launderer and will flag wallets the funds ultimately get mixed to, disincentiving users of mixing services
As for those Bitcoin users who like their coins to be fungible, I'm one of a few people looking into how to create a mixing capability within Bitcoin itself that will let you automatically mix your coins with others, potentially as often as every transaction you make. This mixing is done in a trust-free manner; you're coins can-not be stolen by mixing them. This will increase financial privacy for all Bitcoin users, and as a nice side-effect reduce transaction costs by about %10 (large transactions are more efficient than multiple small ones)
Sounds great for anonymity as long as it does not bog down transactions. Scalability is already an issue.
If the thief uses a mixing service, we will flag that mixing service as a money launderer and will flag wallets the funds ultimately get mixed to, disincentiving users of mixing services
As for those Bitcoin users who like their coins to be fungible, I'm one of a few people looking into how to create a mixing capability within Bitcoin itself that will let you automatically mix your coins with others, potentially as often as every transaction you make. This mixing is done in a trust-free manner; you're coins can-not be stolen by mixing them. This will increase financial privacy for all Bitcoin users, and as a nice side-effect reduce transaction costs by about %10 (large transactions are more efficient than multiple small ones)
Let it burn
What you say makes no sense
1) US gov can't control the whole world
2) TSA is still there, airlines are not 'trusted' to police themselves
2) If the airlines had done a good job of policing themselves the TSA would be unnecessary and would not exist.What you say makes no sense
1) US gov can't control the whole world
2) TSA is still there, airlines are not 'trusted' to police themselves
Let it burn
What you say makes no sense
1) US gov can't control the whole world
2) TSA is still there, airlines are not 'trusted' to police themselves
What you say makes no sense
1) US gov can't control the whole world
2) TSA is still there, airlines are not 'trusted' to police themselves
1) Any company registered in any country is subject to that country's regulations and laws
2) If the airlines had done a good job of policing themselves the TSA would be unnecessary and would not exist.
Let it burn
What you say makes no sense
1) US gov can't control the whole world
2) TSA is still there, airlines are not 'trusted' to police themselves
What you say makes no sense
1) US gov can't control the whole world
2) TSA is still there, airlines are not 'trusted' to police themselves
The U.S. government could start a fraud/theft reporting service right now and fine/audit all companies which accept payments from wallets receiving stolen funds. The block chain is public information. Everyone could get shut down in the next month. Would you rather take preventative measures or sit on your arse and watch Bitcoin burn?
No
The red list is controlled by you. By whatever rules (regulations) you chose to make.
TSA just wanted me to go thru metal detectors
then they wanted shoes off
now they practically rape
You want 1 line of code and a questionnaire and some companies to register.
Whats next?
The red list is controlled by you. By whatever rules (regulations) you chose to make.
TSA just wanted me to go thru metal detectors
then they wanted shoes off
now they practically rape
You want 1 line of code and a questionnaire and some companies to register.
Whats next?
No if it is open-sourced it really is not controlled by me. All the algorithms will be public information. It is not up to me whether companies choose to run public addresses by the register. Some of the private identifying information might be privy to my organization but that is all.
The Red List is not under my control. Sure it will help bitinsure deter theft against insured wallets, but that is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of public benefits.
The list is simply information companies may choose to add to or run queries against. Key word choose.
The Red List is a deterrent against regulation that is on the horizon. Without a preemptive response, a preemptive strike, the Bitcoin community will get hid hard by upcoming, fee imposing regulation. I have never been wrong and never will be.
We need a way to maintain anonymity and satisfy government agencies - we see what is happening with U.S. homeland security vs Mt. Gox.
It's better that we control our own economy and our own theft/fraud prevention measures than government agencies.
We need The Red List.
No
The red list is controlled by you. By whatever rules (regulations) you chose to make.
TSA just wanted me to go thru metal detectors
then they wanted shoes off
now they practically rape
You want 1 line of code and a questionnaire and some companies to register.
Whats next?
The red list is controlled by you. By whatever rules (regulations) you chose to make.
TSA just wanted me to go thru metal detectors
then they wanted shoes off
now they practically rape
You want 1 line of code and a questionnaire and some companies to register.
Whats next?
Sounds like TSA.
Its for your own good, we are helping protect you.
Its for your own good, we are helping protect you.
Well TSA does not protect you from government regulation, they are government regulation. The Red List is controlled by you, so you are essentially regulating yourself in a way that deters regulation you do not control and in a way that honestly protects people and deters theft.
Sounds like TSA.
Its for your own good, we are helping protect you.
Its for your own good, we are helping protect you.
Well I am convinced now earlier poster here that said all btc would wind up flagged is pretty much right.
And you will be asking people to do stuff for you, check the list, answer questions etc.
That sort of thing is already rampant enough with places like paypal freezing accounts and making people jump thru hoops because they set off some 'alarm' in a perfectly innocent way.
I think companies have it bad enough being forced to perform as agents of the government (collect taxes) for free and now you want all BTC companies to work for your insurance program for free.
And you will be asking people to do stuff for you, check the list, answer questions etc.
That sort of thing is already rampant enough with places like paypal freezing accounts and making people jump thru hoops because they set off some 'alarm' in a perfectly innocent way.
I think companies have it bad enough being forced to perform as agents of the government (collect taxes) for free and now you want all BTC companies to work for your insurance program for free.
Companies may chose to ignore The Red List - but they will only end up paying more later down the line when world governments step in with more expensive regulation and stricter standards. I suspect more companies would rather choose to embrace an open-sourced community-driven project that actually does this right.
Well I am convinced now earlier poster here that said all btc would wind up flagged is pretty much right.
And you will be asking people to do stuff for you, check the list, answer questions etc.
That sort of thing is already rampant enough with places like paypal freezing accounts and making people jump thru hoops because they set off some 'alarm' in a perfectly innocent way.
I think companies have it bad enough being forced to perform as agents of the government (collect taxes) for free and now you want all BTC companies to work for your insurance program for free.
And you will be asking people to do stuff for you, check the list, answer questions etc.
That sort of thing is already rampant enough with places like paypal freezing accounts and making people jump thru hoops because they set off some 'alarm' in a perfectly innocent way.
I think companies have it bad enough being forced to perform as agents of the government (collect taxes) for free and now you want all BTC companies to work for your insurance program for free.
No one will be flagged except for definite thieves.
There are no hoops to jump through unless you are attempting to spend directly stolen BTC. Even then it is maximum a click through one field form.
The companies are actually working for themselves. By including one line of code to check public addresses, they are deterring expensive regulation, performing a public service, and preventing expensive government suits.
Really the point is to establish a psychological deterrent against theft - The Red List will not violate anyone's privacy or peg anyone's wallet as "contaminated" unless it is first degree. The Red List will not publicly shame or incriminate anyone - it will act to promote awareness. At any time you may check your wallet to see if the BTC you just received or accepted was directly stolen. You can better establish networks of trust. It is really a public service.
The Red List is not a requirement and is not a regulation.
The Red List is not a requirement and is not a regulation.
Well I am convinced now earlier poster here that said all btc would wind up flagged is pretty much right.
And you will be asking people to do stuff for you, check the list, answer questions etc.
That sort of thing is already rampant enough with places like paypal freezing accounts and making people jump thru hoops because they set off some 'alarm' in a perfectly innocent way.
I think companies have it bad enough being forced to perform as agents of the government (collect taxes) for free and now you want all BTC companies to work for your insurance program for free.
And you will be asking people to do stuff for you, check the list, answer questions etc.
That sort of thing is already rampant enough with places like paypal freezing accounts and making people jump thru hoops because they set off some 'alarm' in a perfectly innocent way.
I think companies have it bad enough being forced to perform as agents of the government (collect taxes) for free and now you want all BTC companies to work for your insurance program for free.
I still dont know what you mean by a mixing service.
How about I take some of that stolen btc (from the wallet John should have secured) and make some bets at satoshi dice or play poker or something.
Are all of those gambling sites now 'contaminated'? All the money coming from them is considered 'secondary'?
So another person wins big playing poker and now can't spend the money without jumping thru hoops?
How about I take some of that stolen btc (from the wallet John should have secured) and make some bets at satoshi dice or play poker or something.
Are all of those gambling sites now 'contaminated'? All the money coming from them is considered 'secondary'?
So another person wins big playing poker and now can't spend the money without jumping thru hoops?
No, no wallets are ever "contaminated" except for the first degree wallet - just under surveillance.
The gambling site would be wise to run the wallet against The Red List before accepting payment.
If the gambling site registered with The Red List, it need not worry.
If not, the site may get prompted with a questionnaire if directly attempting to spend second degree flagged BTC at a legitimate business.
The person winning at poker would be third degree at most and if repeatedly spends surveilled BTC may have to answer a questionnaire or may make The Red List after repeated low degree BTC flagged purchases at legitimate businesses if statistically determined he is in possession of stolen funds at a statistically significant rate much higher (alpha of 0.02) than average possession of stolen funds.
I still dont know what you mean by a mixing service.
How about I take some of that stolen btc (from the wallet John should have secured) and make some bets at satoshi dice or play poker or something.
Are all of those gambling sites now 'contaminated'? All the money coming from them is considered 'secondary'?
So another person wins big playing poker and now can't spend the money without jumping thru hoops?
How about I take some of that stolen btc (from the wallet John should have secured) and make some bets at satoshi dice or play poker or something.
Are all of those gambling sites now 'contaminated'? All the money coming from them is considered 'secondary'?
So another person wins big playing poker and now can't spend the money without jumping thru hoops?
Jump to: