Topic: Time to Boycott all US Companies - page 2. (Read 9136 times)

KYC and AML are necessary. Bank secrecy enables corruption.
I don't understand how we can have a Bitcoin community which supports the goal of Wikileaks on one hand but on the other hand wants to have completely anonymous money.

You cannot have both. If you want to fight institutional corruption you have to follow the money. If you want anonymous money then you have to accept institutional corruption as the end result.

If there are bad actors then those bad actors should be investigated. That does not mean we should all be forced to get digital ID cards to access our money. A digital signature ought to be enough to prove your identity. There is no reason to have a centralized database.

It could work just fine if the digital signature could be somehow be connected to the Bitcoin blockchain itself.

What if for instance I want to validate that my coins are owned by me and that I'm trusted? I should be able to have a pseudo-anonymous trusted wallet. That wallet should attach my digital signature which is unique to me. It should connect my real world identity to my pseudo-nym without a loss of pseudo-anonymity or privacy.

Having a database with names attached to wallet addresses is absolutely not the way to do it. Having a database of digital signatures with public keys is a way to do it. If you email the owner of the wallet then you can communicate with them to ask them their real world identity in a private way.

I believe Keyhotee might actually solve the issue. It allows for verified trusted accounts. It does not seem to require all the centralization, but it doesn't prevent KYC either from my understanding of it. You can attach your pseudo identity to your real identity. So if you have to access a certain site and be verified it might be possible to do it without having to give out your real name to that site. You would give a public key to that site instead and it would know if your public key is on the whitelist or blacklist. That would be a way of doing it.

The philosophical debate is whether or not it should be done? I think if Bitcoins are going to be worth $100,000 each it will have to be done. At that point the richest people in the world will be large holders of Bitcoins. So all the bribery and other corruption will become a problem at some point and if democracy is to continue to exist then you cannot have anonymous money flowing around by the billions or trillions.

i tried to avoid alot of waffle in the last post, but it seems more explanation is needed so, replying to all the people that read a newspaper and take what is wrote as gospel:

STOP, CALM DOWN, RELAX.

now let me explain more detail of what my last post did not explain.
ignore the Forbes newspaper article and peoples opinions on what it means for bitcoin users. because it only causes chinese whispers.

now then:
coinvalidation does NOT want identification from every bitcoin USER link: https://coinvalidation.com/PDF_FOR_BITCOIN_USERS.pdf
coin validation wants to advise bitcoin businesses on how to become FIAT compliant, which will only affect bitcoin businesses that exchange bitcoin for DOLLARS, either for customers or for their own internal business needs. link: https://coinvalidation.com/PDF_FOR_BITCOIN_BUSINESSES.pdf

part of this is to build up a database of clean addresses of legitimate and compliant BUSINESSES not users. and a lidt of known black market withdrawal addresses.
this is so that while the "anonymous cash" still is not directly linked to an identity, government can see the source of the cash.
EG is it just 2 hops away from being mined. is it just 2 hops from being sourced from a compliant and legitimate business (clean addresses) or is it just 2 hops from a known black market.

now a bit deeper detail
everyone knows that there are only 12million coins thus far , and that in 2012 silk road transacted more then this amount over the year, meaning a large majority of well circulated coins has at some point been tainted atleast once.

this means that exchanges (being the central points of cashing in-out, profiting, etc, etc) would have alot of their mixed up pot of funds showing up as tainted. this does not make them dirty or illegal.

all coinvalidation want to do is to have a database of fully compliant BUSINESS public keys so that when customers withdraw funds, and use them elsewhere, shops can see that they were sourced from a legitimate exchange, a miner or another legitimate business.

giving the shops the freedom to accept other coins based on the taint level risk
EG if a coin is only 1 hop away from a known silk road address, they can refuse service if they chose to, based on the risk.

it is not about identifying the world population and investigating every user. only those that want to deal with FIAT, which has never changed for decades of government rules

now take your tin foil hats off,
if you actually read the government compliance rules (most established countries rules are very similar) governments do not accept/ reject/investigate every fiat transaction of every business. they request businesses to assess the risk and if deemed obvious as illegally used funds, to then and only then report it to serious crimes departments of government. this puts the onus on businesses to say
"hang on these coins are only 1 hop away from a silk road pubkey" and for the business to then look into the risk of it being a 'serious crime' before sending or not sending info to the government.

EG (A) pawnbroker in detroit. some guy comes in with a $20 bill that literally smells of drugs, he wants to buy a bit of bling. risk level of serious crime: low, requirement for AMLKYC: no
EG (B) pawnbroker in detroit. some guy comes in with a $20,000 of bills  he wants to buy a gold bar. risk level of serious crime: low Requirement of AMLKYC: yes
EG (C) pawnbroker in detroit. some guy comes in with a $20,000 of bills that smelled of drugs and he wants to buy a gold bar. risk level of serious crime: high Requirement of AMLKYC: yes

(A)the pawn broker would accept or reject the $20 based on risk, no ID required, much like any shop selling cigarettes, grocerys, etc.
(B)the pawn broker would ask for ID and other info from the $20k sale, still letting it through after the pawn broker does a quick check that the $20k serial numbers are not blacklisted.
(C)the pawn broker would request ID and check serial numbers of the drug tainted notes and make the decision to either refuse service, to report the customer, or to accept the risk and allow the sale. (third option is ill advised as it could affect the businesses licence status).

the coinvalidation service is not about getting people to write their name and zipcode onto every banknote they use, meaning that coinvalidation is not asking for identity information from every transaction and every public key.

they just want to build up a BUSINESS listing of known legit businesses and illecit businesses thus able to trace back where the funds originated.

Don't be silly. Just because one US company has a potentially bad idea you want to boycott all of America? So you think no other country could do the same thing? Did it work with the RIAA?

Yeah, just like FACTA only applies to US banks  anything that touches a US citizen or passes through US infrastructure, fibres, satellites etc will be caught up in the fucked up dragnet mentality.

If you think this wont go the same way as the NSA surveillance Orwellian nightmare you are naive in the extreme. Tin foil hats or not these guys are out-of-fucking-control and only some serious shit is going to wake the dumbass yanks up to what their government has become ... luckily the bitcoin system is not helpless against such overt (or covert) attacks, malignancy will be expelled like the cancerous growth it is, and there are many options for counter-attack. Make no mistake, this is an attack on bitcoin viability by the demonstrably most aggressive agent working against monetary freedom and peace on the planet.

Idiots like Yifu and Alex proably they have no idea they have been co-opted to work against bitcoin, yet.

No opinion on the validity of the news, but I would not put something like this past governments, especially post NSA. And appealing to peoples greed, is definitely nothing new.

If this was implemented though. Would it only apply to US merchants?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qlraj/the_future_of_bitcoin_in_the_united_states/

@OP - Resisting is futile, though very entertaining to watch.  

Feel free to share as open source comment, although I'm always happy with an original author credit!

This deserves its own post. You should put it on Reddit or a blog or something.

You need to post it in the Anecdotes section :D:D

2020:

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
Hi Dan there is a problem with the bitcoins you sent for the widget protectors you've ordered from us.

Chinawidgets.co:
Hi Bob
What's the problem - the transaction has been in the blockchain since the weekend?

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
Hi Dan
Well I'm afraid your bitcoins are blacklisted.

Chinawidgets.co:
?

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
According to CoinValidation one of the coins ancestors has been identified as a known criminal.

Chinawidgets.co:
That's terrible Dan - what did he do?

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
Well apparently he failed to pay for his medical bills then was arrested when the they tried to throw him and his family out of his house for rent arrears and he wouldn't leave on time.

Chinawidgets.co:
What a sad story - why didn't he leave?

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
Oh well his illness made him quadraplegic so he was stuck in his bed. The police arrested him for 'non-cooperation'.
Anyway that's another story - the point is I need some clean coins.

Chinawidgets.co:
Ok well can you send your ones back as I can still use them.

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
Sorry Dan I can't do that or I'll be charged with passing on stolen goods.
So I'll need some more coins. You could try sending to a fresh escrow address and we can check them that way?

Chinawidgets.co:
That's another few % Dan. And I've lost the coins I sent.
I'm already doing you a favour as I've relatives in the US and I've seen the poverty and trouble you're having on the news.

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
But you're my last customer! All the others are using African suppliers!

Chinawidgets.co:
Sorry Bob but I've got a family to feed here and bitcoins don't grow on trees.

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
 
Ok Dan.
They've bounced my visa application for Canada again.
But things are looking up for my Mexican application!

Chinawidgets.co:
That son you didn't know you had been in contact again?

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
Yep, god bless that Fernando.
Of course he wants some of my remaining bitcoins but hey, it's all family!

Chinawidgets.co:
Good luck Dan

Americanwidgetprotectors.com:
You too Bob

Given the US is something of a rogue state at the moment, I'd happily direct my BTC elsewhere, such as the EU.

... and you lot are delusional if you think KYC/AML laws are compatible with a functional monetary system .... stalemate I guess?

Edit: I guess you at least recognize where the problem lies, BitCoin supplies the mirror, not the solution, for your problems.

Bitcoin exposes how stupid those regulations are. I fully expect KYC/AML to be repealed. I also suspect at least a few governments will try to ban Bitcoin first.

Did people seriously think BTC was going to 'go main stream' while still completely flouting AML/KYC regulations?  Libertarian fantasies do not a viable currency make, if you want BTC to remain an underground thing then by all means keep existing in a legal grey area, but don't expect everyone on the planet to be using it 5 years from now.

continues grow tex usa gov

this year, many Americans abroad lost their bank accounts and stock accounts and others because of the New American Laws.  WIth more suppression to the Bitcoins, everyone except American will end up making the profit and Bitcoin continues to glow while, merchants from other countries will eat into the profits that could be made by American and pay tax for it.

It seems, USA is choking his own neck this year

OK, I really hated the tone of this post ... first who the hell are you to come here denigrating and accusing people of sniffing substance, hallucinating and hyperventilating? ... even before you get close to your point (which wasn't exactly clear) that seemed like a veiled apology for this disastrous business model because it has been 'misconstrued' by a naive journalist?

If you have a point, stick to it and cut the ad hominen crap. Point is you don't have a good argument and people are right to be terribly upset at this very bad idea and obvious outright attack on their financial privacy and the future viability of bitcoin.

Already in 1749 the courts recognised the necessity for fungibility of coin as a basic function, yet idiots over 300 years later cannot see that what the govt. is attempting to do to with money is exactly that, break fungibility. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Bitcoin is an opt out of the current broken monetary system, not the least of which is its recent terrible tracking systems layer, why the hell would bitcoin want to go back down that failed Centralised model path?!

Im not sure about the validity of this "news" and im not really a supporter of "big brother watching us"....

BUT, IF the US gov do know who ALL addresses belong to, what difference will it actually make? it is not as though US citizens have privacy anyhow.... the gov already knows pretty much all there is to be known about its citizens.
(they currently know where people live, work, play, vacate, how much money people have, earn, save, spend, what schools people went to, how well educated people are, if people have a criminal record, when and where people were born or died, health records, who peoples friends are, what TV channels people watch, and probably a shitload more!)

Other than more loss of privacy, what effect do people think this will have in reality anyhow?.... unless you are laundering money or evading your tax, it is likely to have very little effect on how we use bitcoin.

If the US gov ARE pushing for this "transparency" at least they are not pushing to ban it!

He talked about tainting a couple times. That's it. And given that he's a lawyer and not an economist, he probably didn't realize how terrible the idea was at the time. The foundation has never, and likely will never, endorse tainting.


Exchanges are already a lost cause (even the ones outside the US), precisely because they receive tons of Fiat money and integrate directly into the regular financial system. FINCEN has not claimed jurisdiction over regular merchants, who accept bitcoin as payment.


The data gathering aspect, yes. But they can only share the information that they actually know about the buyer. Digital goods merchants probably only know your email address, not your identity. But then again, the NSA can get the info even if no money changes hands at all. Hell they can get your info regardless of where you buy your stuff, because most of the shipping companies are US based, and therefore their shipping records are accessible to the Govt. This is unfortunate, but has little to do with Bitcoin

The really dangerous part of the CoinValidation initiative, is to make merchants reject funds that aren't sent from an address with an associated identity. But that can't be done in secret, because they need to tell you that you need to register and give them a bunch of info.

Again, let's not panic, I suspect that this idea will be killed off pretty quickly. We don't need to start punishing US merchants in advance just because they might decide to cooperate. We can always do it after the fact, and avoid hurting people who are on our side (despite differing tactical approaches).