Bitcoin Forum

just a quick poll so we can see some hard numbers.

There's no good reason for it except to get some large retailers to accept it, but it will obviously undermine the relative anonymity of Bitcoin. Personally, I would never do it.

Sure there is. To make Yifu's coins worth more!!

Oh yeah I forgot about that!  ;)

This little scheme isn't going to fool anyone.

it makes all coins worthless, ill be watching closely monday, someone says coin validation and I'll start pressing buttons.

this is no threat, its a fact.

Just ask yourself, what would Satoshi pick?

Coin validation and blacklisting taint, are both completely against what Bitcoin was designed to be and the ideals it was founded upon.

YES: 0%

Figures.
 ;)

I think it's actually impossible to impose this after the fact. If it had been in from the start then maybe but the guy I bought coins from could've bought coins from someone else who bought coins from someone else who stole those coins.

Are they going to say to me, "some guy used those coins to sell drugs two years ago then sold them to someone who sold them to someone else who sold them to you therefore your coins are dirty"?

Or are they trying to draw an arbitrary line after which coins are legit?

I kinda do want to see it happen, just to see it crash and burn, but otherwise it'll spare everyone's time if it didn't happen to begin with :P

No suitable option to pick. Could u add

---

Fuck these guys
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/kashmirhill/files/2013/11/Coin-Validation-300x189.jpg

---

please?

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.

So when the febs dump their bseized bitcoin, how are those bitcoin rated? Clean?

coinvalidation from reading the proposals and not the media hype are not about mike hearns idea of marking coins. but just highlighting known business addresses. so if the FBI moved DPR's funds into an FBI pubkey, it would show as low risk. if left in a active silk road pubkey, it would show as highrisk, especially if found guilty.

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!

+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.

For lack of thinking ability, spreading of misinformation, and unbased insults: Welcome to my ignore list.


ya.ya.yo!

so far we are at 92.1%

if this thing passes we have bigger problems.

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

appreciate the pov. thanks for sharing.

but road to hell etc

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..

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.

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 !

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.

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.

That one vote is from Mike Hearn! LOL
 :D

+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.

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334051.0

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

Not sure what to add. Maybe just another famous finger?
http://uppix.com/f-bush5285799300148f14.png

Bitcoin is about freedom of financial transactions.  There are times when it is helpful to make financial transactions publicly-auditable (e.g., bitcoin donations to a politician) and there are times when privacy is preferred (tipping your favourite strip-for-bitcoin girl).  I don't think this freedom can ever be taken away.

There are cases where I as a business owner may appreciate having a government-identified bitcoin address. One idea I have is real-time tax remission for our future bitcoin-based economy.  Obviously taxes will not magically go away (but I do expect they will change) but at least we can make the process of paying them less painful.  

So Joe owns a coffee shop in this new bitcoin economy.  For a discount on his VAT, he agrees to accept all consumer payment to 1JoesCoffee987272389274237.  All his suppliers are also registered with the local tax authorities.  He runs a special version of a bitcoin client that auto-deducts the VAT from all purchases to 1JoesCoffee987272389274237 and sends, say 5%, to the tax authority.  When he makes a purchase from a supplier, the tax authority sees this and immediately sends Joe his input tax credit.  Man this would save a lot of headaches!!  

The only time Joe would have to do any VAT accounting at all is if he wanted to claim input tax credits from someone not on his list.  But this is no different than the way it is now, anyways.  

Now, when Joe's 70-year old mom comes in, Joe can still choose to give her a coffee on the house.  And if Joe's mom insists on paying, Joe can say, well just pay me half and send it here: 1JoesPrivateAddress098902834.  Of course Joe gives this back to his mom in some stealth way in the future, like all good sons would.  

So it seems you maintain privacy when you need to, but simplify accounting when you don't.  Seems win-win for both business owners and tax collectors.  

Fine print:
So that the competitors of Joe can't track his income statement, this addresses could be help privately between the tax authority and the businesses somehow.  Joe could have many government-registered addresses, or perhaps just some "key" shared between him and the tax authority that specifies the alorigithm for calculating each new address.

Uhh no thanks

true, also i think it's all about taxes.. government isn't really scared of cryptos they are rather more concerned about bitcoin turning into a tax haven, remember how hard they went on UBS...?

I just accidentally clicked on the 'yes' option by mistake. Can't retract it.

Can mods retract it please?

Then it's "time to change your governments":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4J_RvP8cY

EDIT:

Something like  http://openministry.info/  might be a good start

If the government decides they want businesses to report what Bitcoin addresses they are using and who has sent them money then businesses shall move to another country. (Of course, at least one country has to remain free.) If the businesses will enforce deanonymization then they will lose customers who value anonymity (and perhaps gain new ones who value bigger government control) in favor of those business that will not enforce it. The customers angry because of necessity of doing business with companies in some "foreign obscure" (but more liberal) country should push their governments to change things.
Seems quite fair to me.

Bitcoin was not meant to be like this.

Bitcoin is FREEDOM.

Getting into bed with the establishment will kill Bitcoin.  It will just be the same old same old, the majority getting screwed.

Have a read of the link below, Bitcoin will go the same way.

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303559504579198370113163530-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwNTExNDUyWj

Well, they never represented me.  Just like the club in Washington that won all the popularity contests: I never voted for them, I didn't delegate any authority to them, I didn't engage in any activity authorizing them to represent me, and any statements to the contrary are simply lies.

HAHAHHA tell me when thepiratebay is shut down

governments CANNOT kill bitcoin

governments CANNOT regulate bitcoin unless we allow it

How about we blacklist every coin Yifu mined with the "delayed" batch 2 Avalon miners :).

Governments will simply be ignored , if forced in the U.S.A
The U.S.A will be forced out ,,,
its just that simple.

Unfortunately the Achilles' heel of Bitcoin is the exchanges. If Bitcoins cannot be bought or sold into flat easily, then they are next to useless. It will remain a small niche market which it cannot escape.

Unfortunately a compromise is going to have to be made somehow, or the banks/governments will simply clamp down on the exchanges.

You can always create exchanges based in..i don't know, Uganda or some other country where they don't give a fu*k about US...USA is not only country in world...so you can send fiat there..exchange it for bitcoins...there always will be some ways...you just need the courage to try it...but the thing is, it would not be mainstream. I can't imagine bitcoin being #1 world currency while being banned in more countries..i think now it is the most important time in the existance of bitcoin....Would you sacriface your privacy for btc going mainstream or would you sacriface btc going mainstream for your privacy?

Problem with foundation (only few members) I have is, that governments didn't even ask for this (maybe they did, but don't know about it, if yes, i am sorry and ignore this post) and bitcoin foundation would likely to implement it to "please" the governments before they even ask for it...and i have very strong feeling that they (bitcoin foundation) want to make a decisions (even in future important decisioins) despite bitcoin community opinion...if this will hapen...We should change bitcoin foundation, because i don't think they can change the community...compromise? Maybe, but they should ask the community first, not other members of the foundation because it looks like they think they are like VIP group, something more than average btc user....they can't wonder there is this reaction from our community members going on here...and if they wonder...again, maybe there should be some changes in bitcoin foundation board members...right now we have big lack of communication

Well since everyone voted no I guess we are safe for now.

Its a little scary the way Bitcoin is SUPPOSED to be an uncontrollable opt-in system, but in reality depends on mass opinion... unless you just want to trade with yourself.

I mean lets say:
1. You have Bitcoins and/or a Bitcoin business.
2. General public adopts Bitcoin.
3. General public, with a healthy government shove, changes Bitcoin - say adds blacklisting.

What do you do now? Leave your money? Stop your business?

Scary how quickly our revolution could end if people are stupid enough.

Yes, and you can see in this thread the people who will allow it.  Because it's "inevitable".  Because they want to comply with the government. Because they are scared.  Because they put greed over principle.  

Frankly, I don't care about what the people do with bitcoin v.0.8.  They almost certainly will turn it into Govtcoin.  But the genie is out of the bottle.  The true bitcoin is in our very immediate future, and it will UTTERLY DESTROY states around the world.

Careful what you wish for.

Don't worry, I've thought it through quite carefully.  You have nothing to lose but your chains  ;)

Why don't you take a couple of hours to appreciate the genius of Murray Rothbard:
https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

It'll put your mind at ease.

I've no problem with a private company doing this. I don;t see why a non-profit is getting involved unless $$$ lobbyists have got to them.

Maybe a better idea (than destroying states) is to regain influence in the law making process.

Something like  http://openministry.info/  might be a good start.

Stop allowing possible regulation of bitcoin. The answer should be No, by everyone.

Uh, no, why should the people next door to me have power to make laws that infringe my rights to life, liberty, or property?

This is just wrong. Feels like the foundation (or the members who are going for coin validation) is acting similar to the governments.

The answer is clearly "no".

+1 please do not implement Coinvalidation

If we have coin validation, wouldn't that make cash more anonymous? Freaking cash!?

That all depends if people want Bitcoin to go mainstream or not. We will all have to make a choice at some point, sooner rather than later my guess.

Well regulation to a certain degree is okay. The US government or bitcoin foundation trying to push their ways, that's a no no.

It is awesome seeing how the community is against the oppressive systems around the world.  Lets keep up the good fight.  Bitcoin for Freedom.

the foundation is ( or should be ) the voice of the community, and should be actively pointing out how Coin Validation won't do any good for anyone ( not even the government )

it wont stop money laundering , they keep telling us " don't worry all you have to do is mix your coins and you are safe " outrageous!

it wont do any good, in fact it will most likely always red flag innocent people. Because innocent  people will think their coins are good ( after all they got them legitimately ) and always let criminals through because they know how easy it is to by bass coin validation

you have to be stupid to think coin validation is good FOR ANYONE! its total CRAP and it must be stopped

I am soo mad the foundation is not backing 92% of the community.

Where's the Chinese mafia when you need them? :D

Maybe eventually the U.S. government will just topple over from all the meddling they get into everything they can possibly find.

+1

Yet they seem like they don't care what the community thinks/wants.

The goal does not justify the means!
Additionally, bitcoin is regulated. Algorithmically by the mathematical rules. Everyone who wants currency regulated by the governments, subjective people values, various concepts of justice, according to consequences and policies, etc. has (far too many) alternatives.
Please keep bitcoin an alternative for those who desire no such thing.

nope.jpg

You messed the quotes up, that was adamstgBit quote.

crap. just going to delete it.

Guys,

Time to push for the Dark Wallet and similar concepts, if we do not want to see Bitcoin either killed or become just another tool in the system arsenal.

Thanks
Raphael