Topic: The Red List - page 3. (Read 3706 times)

Their name will never be tainted - only the first degree flagged wallet. A BTC in BTC out business may register with The Red List and even if the business does not register will only ever get flagged as a second degree. If that business never spends BTC out of the receptive wallet, they will never even get a second degree notice. Any information submitted by concerned parties after a second degree spend will validate that business as a BTC in BTC out - so they need not worry. They will never be publicly tainted.

Also, hopefully that business will be screening tainted money anyway by running against The Red List and The Red List will factor in this screening.

It prevents crime by creating a psychological deterrent.

Here is a story to clarify:

My friend John insures his wallet in a custom insurance group in Bitinsure.

His wallet is hacked and 20 BTC are stolen and sent to the thief's wallet.

We submit the thief's first degree wallet address to The Red List.

Using the same wallet, the thief attempts to pay for an OKCupid subscription.

OkCupid runs the public address against The Red List using the API and gets a first degree match - a definite redlist.

Since the wallet is first degree, OkCupid decides to send personal information gleaned from the thief's OkCupid profile to The Red List for investigation.

Here is a second story:

My friend John insures his wallet in a custom insurance group in Bitinsure.

His wallet is hacked and 20 BTC are stolen and sent to the thief's wallet.

We submit the thief's first degree wallet address to The Red List.

The thief sends the BTC to two more wallets.

We submit the second degree wallet addresses to The Red List.

The thief uses one wallet to purchase cooking ware on Amazon via BitSpend.

BitSpend checks the wallet address against The Red List, gets a second degree match, and issues the thief a questionnaire asking where he got the money from at the time of purchase. BitSpend may also send minimal identifying information such as a piece of the address back to The Red List for private storage and factoring into the indefinite algorithm which will increase The Red List ranking if the same minimal identification information is flagged/sent again by the same or another business.  

The thief gets his cooking ware from Amazon via BitSpend but after the questionnaire is apprehensive so decides to use a mixing service on the contents of the second wallet.

The thief mixes his BTC and gets BTC transferred into a new wallet.

A different person who used the mixing service spends the BTC on a Gyft gift certificate. Gyft runs the public address against The Red List and issues that second person a questionnaire - that person reveals he recently used a mixing service and names the service. The results of the questionnaire are sent to The Red List.

The Red List now has money laundering evidence against the mixing service and suspicions against/algorithm inputs for an identifying piece of information from the first wallet.

I still don't see how honest business that has btc in and btc out avoids getting contaminated and having to jump thru hoops to clear their 'name'.
It really strikes me much like gun registration, punish the innocent because of a few bad eggs.

Better idea to work on  theft prevention.

The algorithms will be open sourced and the database completely open *except for identifying information businesses may submit.

The Red List will also hinder more invasive regulation that could come to Bitcoin via governments by filling a perceived gap in fraud/theft prevention.

This is a nice idea that will possibly serve better as a suggestion that bitcoin is regulated against fraud, rather than be a tool to prevent it.

There are far too many ways that fraud can take place, that I can't see this project being much more than the equivalent to Spamhaus for the Bitcoin community.

However, if it wasn't for the likes of Spamhaus, would email be used as much as it is today?  Would email be subject to far more regulation?

I like the Red List project, but please try to explain to some of the hard of thinking on this forum that its not a way to prevent crime!

It prevents theft by creating a psychological knowledge of accountability on some level and making thieves work harder to launder and spend bitcoin. The innocent might as well not know this system exists because they will never experience it, will never be affected by it, and will never threaten their anonymity.

So we are creating our own cops ...
Who watches the watchers?

In this way The Red List retains perfect anonymity - unless your wallet meets the Red List threshold in which case the verifying business may deny you service, issue you a questionnaire as to where you got the money, or in extreme, definite cases send a delivery address or identifying information to Red List servers.

The Red List in no way asks for personal information or requires that personal information is verified. It simply checks your wallet public address against our database. If your wallet is directly associated with theft, the business or service may report your address or any other information you gave to that service or business. That is all.

Besides that you are practically discouraging my anonymity. May I discourage yours and ask for a passport ? Provide it so i know that you are not a scammer or selling my data to a private company. If you don't you are under suspicion now.

Well if you spammed thousands of addresses small transactions to addresses you do not own you will be giving away money pointlessly and will defeat the purpose of the theft. If you own the addresses we will catch you when you spend at a legitimate business by looking at the patterns in the block chain. We can include a transaction threshold if you choose to attempt to intentionally taint many wallets.

A mixing service is a way to launder money which involves mixing BTC up among many wallets. The only reason to use such a service is for anonymity purposes. If we can prove that stolen first degree money enters such a service we can gather evidence to shut them down as money launderers.

There are no regulations or blocked/frozen accounts so it is nothing like PayPal. Solely at legitimate businesses discretion.

No, the algorithm is based on averages, so not everyone will be flagged - only those closely associated with fraud or theft with repeat offenses. It is an indefinite algorithm. Even if you are flagged, you are put under suspicion or investigation not fully blackballed.  

I see. Seems like a good project then. Good luck with this.

I don't see what I described as 'robin hood' at all. I put on my 'pretend I am a thief hat' and cover my tracks by confusing the issue as much as possible.
I spam thousands of addresses with tiny fractions and make a huge mess ...
I am not a thief so I am sure practiced scammers have lots more ideas.
Anyway what is a 'mixing service'? Would something takes btc for things and pays btc for other things wind up 'mixing' by default?
So to avoid getting 'contaminated' you would need more processing and questioning of depositors?  Starting to sound like dealing with paypal.

See here :

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-warning-against-using-taint-85433

Eventually everybody will be flagged. Bad Idea.

With The Red List service we may worry less about the regulatory bodies and sanctions stepping in because they will not have a perceived "hole to fill" and we can keep our system controlled by the community, not by governments.

Red list is not definite unless it is first degree. Second degree and beyond has to match a certain repeat theft threshold. You may get a questionnaire pertaining to what business/service/individual you got the money from when buying from a legitimate business or purchasing a legitimate service - that is all. As to donations and some kind of "robin hood" thievery - that is unlikely.

This is mainly a "don't fuck with bitinsured wallets" measure so we actually know where tainted money is going and have a chance at IDing individuals. Businesses can choose to participate or not - it's not required regulation.