Bitcoin Forum

Are those guys aware that every coin in the world most likely has gone true silkroad just like every 50 dolla bill is used to sniff cocaine or to trow at a hooker? How is it even possible that bitcoin XT is launched?
I am really losing faith in bitcoin. If it becomes centralized it isnt worth more then citybankcoin.

blacklist ?
not in the Bitcoin Network ...

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

Isn't it obvious?
We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.

Isn't it obvious?
We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.

I suggest you read up on CoinJoin and the various implementations it already has as well as the potential it offers for anonymizing coins.

We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.

Are those guys aware that every coin in the world most likely has gone true silkroad just like every 50 dolla bill is used to sniff cocaine or to trow at a hooker? How is it even possible that bitcoin XT is launched?
I am really losing faith in bitcoin. If it becomes centralized it isnt worth more then citybankcoin.

Stop spreading FUD please.

I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this).

I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B.

There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing.

How are my coins in address B still blacklisted?

I did say 'taints ... to some extent'.
The anonymity set size of a single transaction is limited by the number of parties in it, obviously.
Unless chaumian blinding, zero knowledge proofs, or something dazzling has occurred, my statement is correct.

blacklist ?
not in the Bitcoin Network ...

It is not obvious, can you explain how it would work?

Dude, 'taints' by whom?

That's not a feature of the protocol,

you can 'taint' how many coins you want, I don't care about your 'taint',

and after a few transactions you'll be unable to know who has the coins...

That's why after so many thefts no one was able to come up with a system to blacklist coins, it requires centralization and absolute control over the system.

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.


Like...oh say....torproject.org

Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.


Like...oh say....torproject.org

Yes it's pretty obvious. The Feds have lots and lots of information on all the seized darknet markets, so all they would need is a software that automatically traces the inputs and outputs and searches for coins that were used for drugs and whatnot. This will surely kill fungibility and therefore Bitcoin.

I really expect better from you Elwar.
I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all.

People are mixing up so many things on here already.

I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently.

A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others.

Does not sound very decentralized.

So, how does that answer pedrog's question?
Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose?

The question was "how could this be achieved?".

The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS.

The question was "how could this be achieved?".

The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS.

I don't understand the term "blacklisted coin".  How can be blacklisted a coin produced in the legal way? While about the bitcoin xt I have heard the opposite. The bitcoin XT is not centralized but liberalized. I'm not an expert so my word can be taken with caution but from what I have heard from a person that seems very informed is that what was happen.  

Blacklisting IPs (or giving them lower priority as is in the new XT code) can be used just the same as how the great Firewall of China works. And could easily be used to give lower priority to certain countries by IP range. Sure you can jump behind a VPN, travel to another country etc. but why allow it in the first place.

I was ok with the XT block size upgrade. It made sense. But seeing that 90% of the code differences have to do with this blacklist code and not the block size (and the fact that Mike Hearn has advocated for blacklists) tells me that this is likely not about block size after all.

I really don't like the idea of having a central web server used in what is supposed to be a decentralized system.

You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.

This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.

Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.

Here's Mike's comment on that:


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768

Yep, so I'm not the only one who sees that as a poor move. So instead of saying we should not centralize a decentralized currency, I should be coding a solution to some DoS attacks.

There is no blacklist, there are no blacklisted coins.

OP seems to have mixed up with how XT lowers the priority of a IP connection if spam transactions are found to come from it. That is not blacklisting coins.

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

Stop spreading FUD please.

I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this).

I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B.

There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing.

How are my coins in address B still blacklisted?

Dude, 'taints' by whom?

That's not a feature of the protocol, you can 'taint' how many coins you want, I don't care about your 'taint', and after a few transactions you'll be unable to know who has the coins...

That's why after so many thefts no one was able to come up with a system to blacklist coins, it requires centralization and absolute control over the system.

They can try to trace it but I don't think there was any attempt to create a blacklist.
I also believe OP is mistaking XT's proposal of IP connection priority with a wide blacklist of tainted coins

As the flow of btcs increase, ultimately any attempts to blacklist tainted coins would be similar to blacklisting all dollar bills with traces of cocaine.

blacklist ?
not in the Bitcoin Network ...

Yes, the FBI seized coins may be referred as blacklisted. But that's not actually could be implemented in bitcoin eco system. We are free from those shits.

It is possible and was discussed under the name tainting. It is similar to fiat money where you note down banknote id numbers when they were used for a robbery. You can identify the flow of every coin. So when a coin came from a scam then it could be shown.

The plan was to investigate where the owner got these coins from in order to track down the scammer.

In fact scammers would be smart and exchange somehow. The one ending with such coins would have to explain who he is or would have coins that are worth less than they are.

And yes, that is one of Hearns suggestions. It is not implemented luckily. I support the 8MB though. Only not hearn.

I know how it works, I don't think it's feasible, you will need a central authority to say which coins are tainted, if this authority is Spanish it may work for Spanish exchanges, but you can exchange those tainted coins in a Chinese exchange, wand why would they care about the guys claiming the coins were stolen in Spain?

There is not blacklisting in crypto world,coins are dieing becouse of natural death,than scamersaredoing nextcoin just by cloning code.In acase of XT ,XT is already dead, hurray,short live thay had

The idea behind JoinMarket is that holders of bitcoin will allow their coins to be mixed with in return for a fee. The mixing will happen in coinjoin transactions. They form a kind of smart contract which means your private keys will never leave your computer so there is no risk of loss (barring malware or bug*)

Put simply, JoinMarket allows you to improve the privacy of your bitcoin transactions for low fees in a decentralized fashion Because of the fee paid, owners of bitcoin will be able to earn an income using JoinMarket.

As the risk is very low, the reward will also be low because of competition between fee-earners. It means that you will be eventually able to do a coinjoin very cheaply. We already see that holders of bitcoin are willing to earn very small amounts per day by lending on the bitfinex exchange, and that contains a substantial risk that bitfinex will go disappear.

it would be a good news, less coins in circulation more value for the remaining coins

you can't ask any better, this does not mean that this value should increase, having a very few amount of coins in the end isn't ideal

blacklist coin may be removed or not used anymore   :(

I agree it would require centralization, and I don't think they will go through the pain of putting it to work.

It is doubtful that they work hard to impose an unpopular measure like that.

I will buy your blacklisted coins for 50% of the spot rate.

Are those guys aware that every coin in the world most likely has gone true silkroad just like every 50 dolla bill is used to sniff cocaine or to trow at a hooker? How is it even possible that bitcoin XT is launched?
I am really losing faith in bitcoin. If it becomes centralized it isnt worth more then citybankcoin.

I don't see how coins could ever be irrevocably blacklisted unless Bitcoin itself was hijacked in which case it doesn't matter any more because it would be worthless.

There's no shortage of voluntary blacklisting going on right now. That's easily sidestepped with a few nifty moves.

The amount of Bitcoin users is still low enough and committed enough to make a real difference by voting with their feet and shunning those who blacklist. In most cases though it's not the blacklisters who want to be doing this, it's The Man breathing down their neck.

blacklist ?
not in the Bitcoin Network ...

coins that have been blacklisted certainly is not going to be used
only a matter of time until the coin is in the clear

It Will not be blacklisted cause its BLOCKCHAIN .. It will not work , if one is blacklisted

So? It does not matter if that is blockchain or not. If you think bitcoin could be mass adopted without regulations and changes you are deceiving yourself. Government intervention in the bitcoin industry is simply inevitable. It is only matter of time, when government will start to think seriously about bitcoin your opinion will mean nothing to them.

Exactly. No one would want such coins.