Fuck these guys
please?
Not sure what to add. Maybe just another famous finger?
Topic: Vote No for Coin Validation! - page 3. (Read 6172 times)
Fuck these guys
please?
Not sure what to add. Maybe just another famous finger?
Here's my question: What choice do we have?
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
I think coin/address tracking is inevitable. It's the best way for governments to gain some control over bitcoin (I'm not saying it's a good thing).
But here's what I think about it. I think if governments are going to mandate that coins/addresses be tracked and attached to real-world identities, then the government should accept responsibility for when (not if) that data is leaked/stolen from the centralized servers that store it.
Upcoming built-in mixing will prevent this
Here's my question: What choice do we have?
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
I think coin/address tracking is inevitable. It's the best way for governments to gain some control over bitcoin (I'm not saying it's a good thing).
But here's what I think about it. I think if governments are going to mandate that coins/addresses be tracked and attached to real-world identities, then the government should accept responsibility for when (not if) that data is leaked/stolen from the centralized servers that store it.
Keep voting guys, I made a topic on the bitcoin foundation forum with a link here:
Me, and many others in the bitcoin community are deeply concerned about Mike Hearn pushing for coin taint. We feel that if the Bitcoin Foundation is even going to consider mentioning this in the upcoming government meeting, that we can no longer stand behind them. This is serious. Coin taint is even worse than increasing the 21 million limit. Since the chairman of Law and Policy is involved here, I would like to call for a vote against this, and a clear stance from the Bitcoin Foundation. I know many of the board members are supporters of mixing coins even more, so something like this can never happen again. It would be a good message to the bitcoin community to confirm that the foundation supports keeping coins anonymous, instead of going in the opposite direction.
Ongoing VOTE on coin taint: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vote-no-for-coin-validation-334051
Me, and many others in the bitcoin community are deeply concerned about Mike Hearn pushing for coin taint. We feel that if the Bitcoin Foundation is even going to consider mentioning this in the upcoming government meeting, that we can no longer stand behind them. This is serious. Coin taint is even worse than increasing the 21 million limit. Since the chairman of Law and Policy is involved here, I would like to call for a vote against this, and a clear stance from the Bitcoin Foundation. I know many of the board members are supporters of mixing coins even more, so something like this can never happen again. It would be a good message to the bitcoin community to confirm that the foundation supports keeping coins anonymous, instead of going in the opposite direction.
Ongoing VOTE on coin taint: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vote-no-for-coin-validation-334051
This is done already, we've seen hacked bitcoins tracked and blacklisted by exchanges - for a while at least.
+1. I really don't see what all of the hype is about - unless the proposal is to remove some anonymity features from the blockchain itself. From what I have seen, seems like Mike's proposal was to integrate a Bitcoin wallet with a 3-party redlisting service. Which is a perfectly fine thing to do. Would be even better if multiple competing redlisting services were supported. If somebody dislikes the feature, they would be free to use or support another wallet. As long as the existing blockchain features are kept intact, people have the right to slap anything they like on top of that.
A list of "trusted" and "suspicious" addresses might be useful to maintain somewhere. A list of addresses which might have stolen bitcoins (including the bitcoins stolen by the government) might be useful to maintain somewhere.
That one vote is from Mike Hearn! LOL
Registered Bitcoin addresses are not that bad. You can have a non-registered address and use CoinJoin to send bitcoins to the registered address. What IS a problem is tracking tainted coins and creating redlists for the transaction chains, which have nothing to do with address registration. Taint tracking is a serious issue.
Redlists can be perhaps acceptable if it's only for detecting very high taint. This is done already, we've seen hacked bitcoins tracked and blacklisted by exchanges - for a while at least. The problems arise when redlists are expanded to include more than just the "very hot" coins. That would be a disaster.
Redlists can be perhaps acceptable if it's only for detecting very high taint. This is done already, we've seen hacked bitcoins tracked and blacklisted by exchanges - for a while at least. The problems arise when redlists are expanded to include more than just the "very hot" coins. That would be a disaster.
Here's my question: What choice do we have?
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
the redlisting - mike hearn idea.. will kill bitcoin, tainting coins and having people then required to publicise themselves to reclean the coin wont work. what makes me even more furious is bitcoin has no country. so why does mike hearn think US congress is the best government to seek legitimacy (word used VERY losely).. why not a country with less strict criteria. EG switzerland.. imagine it, businesses following switzerlands regulations. thus we still get the legitimacy that exchanges are being run correctly, but with the financial freedoms that USA would never have.
mike hearn should definetely not have been picked as a legal advocate.
Here's my question: What choice do we have?
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
the foundation is not representing us anymore.
no one wants to see coin validation or red-list ideas to be worked on, and look who's doing the deed!
WTF is going on !
Here's my question: What choice do we have?
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using (say, on a new virtual currencies tax form), and who has sent them money and who they have sent money to, it will effectively de-anonymize the whole network. Businesses couldn't operate legitimately without compliance, and businesses who complied would effectively rat out all of those who didn't.
If the government decides to implement it, it wouldn't be hard to get enough businesses onboard to make it eventually fully effective.
I agree this would effectively kill Bitcoin - no one wants every financial transaction they make to be aired to the public. Basically, the government is in control of Bitcoin's future.
i personally didnt join the hysteria train. instead i went on the look beyond the newspaper train, and followed down the tracks till i reached investigate furtherville.
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
For lack of thinking ability, spreading of misinformation, and unbased insults: Welcome to my ignore list.
ya.ya.yo!
no harm done..
unbased insults... bitcoinica, run by a teenager(Zhou Tong), no regulation when handling FIAT funds. and then ran off with peoples money..
spreading of misinformation... i can see atleast 100 posts under 4 different threads of this topic from people that just chinese whispered to each other the forbes article.
lack of thinking ability... well it doesnt take a rocket scientist to look passed propoganda, i give you that. just wish the other 100 posters that take media as gospel atleast researched at a level above a fish brain to come to the same conclusion as me..
So when the febs dump their bseized bitcoin, how are those bitcoin rated? Clean?
i personally didnt join the hysteria train. instead i went on the look beyond the newspaper train, and followed down the tracks till i reached investigate furtherville.
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
* by making it easier to recognise high risk transactions EG 2 hops from silk road or recognise safe transactions EG 20 hops from silk road or 2 hops from bitstamp. makes it easier for businesses to assess the need to throw paperwork around the office as useless paper aeroplanes due to low risks or use them to inform fincen of serious money laundering.
i have then come to the conclusion that its soo easy to mix coins dilute taint* that in the end coinvalidation will become useless
*by transacting with 20 other addresses owned by an individual to increase hops/decrease taint. to then put into an coinvalidation accredded exchange, (not converting to fiat) but after waiting a few confirms withdrawing BTC from that exchange as clean coins(mixer) .. to then put into a new exchange to withdraw as FIAT without issues.
appreciate the pov. thanks for sharing.
but road to hell etc
there are 2 topics today
coinvalidation - purely business advisors to aid legitimate businesses identify risk
mike hearns redlisting - making each coin marked as dirty or clean.
im more concerned and worried about mike hearn... this idea of his will ruin bitcoin. where as coinvalidation will weed out the scam businesses and blackmarkets from giving bitcoin a bad name
coinvalidation - purely business advisors to aid legitimate businesses identify risk
mike hearns redlisting - making each coin marked as dirty or clean.
im more concerned and worried about mike hearn... this idea of his will ruin bitcoin. where as coinvalidation will weed out the scam businesses and blackmarkets from giving bitcoin a bad name
so far we are at 92.1%
if this thing passes we have bigger problems.
if this thing passes we have bigger problems.
i personally didnt join the hysteria train. instead i went on the look beyond the newspaper train, and followed down the tracks till i reached investigate furtherville.
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
For lack of thinking ability, spreading of misinformation, and unbased insults: Welcome to my ignore list.
ya.ya.yo!
once people ignore the media propoganda and look at what coinvalidation actually proposes
EG
not redlisting coins (thats mike hearns idea not coinvalidation... two separate subjects)
not adding ID info to every users pubkeys (thats a hysteria idea from who knows where it originated, but obviously a conspiracy fanboy)
not making coins unusable. (coinvalidation and exchanges are businesses. not government or banks. only a bank/court order or fincen can demand funds to be 'frozen'
not going to become a REQUIREMENT of bitcoin ecosystem (coinvalidation are a business, they are NOT judge dredd.. they are not the law)
not affecting businesses that do not deal with FIAT on behalf of customers
but instead
to have a santa's naughty and nice list of BUSINESS OWNED addresses. to make it easier for exchanges to rate the risk of transactions by being able to put checks in place to for instance:
report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has only a 2 hop TXID from silk road. as being high risk *
or
not to report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has a 20 hop TXID from silk road. due to being low risk *
to advise the bitcoin businesses that deal with FIAT on behalf of customers to comply with the same fiat regulations that have been around for decades
* businesses themselves will pick what they classify as high or low risk as park of their compliance handbook
i see no problems with coinvalidations current proposals. but reading other threads about mike hearn wanting the actual coins redlisted... now that is a bold and obsurd idea to even conceive.
EG
not redlisting coins (thats mike hearns idea not coinvalidation... two separate subjects)
not adding ID info to every users pubkeys (thats a hysteria idea from who knows where it originated, but obviously a conspiracy fanboy)
not making coins unusable. (coinvalidation and exchanges are businesses. not government or banks. only a bank/court order or fincen can demand funds to be 'frozen'
not going to become a REQUIREMENT of bitcoin ecosystem (coinvalidation are a business, they are NOT judge dredd.. they are not the law)
not affecting businesses that do not deal with FIAT on behalf of customers
but instead
to have a santa's naughty and nice list of BUSINESS OWNED addresses. to make it easier for exchanges to rate the risk of transactions by being able to put checks in place to for instance:
report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has only a 2 hop TXID from silk road. as being high risk *
or
not to report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has a 20 hop TXID from silk road. due to being low risk *
to advise the bitcoin businesses that deal with FIAT on behalf of customers to comply with the same fiat regulations that have been around for decades
* businesses themselves will pick what they classify as high or low risk as park of their compliance handbook
i see no problems with coinvalidations current proposals. but reading other threads about mike hearn wanting the actual coins redlisted... now that is a bold and obsurd idea to even conceive.
+1 to this. This (a) doesn't seem that nefarious to me and (b) there really isn't any way to prevent somebody from doing this sort of thing. Don't support them, or do business with them, whatever. But this has been inevitable for a long time, and I don't think it's that big a deal.
So when the febs dump their bseized bitcoin, how are those bitcoin rated? Clean?
i personally didnt join the hysteria train. instead i went on the look beyond the newspaper train, and followed down the tracks till i reached investigate furtherville.
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
* by making it easier to recognise high risk transactions EG 2 hops from silk road or recognise safe transactions EG 20 hops from silk road or 2 hops from bitstamp. makes it easier for businesses to assess the need to throw paperwork around the office as useless paper aeroplanes due to low risks or use them to inform fincen of serious money laundering.
i have then come to the conclusion that its soo easy to mix coins dilute taint* that in the end coinvalidation will become useless
*by transacting with 20 other addresses owned by an individual to increase hops/decrease taint. to then put into an coinvalidation accredded exchange, (not converting to fiat) but after waiting a few confirms withdrawing BTC from that exchange as clean coins(mixer) .. to then put into a new exchange to withdraw as FIAT without issues.
you think they will stop their?
this is one baby step i will not take!
So when the febs dump their bseized bitcoin, how are those bitcoin rated? Clean?
i personally didnt join the hysteria train. instead i went on the look beyond the newspaper train, and followed down the tracks till i reached investigate furtherville.
knowing coinvalidation is just a VOLUNTARY tool of business advisors to help businesses dealing with FIAT exchanges to become compliant* is much needed, especially when some of these exchanges are/have been run by teenage basement dwellers and other people that do not know FIAT laws in regards to handling the fiat side of their exchange
* by making it easier to recognise high risk transactions EG 2 hops from silk road or recognise safe transactions EG 20 hops from silk road or 2 hops from bitstamp. makes it easier for businesses to assess the need to throw paperwork around the office as useless paper aeroplanes due to low risks or use them to inform fincen of serious money laundering.
i have then come to the conclusion that its soo easy to mix coins dilute taint* that in the end coinvalidation will become useless
*by transacting with 20 other addresses owned by an individual to increase hops/decrease taint. to then put into an coinvalidation accredded exchange, (not converting to fiat) but after waiting a few confirms withdrawing BTC from that exchange as clean coins(mixer) .. to then put into a new exchange to withdraw as FIAT without issues.
once people ignore the media propoganda and look at what coinvalidation actually proposes
EG
not redlisting coins (thats mike hearns idea not coinvalidation... two separate subjects)
not adding ID info to every users pubkeys (thats a hysteria idea from who knows where it originated, but obviously a conspiracy fanboy)
not making coins unusable. (coinvalidation and exchanges are businesses. not government or banks. only a bank/court order or fincen can demand funds to be 'frozen'
not going to become a REQUIREMENT of bitcoin ecosystem (coinvalidation are a business, they are NOT judge dredd.. they are not the law)
not affecting businesses that do not deal with FIAT on behalf of customers
but instead
to have a santa's naughty and nice list of BUSINESS OWNED addresses. to make it easier for exchanges to rate the risk of transactions by being able to put checks in place to for instance:
report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has only a 2 hop TXID from silk road. as being high risk *
or
not to report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has a 20 hop TXID from silk road. due to being low risk *
to advise the bitcoin businesses that deal with FIAT on behalf of customers to comply with the same fiat regulations that have been around for decades
* businesses themselves will pick what they classify as high or low risk as park of their compliance handbook
i see no problems with coinvalidations current proposals. but reading other threads about mike hearn wanting the actual coins redlisted... now that is a bold and obsurd idea to even conceive.
EG
not redlisting coins (thats mike hearns idea not coinvalidation... two separate subjects)
not adding ID info to every users pubkeys (thats a hysteria idea from who knows where it originated, but obviously a conspiracy fanboy)
not making coins unusable. (coinvalidation and exchanges are businesses. not government or banks. only a bank/court order or fincen can demand funds to be 'frozen'
not going to become a REQUIREMENT of bitcoin ecosystem (coinvalidation are a business, they are NOT judge dredd.. they are not the law)
not affecting businesses that do not deal with FIAT on behalf of customers
but instead
to have a santa's naughty and nice list of BUSINESS OWNED addresses. to make it easier for exchanges to rate the risk of transactions by being able to put checks in place to for instance:
report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has only a 2 hop TXID from silk road. as being high risk *
or
not to report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has a 20 hop TXID from silk road. due to being low risk *
to advise the bitcoin businesses that deal with FIAT on behalf of customers to comply with the same fiat regulations that have been around for decades
* businesses themselves will pick what they classify as high or low risk as park of their compliance handbook
i see no problems with coinvalidations current proposals. but reading other threads about mike hearn wanting the actual coins redlisted... now that is a bold and obsurd idea to even conceive.
So when the febs dump their bseized bitcoin, how are those bitcoin rated? Clean?
once people ignore the media propoganda and look at what coinvalidation actually proposes
EG
not redlisting coins (thats mike hearns idea not coinvalidation... two separate subjects)
not adding ID info to every users pubkeys (thats a hysteria idea from who knows where it originated, but obviously a conspiracy fanboy)
not making coins unusable. (coinvalidation and exchanges are businesses. not government or banks. only a bank/court order or fincen can demand funds to be 'frozen'
not going to become a REQUIREMENT of bitcoin ecosystem (coinvalidation are a business, they are NOT judge dredd.. they are not the law)
not affecting businesses that do not deal with FIAT on behalf of customers
but instead
to have a santa's naughty and nice list of BUSINESS OWNED addresses. to make it easier for exchanges to rate the risk of transactions by being able to put checks in place to for instance:
report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has only a 2 hop TXID from silk road. as being high risk *
or
not to report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has a 20 hop TXID from silk road. due to being low risk *
to advise the bitcoin businesses that deal with FIAT on behalf of customers to comply with the same fiat regulations that have been around for decades
* businesses themselves will pick what they classify as high or low risk as park of their compliance handbook
i see no problems with coinvalidations current proposals. but reading other threads about mike hearn wanting the actual coins redlisted... now that is a bold and obsurd idea to even conceive.
EG
not redlisting coins (thats mike hearns idea not coinvalidation... two separate subjects)
not adding ID info to every users pubkeys (thats a hysteria idea from who knows where it originated, but obviously a conspiracy fanboy)
not making coins unusable. (coinvalidation and exchanges are businesses. not government or banks. only a bank/court order or fincen can demand funds to be 'frozen'
not going to become a REQUIREMENT of bitcoin ecosystem (coinvalidation are a business, they are NOT judge dredd.. they are not the law)
not affecting businesses that do not deal with FIAT on behalf of customers
but instead
to have a santa's naughty and nice list of BUSINESS OWNED addresses. to make it easier for exchanges to rate the risk of transactions by being able to put checks in place to for instance:
report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has only a 2 hop TXID from silk road. as being high risk *
or
not to report to fincen a 25BTC to FIAT transfer which the BTC has a 20 hop TXID from silk road. due to being low risk *
to advise the bitcoin businesses that deal with FIAT on behalf of customers to comply with the same fiat regulations that have been around for decades
* businesses themselves will pick what they classify as high or low risk as park of their compliance handbook
i see no problems with coinvalidations current proposals. but reading other threads about mike hearn wanting the actual coins redlisted... now that is a bold and obsurd idea to even conceive.
Jump to: