|
Title: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: TheoryOfBitcoin on November 15, 2013, 12:08:41 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture.
It is VERY important that you understand what is going on behind closed doors of the Bitcoin Foundation. I am absolutely disgusted by the approach the foundation is taking to make Bitcoin no longer an open payments system, but rather a restricted, locked down platform with central control in the form of the current certificate authority structure, blacklisting of Bitcoins, reversing transactions and much more. It always starts off small - like a UI that tells you coins are no longer fungible. It will lead into a locked down Bitcoin - that the rich wants. PLEASE READ SATOSHI'S BITCOIN WHITE PAPER. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf This Is What Bitcoin Stands For. No trusted central authorities like Verisign. No transaction "meditating" or reversing. No blacklists of bitcoin - bitcoins must be fungible. ------- DUMP ------ http://uppit.com/qu6jyr37eata (fastest?) http://depositfiles.com/files/z6shx9x8d http://www.putlocker.com/file/55BC84500FAC90FE ----------------------- Included: A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation A network of your peers - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 2 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 3 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 4 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - General - Bitcoin Foundation Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation Just in case you think Bitcoin has it hard with AML laws - General - Bitcoin Foundation Position C.1 - Selectively mediated transactions are good for consumer protection - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation ----------------------- Also please read this. Quote Preface: Your upvotes contribute to his google search. I believe it is worth exposing each person in this new CoInvalidation team. Yifu is a dishonest criminal of bitcoins, dollars, time, and his actions speak to a nefarious character. Google him, it's been covered. Well, what about the other guys? The coin purse, cofounder, and government connections guy is Matthew Mellon. First, let me preface this with saying Matt has really great family lawyers. They have attacked (and removed) a lot of articles exposing him and reporting on his past. If you report on this on your blog, he will send legal to come after you. So, who is Matt? Matthew Mellon is part of one of America’s most influential and wealthy families — with ties like Gulf Oil, Carnegie Mellon University and Alcoa. Matthew inherited a $25 million trust fund at only 21, and started blowing it on cocaine, guns, celebrity company, and whatever other ridiculous or dangerous things he could get his hands on. He almost overdosed, and instead of reforming, he divorced his wife went back to hit the slopes some more. He fired his next fiancee, and left her financially dry, only to jump to another woman shortly after. Some stuff he's done that went public: Matthew Mellon historically had a nasty breakup which exposed his crack, cocaine, and business embezzlement. Matthew Mellon is friends enough with this ex-Paris Hilton boyfriend asshat, having borrowed him funds which also funded Brandon's drug use. Matthew Mellon was likely involved in a hacking scandal which his lawyers cleaned up nicely. The problem with making a website also apologize is it leaves traces. Matthew Mellon also threatened lawsuit to take another article down here. "the wealthy Matthew Mellon thought they needn't act as average people, so instead they've, through their attorneys, tried to scare us." A report still up shows that Matthew Mellon allegedly hired wire-tapping on his ex-wife. Do you trust him with your validation? On further research, he was arrested and charged. For you political folks, I will let you make your own decision on Matthew Mellon's contributions to Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. He has donated both separately (majorly to Ryan) and combined. This includes the defunding of Medicare and Medicaid. I'm sure I could keep digging wonderful things, but this post is getting too fucking long. Matthew Mellon, and associates [Alex Waters & Yufi Guo, if you read this: fuck. you. Alex Waters, you're next. And Kashmir Hill - thanks for your previous exposure but you are a shill. Your spin shows your lack of spine and willingness to suck the institutionalized finance dick. Fuck you too. ----------------------- BOYCOTT anything that places control of bitcoin to any authority (Verisign, US FinCEN, Bitcoin Foundation or Anything) - instead of being a very decentralized payment network and digital currency. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: AlexNeto on November 15, 2013, 12:13:50 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream.
Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: TheoryOfBitcoin on November 15, 2013, 12:18:45 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. We do not need alternate blockchains. There is only one Bitcoin. The real Bitcoin, as stated in the design paper, has fungible Bitcoins. The real Bitcoin, as stated in the design paper, has no authorities regulating it. The real Bitcoin, as stated in the design paper, has irreversible transactions. Anything that changes away from these 3 principles is not Bitcoin, despite what they may call itself. You (yes you) is a thousand times more powerful than the Bitcoin Foundation. Boycott any modification that makes Bitcoin no longer Bitcoin. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: kwest on November 15, 2013, 01:06:41 PM Thank you very much for this public service. It's sad that things like this need to get leaked because it's behind closed doors. But if that's the case; so be it.
I'm going to read this through now so that I can form my own opinion about this. As should everyone. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: greBit on November 15, 2013, 01:48:39 PM Mike's argument is that Redlisting is not blacklisting because
Quote But in no circumstance would you be expected to say "I won't accept those coins". Heres a quote from Mike talking about the implications of CryptoLocker (CL) using a mixing service in order evade the Redlisting mechanism. Quote This program would presumably be public, so CL would respond. The most obvious counter-move is to use a public mixing service like the one run by blockchain.info. These mixes aren't truly P2P, so the b.i server (or clients) could check and refuse to mix marked coins Bit of a contradiction :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: lucaspm98 on November 15, 2013, 01:51:10 PM Thank you so much, I will be reading all of this. We need to deal will this swiftly and fiercely, it could undermine the whole Bitcoin initiative.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Moebius327 on November 15, 2013, 01:52:05 PM Mike Hearn should be casted away into oblivion.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: harlemx on November 15, 2013, 01:54:55 PM They are destroying the work of satoshi which aimed decentralized currency. Maybe its time to find a new bitcoin developers.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: kwest on November 15, 2013, 02:00:05 PM Simply put; I agree with Peter Todd. Nothing else to add.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Come-from-Beyond on November 15, 2013, 02:02:37 PM They are destroying the work of satoshi which aimed decentralized currency. Maybe its time to find a new bitcoin developers. What useful was added into Satoshi's client since the foundation was created? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: pajak666 on November 15, 2013, 02:03:09 PM Can you post it in less suspicious (trojan free) form?
like plain text files? could this be the counter solution? http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: siameze on November 15, 2013, 02:09:04 PM Can you post it in less suspicious (trojan free) form? Yes I would also rather see this in a plaintext form if possible.like plain text files? could this be the counter solution? http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: TheoryOfBitcoin on November 15, 2013, 02:25:11 PM It's in html format so spacing, avatars, titles, etc are preserved. It is simply HTML saved, any malware would have to be a browser zero day.
Please feel free to host the html files on your server if you would like to make the information more accessible. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: MicroGuy on November 15, 2013, 02:25:53 PM In my view, this "redlist" process has already gained enough steam that it will be implemented in one form or another.
If Satoshi were still in this 3d reality I'm sure he would be opposed to this ridiculous perverting of his ideal and supportive of altcoins that are true to the principles of freedom and independence. Bitcoin is now the bloated IBM of the 1970's and destined to become a secondary player to these emerging altcoins stars. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Painful Truth on November 15, 2013, 02:28:00 PM Regarding Matthew Mellon this is also interesting:
Research into founder of CoinVaildation http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qoe8c/research_into_founder_of_coinvaildation/ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 02:46:38 PM So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit.
It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword. I don't want anything that's been proposed but I can see the need for a good digital identity system. There are good reasons to keep it off the blockchain - it could even be a bitcoin derivative run by miners. It could be required for high value transactions or purchasing of certain items, e.g. alcohol. There are many ramifications and many issues it will raise. Issues of data protection, even more and much easier identity theft, the US knowing far too much about everyone, issues getting verified, centralised entities in control, etc etc etc. I also think that something in this area is inevitable, it's about finding the least damaging way to do it. I would not want it coming from the likes of Yifu et al but that doesn't take away from the importance of discussing it with an open mind rather than immediately jumping into personal attacks and invalid conclusions. For reference: I am not a foundation member and I do not want to see any of this. However, I recognise that there is a problem and that lawmakers worldwide are going to mandate some form of identity regulation on all cryptocurrencies for taxation and criminal purposes. Whether it remains just with exchanges or more expansive I don't know, but at the very least I'd expect all commercial purchases > $10,000 (e.g. houses, cars) to have some form of reporting requirement, just as banks have to report similar things. The status quo isn't going to work. Saying that Bitcoin will just get on with things anyway isn't true. Bitcoin would become a black market device while another crypto - perhaps more centralised and horrible, would become mainstream. Most people out there don't care about all this, they just want to have/spend money, that's what people here don't realise. Similarly, enacting any of these solutions will push criminals into black market currencies, extensive identity theft, and new technologies. It will, however, improve the situation for law enforcement and the taxation authorities (yes you have to pay tax; no it's not up for discussion here). It will also prevent the Bin Laden situation I describe, for which you could also write cryptolocker etc. Please don't shoot me, just have the discussion about the problem and suggest solutions. EDITED TO ADD: Please also consider that businesses working within Bitcoin, not just in the US, are the guys under fire until this area is sorted. If cryptolocker sends funds to Mt Gox, Mt Gox are then knowingly dealing with money raised illegally, or in other cases through theft. This is no different to if you accepted cash which you know had been obtained by illegal means (IANAL - correct me if I'm wrong someone). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: proudhon on November 15, 2013, 02:48:45 PM So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit. It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. This. The level of freak-out going on around here is extraordinary. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: p2pbucks on November 15, 2013, 02:54:52 PM So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit. It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword. I don't want anything that's been proposed but I can see the need for a good digital identity system. There are good reasons to keep it off the blockchain - it could even be a bitcoin derivative run by miners. It could be required for high value transactions or purchasing of certain items, e.g. alcohol. There are many ramifications and many issues it will raise. Issues of data protection, even more and much easier identity theft, the US knowing far too much about everyone, issues getting verified, centralised entities in control, etc etc etc. I also think that something in this area is inevitable, it's about finding the least damaging way to do it. I would not want it coming from the likes of Yifu et al but that doesn't take away from the importance of discussing it with an open mind rather than immediately jumping into personal attacks and invalid conclusions. For reference: I am not a foundation member and I do not want to see any of this. However, I recognise that there is a problem and that lawmakers worldwide are going to mandate some form of identity regulation on all cryptocurrencies for taxation and criminal purposes. Whether it remains just with exchanges or more expansive I don't know, but at the very least I'd expect all commercial purchases > $10,000 (e.g. houses, cars) to have some form of reporting requirement, just as banks have to report similar things. The status quo isn't going to work. Saying that Bitcoin will just get on with things anyway isn't true. Bitcoin would become a black market device while another crypto - perhaps more centralised and horrible, would become mainstream. Most people out there don't care about all this, they just want to have/spend money, that's what people here don't realise. Similarly, enacting any of these solutions will push criminals into black market currencies, extensive identity theft, and new technologies. It will, however, improve the situation for law enforcement and the taxation authorities (yes you have to pay tax; no it's not up for discussion here). It will also prevent the Bin Laden situation I describe, for which you could also write cryptolocker etc. Please don't shoot me, just have the discussion about the problem and suggest solutions. you are out of the topic . The truth is Laden bought weapons using USD not bitcoin ,so why not ban USD worldwide ? Because it's not money's fault . Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: CanaryInTheMine on November 15, 2013, 02:57:36 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: 00null on November 15, 2013, 02:58:52 PM Support CoinJoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0)
Donate to the CoinJoin bounty fund: https://blockchain.info/address/3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk (https://blockchain.info/address/3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk) CoinJoin needs to be nicely implemented in Bitcoin-Qt before any of these ridiculous blacklist proposals take off. So for the next 30 days, I will match donations to the CoinJoin bounty fund (3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk), up to a maximum of 5 BTC. Just donate to that address, and in 30 days I'll donate the difference between the current received amount (16.21420773) and the received amount at that time (max 5 BTC). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ajax3592 on November 15, 2013, 02:58:59 PM What uniqueness about Bitcoin will be left if it remains no more an open source currency ?
It will turn useless and won't serve the actual purpose that Satoshi made it to Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Mooshire on November 15, 2013, 03:01:21 PM Boycott the foundation. They don't deserve to represent the community when they make decisions against us.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:12:20 PM Everyone: Stop and actually read and take in what's being discussed. It's like villagers with torches and pitchforks burning anyone who has a broomstick. There is nothing being pushed forwards here and most of those people stand to lose out if bad things are done to Bitcoin. They are not stupid. The grief that Mike is getting is utterly ridiculous.
p2pbucks - You've missed my point entirely. Of course all this can be done in USD and of course banks have laundered money etc etc etc. The point was that they don't do it in full view of the entire world. The moment it is in full view of everyone, the media and politicians and 'the people' will be whipped up into hysteria. This will happen, it's inevitable. It may not be terrorism, it may be theft or extortion. There is some awesome stuff in the posts provided in the leak. Take care to read them. For example (on redlists): Quote Moreover, I think the "redlisting" of coins is a slippery slope. Here is how things could progress: You start with informing people of coins that were used for crime People start discriminating against tainted coins Someone from the US government would have the bright idea of redlisting coins that passed through wallets of "terrorist organizations", so say Wikileaks gets redlisted People that don't know better can't tell a difference between coins redlisted for crimes and ones redlisted by politicians for "war on terror", so they discriminate against them both. Term "terrorist" or whatever is the flavour of the month gets extended to more and more organizations that are inconvenient for the US - Anonymous, some foreign journalists that report on war crimes, government of a country that is "at war" with US or "harbouring terrorists", etc. Soon the redlist becomes a political tool - we start discriminating against the grey area. Say some place does research on human embryos or human cloning in a country where that is legal, but since some western country thinks that their law trumps over regional law, they start redlisting their addresses. Transactions and addresses are started to be added to it indiscriminately because some government agency says they are tied to this or that crime. Whoever is keeping the redlist can't say no since they have some order from the agency, and they can't tell anyone why they are adding those since they have a gag order. Soon you start having a currency controlled by the political powers of one country that houses whoever is making the redlist since they can muscle their way into controlling it. There are many more like it. For my part, I can see a clear difference between people who are looking at the technical and legal problems from those who understand the human nature issues that will result (on both sides). I'm yet to see anyone pushing hard to do any of this, just people discussing what the options and ramifications are. How many of your have actually read the documents properly? It's like demonstrating against a film that you haven't seen just because someone said it's blasphemous and will destroy morality. It's terrible depressing to see from a group of people who claim to want freedom of speech but then launch massive personal and unwarranted attacks when someone apparently says things they don't like (and I mean apparently because this is all being totally misrepresented). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: wtfvanity on November 15, 2013, 03:14:07 PM In my view, this "redlist" process has already gained enough steam that it will be implemented in one form or another. If Satoshi were still in this 3d reality I'm sure he would be opposed to this ridiculous perverting of his ideal and supportive of altcoins that are true to the principles of freedom and independence. Bitcoin is now the bloated IBM of the 1970's and destined to become a secondary player to these emerging altcoins stars. It's not like you don't have your alt coin spammed in your signature. The only thing you could have done to make your post a little more retarded was to actually link your alt coin in your post, and not just your signature. Your post wreaks of ulterior motive. Try posting such argument under an account that doesn't have such a heavy agenda. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:21:02 PM Since people aren't going to read these and will just take an uninformed view, I'll post some snippets:
Quote I am also concerned that this system can be abused, could not be efficient and can represent concrete risks for Bitcoin that shouldn't be ignored. That is why I think these discussions are very important and shouldn't be taboo. On fungibility, one difference with Bitcoin is that you can't see the money until you irreversibly received it, so you can't refuse it in a traditional sense and the same is true for the people who will receive this money from you. You can't be persecuted for accepting redlisted money. Where I see a real risk for fungibility, however, is that you can be persecuted for spending this money without reporting if you're denounced by the people who will receive money from you. Another unsolved problem is that I hardly see independent organizations maintaining redlists; third parties generally can't witness crimes or have financial incentives to maintain their list. I am therefore concerned that: 1. Lists would be mainly government maintained. 2. Persecuting users for not reporting will be tempting (complicity). 3. Abusing the system for political reasons will be tempting (and opaque to the public). Edit: 4. Persecuting miners for processing redlisted coins transactions will be tempting (fully anonymous miners might become more rare as the network scales). I think we shouldn't automatically reject any idea that could (efficiently) improve this system. Obviously, there is a big difference between discussing and adopting these ideas. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:24:01 PM Quote We must keep this discussion going! If we can't find a good technical solution, somebody else will make one. And we might not like it. I'm confident we can creatively code our way through this issue. For instance, what if we created a decentralized, fuzzy redlist, without a central authority deciding which transactions were bad or good? Is there an economic solution to this problem? If we decide that no decent system is possible, we still need to scope out the possibilities. We need to be one step ahead. I would say no, there isn't a technical solution. It'll always end up a political football and rife for abuse by the wrong people on all sides. Quote I am honestly surprised, bordering on appalled, by the largely positive reaction to this proposal. Then again, I'm completely new here, so I probably shouldn't. Any such attempt, to create a database of tainted coins to remove them from circulation, is a direct attack on Bitcoin's fungibility. And because of the relative ease with which the property of being tainted can spread (any shared address will do the trick, presumably) or could even be entirely faked ("Bill stole my coins. Mark them as stolen, please." Who will do the detective work on this claim, Bitcoin Police?), Bitcoin's fungibility is not just threatened, but at the real risk of being completely destroyed over time. There are ways to cooperate with (law enforcement) authorities and try to limit the usefulness of Bitcoin as a tool for criminal activities, but blacklisting coins is not one of them. It is a surefire way to destroy this fantastic little (5B USD) experiment we have going here. Quote please do elaborate on those other ways you mention. For instance, how do you think CryptoLocker should be tackled. Quote The way any worm/malware should be fought? System security, user education, if possible, real world criminal prosecution? But maybe I'm missing the weight of your question. Here's one question I have yet to see an answer for: Why should Bitcoin, which in many ways resembles, or perhaps can be seen as the next evolutionary step following cash, be held to an entirely different (moral, and legal) standard than cash? The problems Bitcoin should tackle are ease of transaction, persistency of store of wealth, [more grandiose goals go here], but "making financially motivated crimes near-impossible, at the cost of crippling the core functionality of the currency" is not among them, in my opinion. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:26:35 PM Quote System security and user education won't solve this problem, just because of the law of large numbers. Let's say conservatively, there are about a billion people using the internet (the true number is higher these days I think, 1B is the number I used to see some years ago). And let's say about 90% of them use Windows. so that's 900 million. Let's also say that thanks to brilliant virus scanners, spam filters and super education, 99% of users who are sent CryptoLocker DON'T get infected. But unless Windows goes full iPhone and totally bans unapproved software, no defence system will be perfect: let's say 1% of people get whacked. So that's 0.01*900,000,000 = 9,000,000 (we can assume that after a few years everyone got mailed at least one scam mail with CL attached just because it's free to send) How many Bitcoin users do you think there are in total, today? 1 million? With a generous definition of "user", perhaps a bit more. No matter which way I slice these numbers, it seems left unchecked CL could grow at least as fast or faster than Bitcoin itself, to the point that there are more victims than genuine users. And let's face it, 99% of people are not protected. You say, "real world criminal prosecution" but to prosecute you must find, and I don't see a good way to track these people down. That's kind of the point of exploring this topic. Quote Here's one question I have yet to see an answer for: Why should Bitcoin, which in many ways resembles, or perhaps can be seen as the next evolutionary step following cash, be held to an entirely different (moral, and legal) standard than cash? What makes you think cash is held to a different standard? You realise that cash is not 100% fungible, right? If you're found to have forged money, you lose it, even if it's not your fault. And that really sucks because counterfeit currency is not really a rare problem. In the Economist today there is a story saying 1 in 4000 British bank notes are fake! What's more, if you turn up at a bank with a giant pile of cash, or indeed at a real estate agent, they are expected to treat that carefully and possibly file reports if it seems suspicious. So cash is not fungible, it's actually very much non-fungible, as anyone who tries to spend large amounts of it at once will discover. However, I don't think we need to hurt Bitcoin's fungibility to find bad guys and make them prosecutable. See my reply to Piotr for why I think that. Quote Only have limited time now, I'll re-join the discussion tomorrow. Just two brief remarks: re: CryptoLocker. The problem with those extrapolations is that they sound about right, maybe they will turn out to be right, but they are very much 'back of the napkin' calculations. I would rather not risk core functionality of Bitcoin to combat a problem that is real, but far from certain to be catastrophic. How exactly is CryptoLocker different from any of the other malware that has been plagueing average users for more than the past decade, causing significant damage, but ultimately not being any threat to the system itself (be it Internet usage in general, online banking, etc.). re: fungibility. The counterfeit argument is a strawman. Counterfeit money is by definition not real money, so it is not a limitation of fungibility of the actual currency. Also, you will note that I didn't simply say blacklisting coins will limit fungibility, I argued that, because of the ease with which the property of being marked as "used in criminal activity" can spread, it is an actual risk that diminish fungibility enough to make Bitcoin unusable. Quote There's actually two issues at stake here: The first is the question of having a way for someone who has paid bitcoins under duress, or had them stolen, to tell others about it, so that those of us who sympathize and want to help (or are required by law to help) can help provide information about the inputs they received, to help track down the original criminal. In a perfectly voluntary world, I can see such a system being a great idea in theory: The more horrible the crime, the more likely everyone in the chain is willing to cooperate with tracking down the originator. There's still the issue of how such lists are constructed, and how the credibility of the victims is established, but multiple competing lists could keep the process honest (the way spam filter lists work). In the absence of a legal obligation to cooperate, this system works pretty nicely. The second issue is that we do not live in anything close to a voluntary world, or even one in which governments limit the scope of their authority. A government would almost immediately spawn their own redlist, and make it a requirement for all businesses to use it. As you mention, they wouldn't be able to mark "Wikileaks's addresses" directly. What they can do however is mark all addresses as tainted. Every single one. Then the moment I spend any money, the merchant has to report information on my person to the redlist operator (my government). This very quickly removes privacy from the system. Essentially, a redlist system can be expanded by legal authorities to be mostly indistinguishable from CoinValidation's own proposal (by making 'marked' the default state of any funds). The cooperation we've seen between intelligence agencies tells me that we can reasonably assume the results of such a fishing expedition would be shared between most countries. Nothing we do affects the feasability of this approach from the government. They could mandate it right now, and we can't stop it from coming into existence. But I would be wary of building the tools you proposed, precisely because that would be making their task easier. Maybe we can actually build it once the threat has subsided due to (insert libertarian utopia of your choice here). Now I disagree with those who are calling for your head, it seems they're getting a little spooked at how easily such a scheme could come into existence. Let's not shoot the messenger, especially when he's limited himself to a theoretical discussion. There's plenty of people who actually deserve our ire (the CoinValidation thing is positively vile, and they're openly trying to get legislators on their side). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:30:34 PM Quote I figured I'd throw in some comments about the worst case scenario as well: Assume that this redlist idea is implemented, taken to the extreme ('marked' by default) and legally required on the entire planet. What's the net effect? It splits coins into two categories: white market and grey market. White market coins are tied to identities very strongly, and are the only way you can buy from law-abiding merchants. Grey market coins are no longer in the possession of any known actors, but they still are usable (barring core protocol changes). It's pretty easy to move funds from white market to the grey market (coinjoin, reminting through transaction fees, zerocoin). But moving money in the other direction exposes you to scrutiny. Where does that leave us? Well that's the situation with regular money today! I can take cash out in large quantities, and go buy grey market goods trivially, but the guy I buy from won't be able to use it to pay his mortgage without jumping through hoops. Of course bitcoin makes this divide even more stark (since it tracks funds perfectly), but it's the same fundamental stituation. And unlike the regular financial system, grey market bitcoins would preserve almost all of their attractive properties (instant transfer, divisibility, security). They'd just trade at a discount relative to the clean coins (based on how hard it is to launder them). TLDR: While not desirable, the worst-case outcome of this doesn't kill bitcoin, not even close. Quote I came here this evening because I knew there would be a thread on tainted coins in light of the launch of CoinValidation. I wanted to make it know that I am strongly opposed to any action that threatens the fungibility (real or perceived) of Bitcoin. Quote I wish that all of the Law and Policy Committee threads got this much attention. There are quite a few topics that I see as more important to developing into comprehensive positions(see links below for some samples) but unfortunately they don't draw the same level of attention as this topic. Someone says "coin tracking" and Bitcoin Foundation" in the same sentence and things get weird fast. As far as the Mike's original discussion prompt, I have (of course) a short response and a long response Short: If the Bitcoin Foundation is to arrive at a coherent policy on the subject of coin tracking/tainting, it should follow along the same lines as what Jeff Garzik previously outlined, "On stolen coins and transaction blacklists." To oversimplify and pick one quote out of the article, "Stolen coins are fundamentally a legal, not technical concept." (There's so much more, I hope everyone reads his full post but this is the "short" response.) All in favor say aye? "Aye." Let's not make the mistake of reinforcing any perception that bitcoin is intertwined with crime and nefarious activity. Our response to the use of bitcoin by people engaged in "anti-social" behavior should be "bitcoin is a protocol/network/whatnot that is agnostic to who uses it so long as that use is compatible with its basic operation, now go be better at law enforcement and catch the bad guys. We'll be over here coding and feeding homeless people with this awesome new technology." Long: CryptoLocker and its ilk are not "bitcoin problems." Transaction fees, block size, double-spends, these are bitcoin problems. It's not even a "second degree" bitcoin problem like Money Transmission and KYC laws, or banking embargoes. It's as much a bitcoin problem as it is an email problem. I despise people who victimize others. CryptoLocker is horrible, and I want to eradicate it. The good news is that there are technological and social means to defeat CryptoLocker and other harmful tools. The bad news is that this is a human/social problem, not a technological one. A percentage of the global population has and will continue to consistently victimize people using the means at their disposal. More good news: the same platforms that allow CryptoLocker to harm people also enables tools that neutralize it. (See Brian Krebs' writeup) Coin tracking is not a Bitcoin Foundation issue. As a thought leader, our organization may have a position on the subject(see first bullet point of my "Short" response for what I think that position should be), and we can be in favor/against/neutral, but our position will remain just that, a position, its power enforced by peer pressure. Coin tracking, and the problems it is intended to solve are, I believe, outside of our purview. There are people and organizations dedicated to solving those problems. I'm pretty sure they're WAY ahead of us in building those solutions. We're a non-profit organization encouraging the development and use of an open source software project. Let's focus on ensuring that bitcoin remains solid at the core level, work to reduce the barriers to use by providing comprehensive educational material and showing that bitcoin provides a wide range of benefits for consumers, and everyone else(see proposed position papers below, and add to them!) "We are determined to keep Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence." From our "About" page. Read Jeff Garzik's article, I'm tired. Mike, I'm sorry your thought prompt got turned into "BURN THE WITCH!" I think there may be a confusion between a free exchange of ideas on a relevant topic and a decree. I appreciate that there has been some productive conversation on the subject, and I think it exposes what seems to be a raw nerve. In summary, and staying on topic, I think that if we decide that we need a formal position on coin tracking it should be that we recognize that it will happen, it's not in our realm of responsibility. PSA, there's a lot of topics that I think are more time-sensitive that need to be developed and built into coherent positions that we can present to the public. Links below. (FFS: Removed) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:32:18 PM Quote Given this is the "Law and Policy" committee, there has been scant discussion given to the real world legal impacts such a coin-tainting scheme would have. You do realize that this would be a massive legal liability thrust upon most merchants? Oh, so you sold them the hamburger even though your BTC client said there was a 84% degree of coin-taint? What...you mean you by company policy don't even check that because you think its a "voluntary" part of the client? So accepting stolen goods is a "company policy"? The simple fact is, given the litigious nature of the modern world, the inclusion of such a "feature" would have debilitating effects. I think everyone appreciates Mike's bringing this topic up, and his desire to eradicate CryptoLocker, but Bitcoin is *absolutely* the wrong square peg to try and nail into that round hole. From a strategic perspective, trying to make envision ways Bitcoin can be more like Paypal plays to their strength. Quote At its core we must think of Bitcoin as a protocol. As long as a transaction is valid, it should be propagated through the network, and written in the blockchain. No questions asked. We understand that some might abuse the system, but that is the cost of doing business. Imagine if we proposed a redlist for TCP/IP instead. "This user visited 20% gambling sites, 10% adult sites, etc." No one would be comfortable with that proposition. As John Stahl stated, while terrible this is not Bitcoin's problem. We are not the global money police. Furthermore, I think the userbase understands the worst case scenario in terms of fungibility. Any coin client that implemented coin tracking would simply be abandoned, so I highly doubt that anyone will write code for this. Quote The anti-redlisters here (myself included) seem to have been putting up solid arguments describing why its a bad Idea from "it feels against the spirit of bitcoin" to solid concerns about the unanticipated (and anticipated ones) emergent results of such a change. What I haven't seen to much is why would this really be a good thing? How would it really protect us? Or stop Cryptolocker? From what I can gather you would have a bunch of red flags floating around that either effectively do nothing (except be a huge annoyance having to clear the red flags which I know I'm not going to do.) or everyone goes crazy about them and we make bitcoins practically unusable. I just don't see how this actually solves the problem. At least I see no way it adds anything we don't already have with the public ledger. In essence you could already report a cryptolocker incidence to some sort of investigator. and they can follow the money until it goes into a mixer. But if you have the redlisting. Won't you just taint the mixer anyways? And you have gained nothing. In some senses Bitcoin already has way more tracking then cash does. But its not going to solve the problem. the problem is bad people doing bad things. And you can't sacrifice everything in order to try and stop a couple bad people. they will simply find another way. Not that we shouldn't fight them. But fight them in other ways. Not by disassembling Bitcoin. Law enforcement is the job of Law enforcement not cash. So if you want to really stop this fund an internet police force. I'm on board with that. make it decentralized also to avoid corruption with mutual checks and balances and punishments. tainting, redlisting, blacklisting, whitelisting, None of these should be part of bitcoin or any widely accepted protocol overlaying bitcoin. Quote "Oh hello there owner of the redlist. Here is a gag order for you to keep this conversation secret. You see, there is this organization that is leaking government information in an act of treason. Here is a warrant for you to redlist those addresses. If you don't comply, we will be forced to assume you are aiding the terrorists in getting their money and take you to court and put you away for treason as well." RememberLavabit? As it goes, if the redlist is supposed to be successful, people will need to make it global. Global usually means "run in the US", which means "controlled by the US". If you have multiple redlists, they are worthless - people could just trade coins redlisted under list A for those redlisted under list B as long as A is green under B and vice versa. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:34:36 PM Quote Just a suggestion, wouldn't the famous "90% of dollar bills carry traces of cocaine" quote be an interesting example somewhere of what is fungibility and why it is essential? Along with the neutrality of technology arguments ( emails don't prevent you from sending Cryptolocker, computers are not defect because they let you open cryptolocker.exe ). All in all, regarding the initial example of this thread, I think Cryptolocker indeed is a problem that cannot be ignored. As opposed to other usual forms of crime, there is no "physical hook" that can be used to investigate and restrict these harmful activities. Should they grow without restrictions, it is possible that Bitcoin will lose a lot of its users and be marginalized, further more as governements will adopt an increasingly severe stance and as merchants will want not to be associated with Bitcoin anymore. Quote Take the US War on Drugs for example - the expense of a $Trillion in labourer's (tax) capital to no measurable effect on use or adoption rate over decades, coupled with an incarceration rate (and subsequent lives disrupted/destroyed) an order of magnitude beyond anything else in the developed world is a case in point. The recent findings that private sector prison management companies (these should have been anticipated) lobbied for and were awarded state/county guarantees for minimum incarceration rates to minimize future corporate risk profiles is a truly icky case in point wrt unintended consequences. But it's just one among a constellation of examples I condense and subsequently draw cause/effect conclusions from. Interestingly, you strike me as someone more than able of coming to the same conclusions, and for the same reasons - a wish to let people lives their own lives as they see fit, and to reduce harm from others. Which begs the question.... what are you trying to accomplish by airing this subject again? As a Bitcoin coder, you're already acutely aware that CoinValidation is a pointless hiccup - a nascent waste of time/effort capital - because the first effective layered/integrated bitcoin mixer instantly makes it irrelevant, and there is obvious enormous, distributed vested interest in the value of a bitcoin to make that happen. Are you trying to stir the pot and get peeps to make it happen sooner? XXXXX: I hear you loud and clear, but honestly I wouldn't worry about this issue. My own personal take on the matter is that as long as Gavin is lead programmer and Jon is Executive Director, we and Bitcoin are in good hands, and if that changes I'm cashed out until Bitcoin 2.0. Just my personal gut feeling of course, but if I can give a possibly apt example: in the private sector, many high tech startups, small and weak and undercapitalized, typically take an approach called "operating in stealth mode". In other words, they say one thing publicly but their real capabilities and internal plans are held very close to the chest. Otherwise, the large corps could do an end run around them and eat their lunch, and then eat them. Do these large corps know this goes on? Well yes, of course they do. Wheels within wheels. Quote This idea is outright crazy. You are digging the grave for the bitcoin. Developers and users in Europe will not tolerate this and create a fork. Only thing you can achieve is the creation of an American Bitcoin whose value will rapidly collapse. Whoever supports any efforts of coloring coins AND is holding bitcoin at the same time is irrational. He is destroying the biggest benefit of the bitcoin and devaluating his own stake. Even thinking about coin coloring by members of the foundation is a scandal. It is like a politician proposing to abandon the right to vote. I am deeply concerned and outraged about this discussion. If you need to see that you are acting against the majority of the members of this foundation, have a vote! Quote This is a bad idea (in my opinion), but it requires no changes to the core consensus of bitcoin. There would be no fork. In fact this system could be implemented as a patch on top of any wallet without the help of any core devs. If regulators decide they want to do this, they can do it over our objections and with very little effort. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: proudhon on November 15, 2013, 03:36:31 PM Thank you, ffssixtynine.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:38:34 PM Quote 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. Quote This disturbs me. Nobody is implementing anything. This is just a theoretical discussion. You really want to censor a discussion on technical possibilities? Since when is the bitcoin community into censorship? Mike Hearn is one of our best assets. He works fucking hard! Who is going to step up for this job if you all threaten to recall people who hold conversations on tough topics? Quote Adam Back, as usual, has an excellent response: Quote This is not about crime, nor identifying perpetrators, its about fungibility; they are (perhaps surprisingly) orthogonal payment system properties. An electronic cash system, must have irrevocability, which as we discussed here is how bitcoin can achieve low cost and efficiency relative to credit cards & paypal. Coin anonymity is necessary for fungibility, but that is strictly about fungibility, identity level privacy is separate. -https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.msg3585877#msg3585877 Irreversibility of transactions is a key attribute of Bitcoin, and a key reason why Bitcoins have value. The reality is any type of blacklist, redlist, whatever you want to call it, marks coins as "different" Even worse, this can and will happen after the fact. Adam's point about costs is also apt: Quote Destroy [Bitcoin's] fungibility and the costs float up to meet credit cards and paypal. -https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.msg3582302#msg3582302While people see Bitcoin as representing a variety of things, one of the most common beliefs in the community is that Bitcoin should be a low-cost and irrevocable method of payment. I think what's interesting about this recent flare up, is from the sounds of it perhaps what Coin Validator is planning to do is simply a technically misguided way for businesses to verify the identities of those they transact with. Sure the technical details are all wrong - from what they've said it's based on trusted addresses, a major privacy concern - but the basic concept of making it easier to determine the legal identities of who you choose to transact with is reasonable in some circumstances. On the other hand what Mike Hearn is bringing up, yet again after a thorough discussion and heavy criticism the last time, is about the coins themselves. Now ask yourself: Do we want a world where it was common for normal, average, businesses to find out that the cash money they received in good faith is suddenly suspect because apparently someone multiple steps back did something illegal in some jurisdiction to get it? No sane business would choose to accept such cash if they had an alternative, and when considering whether or not to accept Bitcoin, businesses do have alternatives already like PayPal and credit cards. The fact that Bitcoin transactions can be traced using publicly available data, broadcast to the whole world, is a flaw, end of story. It's a flaw bad enough that regulators are beginning to take notice, warning about the privacy dangers of Bitcoin! The flaw is a consequence of the underlying technology, but we can and should fix it to the best of our abilities. Embedding this flaw even deeper into the way we use Bitcoin would be a serious mistake and the Foundation should make it absolutely clear to the community that they will not make that mistake. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:41:53 PM Quote We've had the theoretical discussion before, multiple times. The technology involved isn't very interesting from a legal perspective and doesn't deserve more discussion. There's near consensus in the community that it's a very bad idea, for multiple reasons, regardless of your thoughts about privacy and anonymity. If you want to discuss it further, knock yourself out. But there is every reason for community members to be worried when someone in a position of power - Mike Hearn is chair of the Foundation Legal and Policy committee - starts promoting a discredited and dangerous idea yet again. It's like finding out in 1940 that the chair of your local electricity board thinks the town needs a direct current feed and that Tesla guy got it all wrong. Sure, his arguments for DC may sound convincing to some people who are unfamiliar with the technology, but the discussion's long been settled in favor of AC by those who are. Quote Maybe you don't understand how censorship works. If you threaten to fire somebody for discussing a topic, that's censorship. Look, if Mike Hearn had taken an action that you disagreed with, then go ahead and recall him. But in this case, all he's done is raise a topic for discussion! Let me put it a different way—you don't want a Law & Policy Chair who talks about the benefits of Coin Tainting. Do you agree? You want to recall any chair who talks about that? That's censorship. Grow some balls and prove him wrong if you disagree. Use your intelligence to engage in debate. Don't pretend to recall him for raising the issue. Quote Wow, such dangerous radical thoughts! This man is trying to destroy Bitcoin! Hide your children! Seriously? We'll talk about rebuking Mike Hearn when he actually agitates in favor of the approach. Until then this is a witch hunt. Quote "I don't have any particular opinion on what we should talk about. I'm aware of the arguments for and against such a scheme. I'm interested in new insights or thoughts" - Mike Hearn Yes, this is about counterproductive censorship. Mike is giving you the space to discuss the idea, alternative ideas, new thoughts, concerning a real controversial problem nobody really dare speaking about exactly because of what you're doing. It's easy to vote against something exactly because nobody wants the risks and the efforts of thinking about solutions and be criticized in return. I personally am wary of this system and remain unconvinced, but I appreciate that Mike is bringing the subject on the table, even if it doesn't produce any new solution in the end, it just needs to be discussed. Quote We have discussed coin taint ad nauseam in the past, on the bitcoin forums. I sometimes have the feeling this board is like 'the elite' and doesn't even read what's going on somewhere else. Either way, you don't have to take my word for it, I'm just voicing other people's opinions. If they want his head for even considering coin taint at this point, that's them. He could have stayed up to date. And if he wouldn't be in the power position he is in right now, it would probably be a very different story. But from past discussions people are very worried that he's the type of guy thats ready to comply with whatever government demands.. and they want someone who's willing to fight for what 90% of the community stands for: 21 million, complete privacy, and decentralisation. If you touch on the holy trinity it's going to backfire big time. Quote He's presenting blacklists as an idea that should be taken seriously. As I say, the discussion has happened, and we have near consensus that they are a bad idea; he's in a very small minority. What the Foundation's policy should be when it comes to blacklists is something that the community has a pretty good rough consensus on - we'll still have healthy debate about the details, but the basic idea has been rejected as a bad idea by almost everyone. It is perfectly reasonable to continue researching the topic - people didn't stop researching DC after AC was accepted as the way to go. Sure enough, some really remarkable advancements in technology have made DC the right choice again in certain specific circumstances. (e.g. long distance undersea power transmission) But when it comes to coin taint, those kinds of potential advances in the underlying understanding are very far removed from anything the Foundation would want to put down in writing as a policy now, just the same way that the chair of an electricity board in the 40's would be at best deceptive to be telling the general public that DC was a viable option that merits serious consideration in the here and now. Quote Except that very little of the discussion (there or here) is actually about what he wrote. Mostly it is the usual cast of instigators whipping up an angry mob, and the mob then being angry about something that they don't understand. Mike wrote about "A", and now you are here bitching about "B" because a group of people knew that a fraction of the bitcointalk mob can be counted upon to fly off the handle without bothering to think and understand the topic. Congratulations, you are today's winner sucker. Feel good about being used? P.S. If even 10% of the crap about this that I've read on the bitcointalk forums today were true, I'd be pissed off too. P.P.S. Context is important. The location of the topic in question has meaning. Why do you suppose it is in Law and Policy? Do you understand the bigger picture in and around that forum? (Don't shoot the messenger peeps!) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:48:17 PM Quote In my head, I picture people sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALAL DON'T TALK ABOUT COINTAINT LALALALAL" Or maybe somebody in a funny hat pointing their finger at Mike and shouting "BLASPHEMY!" It is fine if y'all want to pretend that coin-tracking won't happen if the Foundation ignores it, and maybe it is such a hot-button issue that the Foundation should ignore it right now. But it will happen anyway, because the technology to make it happen is pretty straightforward, and any victim of CryptoLocker will be VERY sympathetic to law enforcement tracking "dirty" coins. More than sympathetic, I think we should expect a lot of pressure on law enforcement to DO SOMETHING. The above was posted by Gavin. I have emphasised the point I was also making. This doesn't mean do something, it means absolute and complete preparation for how to deal with it. In order to do that, you have to be able to discuss it without being burned at the take. That's just too shoot oneself in the head. Quote Despite the lies tossed around elsewhere, the foundation membership is almost entirely composed of people with very strong opinions in favor of decentralization, opposed to regulation, opposed to taint enforcement, in favor of freedom, etc. The foundation is not a secret cabal hell bent on handing control of bitcoin over to some government. Also, neither the foundation itself, nor any member or group of members, has any magical power to coerce people into accepting changes to the client or protocol. Quote Also -- it's very poor form to publicly post discussions from here to elsewhere. Whoever did that should read our meta section and think about why that wasn't helpful. - I want to comfirm that my posts here are only being done so because the zip was made public and people are reacting to them without reading them. I am not a member of the Foundation and I have removed names in almost all cases, altho the materials are freely available. I also firmly believe that the Foundation urgently needs to make their position on this absolutely clear - with no room for uncertainty. I think Mike was very naive when starting out on this road without that being the case. The community, both within the Foundation (from the looks of it) and outside of it, were always going to be in uproar at the mere discussion. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:53:10 PM Quote XXXX and XXXX, You probably don't realize it but you're raising hell against a very important member of this community here, on reddit, bitcointalk... This creates a smear campaign, often misinformed and radical. This concerns me a lot. Mike doesn't deserve that, nobody does. You don't need to target a person to oppose to an idea This should probably be at least one "good conduct" rule if we don't want to lose engaged members one by one as soon as they touch a sensitive subject. We need members that are able to confront sensitive questions. The future is not simple, and things will be much worse if we are disorganized from the inside. Quote I get you dislike blacklists/tainting/(tracking scheme of the day). I do too. But Mike is right that we should hash out in full detail the pros and cons of the approach. Because when an external party tries to get regulators to push this kind of thing, it would be nice to have reasoned counter arguments at the ready. The coin validation guys are the first, and many others will try in the next few years. They don't need the cooperation of any core devs to do this, they can drag all of us into it. And if it looks like we can't win that battle, we should know which variant best preserves users' privacy, so that at least we can do effective damage control. It would suck, but we won't make it better by sticking our heads in the sand. Mike's post was a variant of tainting that mostly avoids the fungibility problems. I still thing it's a bad idea, because of just how easily it could be turned back into its nastier cousins, but it's nice to know that we have slightly less crappy options, should it come to that. I mean look around this subforum. 90% of it is figuring out how to deal with the regulatory nonsense thrown our way. If and when Mike does more than just discussing a sensitive topic (If he writes up a draft position for the foundation that supports some taint variant, for example) then you'll be justified in your complaints. Quote Fwiw I finally got around to signing up because of this issue, either Mike or the foundation wheren't doing a whole lot to clear up the misunderstanding on bitcointalk and the discusion there is ignoring the fact tracking coins is already possible. Since the Foundation aren't, I am. Quote Exactly. Taint (and the calculation thereof) is even a feature on the blockchain.info-Website. Anybody could implement some kind of blacklist/taint feature on a website within a few hours. Since it's possible it should be discussed - independent from one's personal standpoint. Quote Yes and there's no reason a discussion can't cover both sides, making it accessable to all users and making it more difficult for all. Thanks to Jon for trying to clear things up on bitcointalk, looks like its impossible over there though as the thread title invites a flame response before any of the discussion (lol) is read. ^This. Quote Can I suggest this is not really about coin tainting, but about organisational politics. We all would love Bitcoin to be free from the shackles of human opinion. Unfortunately however brilliant Satoshi’s idea was it needs help from clever and hard-working people in the core dev team to support its growth. If I might go off piste for a moment. Let’s say I am a fund manager and I see Barry Silbert’s trust return 200% plus gains in a few weeks, and think to myself, should I put 0.1 or even 1% of my managed assets into this thing. What is the first question I would ask, “who’s in charge” answer “no one”. Well that’s not really true is it, the core dev team have an enormous responsibility and can guarantee that any change they have to effect will piss substantial sections of the user community off. May I suggest the foundation prepares itself to be the Mexican pinata for the broader Bitcoin community. I am not sure if this is already happening, but it needs to bring together the strong voices of the core dev team the foundation board and rapidly growing businesses to build organisational confidence. If people see that diverse well informed opinions from intelligent actors that have a great deal to loose can come to consensus through a pre-defined and transparent process they may not like the outcomes but can get involved or make a choice to go elsewhere. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: fligen on November 15, 2013, 03:55:04 PM no names = out of context.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:55:28 PM Quote Some regulators in the USA have apparently expressed concern that irreversible transactions undermine consumer protection. In this position I will argue that Bitcoin allows consumers to choose between irreversible and dispute mediated transactions. Furthermore I will argue that this flexibility is a significant win for consumers, resulting in cheaper and more reliable transactions, higher quality protection and superior results for the economy. Definition. Consumer protection mechanisms have over time become widely adopted across many jurisdictions and payment networks. They are the mechanism by which consumers are insulated against non-delivery by a merchant (whether malicious or accidental), as well as hacking and outright fraud. Additionally, they protect honest merchants by preventing competitors gaining an unfair market advantage via dishonest or other deemed unacceptable behaviours. Chargebacks. A chargeback is a common form of dispute mediation implemented in credit card networks. Chargebacks allow consumers to dispute a charge on their account and if successful, get it reversed. Typically this results in the merchant having the money taken back out of their account, and possibly fined or being ejected from the card network. Chargebacks can occur for a variety of reasons, such as non delivery of goods, being billed for a service that was not wanted, resolution of administrative errors and unacceptably low quality. However the most common reason is use of stolen credit card details. Merchants are allowed to fight chargebacks and win the dispute in approximately 40% of cases. Identity theft. Because credit cards can be charged only with details that must be given to online merchants to make a purchase, theft of these details is extremely common. Although ultimately caused by the "pull" design of credit card systems, merchants end up paying the price - transactions caused by theft of credentials result in an automatic win by the consumer. Friendly fraud. The combination of chargebacks and lax card security can result in serious abuse. So called "friendly fraud" is where ordinary consumers initiate fraudulent or grossly unfair chargebacks. Because card networks compete harder to obtain users than merchants, they have little incentive to resolve this problem. An example would be that the porn industry has much higher chargeback rates (and thus fees) than normal, due to consumers legitimately purchasing pornography and then claiming it wasn't them when caught by their partners. Professional fraud. Some payment providers have inadequate dispute mediation procedures in place. For example, PayPal requires proof of postage from a seller or else the buyer automatically wins any dispute. This leads to a common scam in which a fraudster purchases an item from a seller online, pays via PayPal and then picks it up in person from the victims front door. Hours after the fraudster has left, the payment is reversed and because no postage was involved, the victim loses both the goods and the money. Financing of terrorism. The chargeback structure combined with the dominance of a handful of payment networks yields little incentive to create better security or dispute mediation procedures. Criminals know this and exploit that fact. Stolen credit card details can cost as little as $3.50 on the black market. Once obtained by "carders" they can be pumped for money. Because the identity details are all stolen anti-money laundering requirements do not help with finding the perpetrators. This was used to great effect by an al-Qaeda cell investigated as part of Operation MAZHAR. Over $3 million was raised for the Iraqi insurgency via carding. Additional costs. One reason that credit card transactions are so expensive is the cost of dealing with fraudulent chargebacks. Many businesses implement their own risk analysis systems and review procedures above and beyond those provided by banks and card networks, because they find it to be the only way of controlling fraud rates. Even so, large losses are inevitable, and those losses are passed on via price rises and fees. Bitcoin and consumer protection. Bitcoin was explicitly designed to learn from the mistakes of existing payment networks. Bitcoin does not implement chargebacks. By default, transactions are irreversible, but if buyer and seller agree they can include a third party dispute mediator into a suspended transaction. This mediator is not an escrow agency and does not hold the money at any point. Rather, in the case of dispute they can select a winner. If there is no dispute, they need do nothing at all and the payment will be cleared as normal. The use of this technique is rare in 2013 due to the lack of easy to use graphical interfaces for it, however simplicity will likely improve in due course. Flexibility and specialisation. By separating the act of settling a dispute from the act of processing a payment, Bitcoin allows buyers and sellers to agree on any mutually satisfying choice of mediator. By avoiding the need to trust the mediator to hold the money, the market for mediation services becomes more competitive and fluid. Specialised trades can be mediated by individual domain experts or small businesses. Ordinary every day trades, like selling some second hand goods in person, can be handled by larger companies that may be able to have agents on the ground. Over time, mediators will arise that draft their own quality standards, and they will compete on the fairness and justice of their procedures. Incentives to develop security. Bitcoin is already significantly more secure than existing card networks because you do not hand out any credentials or steal-able identity details to make payments. But by preventing users from pushing the costs of hacking onto merchants (who can do nothing about it), Bitcoin also incentivises the creation of a market for innovative security products that explore the balance between convenience and protection. For example, users may prefer to keep a small amount of money on their smartphone with no password or PIN at all, for quick access. They may place larger sums into specialised hardware devices that are specifically hardened against viruses and hackers. They may choose to deposit their bitcoins with a third party that handles security and indemnifies them against loss. Whatever the consumers preference, there can and will be a product that satisfies them. Efficiency and low cost. Many transactions in practice do not need a third party mediator because the business itself is capable of satisfactorily resolving disputes. Major supermarket chains, for instance, will typically choose to please all but the most unreasonable customers rather than take the hit to their reputation. By avoiding the often inappropriate and expensive chargeback mechanism these businesses can reduce their overheads and pass those savings on to consumers. The website bitcoinstore.com is a successful example of this - they manage to undercut even Amazon by accepting payments only in Bitcoin thus saving money on fraud management, yet it is difficult to find an unhappy customer. Conclusion. By using sophisticated cryptographic technology, Bitcoin separates the act of clearing a payment from the act of mediating disputes. This is a superior approach that will create entirely new ecosystems of entrepreneurial mediation firms that compete on the quality not only of their consumer protection, but also their merchant protection. Innovative security mechanisms will protect users from hacking and theft. Indeed, many examples of such products already exist. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:57:30 PM no names = out of context. I'm reflecting the actual conversations minus the technical parts. I'm not pasting everything as that would be pointless. You can go look in the zip if you want names. Now please actually read what I'm posting and if you think it is not reflective then I suggest you do a better job. I'm clearly posting both sides and I'm not cherry picking. In fact I've barely found anyone saying anything positive about blacklisting etc. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 03:58:34 PM Quote Quote Bitcoin allows consumers to choose between irreversible and dispute mediated transactions. This is a simple and very elegant formulation.When I travel my dogs stay at a local boarding kennel that charges me 3% extra to pay with a credit card to cover the fees. (They should charge me more for the chargeback risk, but apparently that is not a big problem for that merchant.) I can choose to carry enough cash to pay for the boarding, or pay extra for the convenience of not having to lug wads of paper around that have been who-knows-where before ending up in my pocket. Similarly, with Bitcoin, the buyer can choose to pay with something convenient like a credit card—where available—or enjoy a discount from a merchant who is willing to accept Bitcoin. How could something that simple be controversial? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tiaguitah on November 15, 2013, 04:00:50 PM ~thanks for the leaks
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 04:05:57 PM That's ya lot! I've read all the pages and all I can find is a couple of people very, very upset that this is even being discussed. They're absolutely wrong, not in their views but in their reaction to discussion. I feel they have badly misread the situation and misunderstood how important it is. It's vital that these issues are discussed, including technical solutions and their problems.
Virtually everyone on those threads was vehemently against black listing et al. There was also a lot of agreement that the Foundation needed to go through this in order to deal with regulators when questions got asked, else some company somewhere (as we saw yesterday) can swan in with a supposed solution and fuck us all. To the Bitcoin community on this forum, I implore you to understand what's going on and to stop this witch hunt. It's massively destructive and become very personal against an important person in our community, Mike Hearn. He asked for a discussion on a forum, he did not make a public or private statement in favour of any of the things he has been accused of and I think it's terrible the way some people have behaved. To counter that, the Foundation has made more than one misstep over this and they feel too private. They've allowed this problem to grow and grow and this has now exploded in their faces. They also have issues with certain key members which need to be addressed urgently. I've seen the very same problems destroy the IGDA (indie game developer assoc). If you claim to represent a community, you need to be whiter than white, and you need to clearly represent that community. At present, the Foundation's communication strategy is seriously flawed and their membership rules have nurtured discontent elsewhere. I opted not to join because of these issues and because I experienced the IGDA scandals. This is frustrating as I feel I have lots to add, as others will do, but I think there may be some reorganisation required (also as a result of these leaks and the hysteria). I may have missed an important post or two - feel free to add but try and suggest the context with reference to my posts. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 04:06:12 PM I think you people are mixing up a whole bunch of stuff leaked and I think you are having an emotional reaction that is blurring your vision.
Calm down and read again. You might also want to read the bitcoin-dev list The bitcoin devs are not going to add stuff that hurts bitcoin. It's not gonna happen, and a bunch have already said so on Reddit. Coin taintchecking/redlisting etc can already be done, by any third party at all. It's just a matter of creating a database. If you think the NSA aren't already collecting data on bitcoin transactions, you have another thing coming - especially with the idiots at Coinbase and a bunch of other online wallets sending details of you bitcoin transaction, with the address in emails thus allowing the NSA to build a database of btc addresses linked to emails. Given how easily an email address can then be linked to a real identity - there are clearly bigger problems we have to deal with. The bitcoin devs have already started talking about accelerating efforts to reinstate some of Satoshi's original vision. The problem is, BIP32 for example, just isnt being implemented - that solves a of problems relating to privacy. You also forget that bitcoin is now at a point where it cant be stopped. No amount of banning is going to stop it. It will just drive it into more friendly countries. the USA is royally screwed. They are giving free publicity, the kind that gets bitcoin in the major national press all over the globe and further drives adoption. Yet, they can't repress Bitcoin. If they do, it will just give advantage to other countries and the USA will get left behind. Bitcoin is public, the entire ledger is public, so any privacy fears you have are already there. If you really want to start a lobby, go for the likes of Blockchain.info who STILL have not implemented BIP32. Cause an avalanche of email requests and a ton of Reddit pressure. Make them implement it asap. And the same goes for the exchanges, the bitstamp, gox, bitfinex, btce etc. Go put pressure on them now rather than waste energy with these over emotional outbursts. TRUST THE TECHNOLOGY. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: JaSK on November 15, 2013, 04:21:53 PM imho any amount of backlash against such ridiculous ideas is justified, to show that this is a no-no.
otherwise it will be like ACTA that is brought up again and again under different names. and discovering that lobbyists are infiltrating the bitcoin foundation is worth a shitstorm of massive proportions too. I'm glad if the devs refuse to implement such things into bitcoin, but they won't be around forever and not everyone can resist bribes. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 04:23:44 PM imho any amount of backlash against such ridiculous ideas is justified, to show that this is a no-no. otherwise it will be like ACTA that is brought up again and again under different names. and discovering that lobbyists are infiltrating the bitcoin foundation is worth a shitstorm of massive proportions too. Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Peter Todd on November 15, 2013, 04:31:22 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture. Proof-of-sacrifice has nothing to do with asset forfeiture. It's an idea I came up with last year (http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01005.html), which was subsequently developed further by myself (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134827.0) and Mike Hearn (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140711.0) among others for various applications. It's just a way of making a (potentially) anonymous crypto-identity expensive to obtain, which is useful for things like controlling spam on (pseudo-)anonymous discussion forums or making it possible to have anonymous financial services. For instance BitMessage could have used it in favor of direct proof-of-work. OP: Please correct your post. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 04:33:59 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture. Proof-of-sacrifice has nothing to do with asset forfeiture. It's an idea I came up with last year (http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01005.html), which was subsequently developed further by myself (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134827.0) and Mike Hearn (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140711.0) for various applications. It's just a way of making a (potentially) anonymous crypto-identity expensive to obtain, which is useful for things like controlling spam on (pseudo-)anonymous discussion forums. For instance BitMessage could have used it in favor of direct proof-of-work. OP: Please correct your post. Yup... and it's a brilliant idea. I love it. How OP linked this to asset forfeiture is anyone's guess. Too much wacky baccy? I suggest everyone read the article at medium: https://medium.com/p/d3f9f299f729 (it was published 5 weeks ago btw). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: lolstate on November 15, 2013, 04:37:01 PM I agree with ffssixtynine that while this might be a very bad idea, the discussion should not be off-limits. The only way to advance a controversial subject area, and hopefully come to a satisfactory resolution, is to discuss it openly and explore all angles. I believe when rehearsing for an adversarial encounter such as in a court of law, it is common for key players to role-play different sides, thereby building a greater appreciation of the predicament they are in.
That said, I can think of many reasons why redlisting and warning recipients of suspect coins is a terrible idea. Ironically, there may be legal and political reasons why this proposal is unacceptable. Here's a few: - We all know a large percentage of our bank notes are tainted with illicit substances. This is a consequence of the high prevalence of drug crime which many law-abiding citizens think of as something unconnected to their world and mostly the domain of TV shows. I'm not so sure the governments of the world want their citizens who have just adopted BTC to be constantly reminded their incoming coins have a suspect history connected to the War on Drugs. - A brick and mortar business operating in a high crime area will receive redlisted coins more frequently than those based in more genteel parts. If a business suffers reputational damage as a result, it may very well break EU competition rules. In the eyes of the EU Commission, this business may be victim of an unfair advantage held by business in lower-crime locales or based in countries where local laws are less strict. - Unless you have ignored the news for the last few years, you cannot have missed the many crimes committed by banks, financial institutions and even politicians that are often so egregious as to go unpunished. The excuse is typically that prosecution would result in systemic damage that cannot be absorbed, a twist on the TBTF logic. Well, what is good for the goose is good the gander. If these entities are drawn to BTC and appreciate its benefits over traditional fiat, will they be happy with redlisted coins moseying through their wallets? As Father Ted once said: "That money was just resting in my account!" Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 04:37:04 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture. Proof-of-sacrifice has nothing to do with asset forfeiture. It's an idea I came up with last year (http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01005.html), which was subsequently developed further by myself (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134827.0) and Mike Hearn (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140711.0) among others for various applications. It's just a way of making a (potentially) anonymous crypto-identity expensive to obtain, which is useful for things like controlling spam on (pseudo-)anonymous discussion forums or making it possible to have anonymous financial services. For instance BitMessage could have used it in favor of direct proof-of-work. Absolutely, I've been intrigued about this in various forms. Lots of potential and nothing do with the firestorm. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bitcoin.newsfeed on November 15, 2013, 04:52:46 PM ... and this is how the first war in Bitcoin started ... foundation vs bitcoin community :-X
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: DoomDumas on November 15, 2013, 05:02:14 PM Reversing Tx ??? WTF.. Come on, this would kill BTC right away..
The power of BTC is a lot in this concept that a Tx cannot be reversed.. BTC are based on trust and reputation.. Please dont kill the revolution that BTC is ! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 05:06:36 PM Reversing Tx ??? WTF.. Come on, this would kill BTC right away.. The power of BTC is a lot in this concept that a Tx cannot be reversed.. BTC are based on trust and reputation.. Please dont kill the revolution that BTC is ! You've been mislead. There is no talk of this. Mike Hearn is explaining his responses to the Senate explaining that BTC payments are irreversible, but users can enter into escrow. He frames it in a way regulators can understand. This is in response to the fact that regulators are concerned with the lack of chargeback facility. He says, by default it is off, but you can "turn it on" by having a 3rd party mediator. He calls it a "suspended payment". Really, go read the documents. There is nothing evil, going on, just some interesting discussions - discussions that will have to be had at some point anyhow. Bitcoin is safe, the devs are not planning to do anything evil, in fact, they are now providing the case as to why wallets should implement BIP32 finally... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: JaSK on November 15, 2013, 05:15:38 PM Quote from: ffssixtynine Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence. Maybe it is a fabrication, maybe not, I don't care much. I don't think blacklists will go anywhere because people are mixing their coins for privacy reasons anyway to avoid data mining by vendors, so coins connected to crime already spread through everyone's hands.I'm just saying that it's actually a good sign when the community shows clearly what they think about such ideas. Developers and entrepreneurs should not see this as an attack against themselves, but rather against the idea itself. After all, if no one plans anything evil it means that this is just a misunderstanding and all attacks are directed against foundation members in a parallel universe. And if such discussions didn't have to get leaked, people wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that something shady is going on. And if those leaks weren't in .zip format people would be able to check for themselves much easier. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 05:22:04 PM Quote from: ffssixtynine Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence. Maybe it is a fabrication, maybe not, I don't care much. I don't think blacklists will go anywhere because people are mixing their coins for privacy reasons anyway to avoid data mining by vendors, so coins connected to crime already spread through everyone's hands.You miss a fundamental point. Nothing stops anyone from making blacklists, redlists. The US government could build their own and pass a law that you have to do KYC on any payments received from a listed address. Nothing stops that at all. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 05:23:23 PM I'd like to draw your attention to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0 as something positive. See how the bitcoin devs are actually responding to potential threats? With forward thinking solutions. We need to force BIP32 to be adopted - that is a clever way.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Ipsum on November 15, 2013, 05:23:55 PM imho any amount of backlash against such ridiculous ideas is justified, to show that this is a no-no. otherwise it will be like ACTA that is brought up again and again under different names. and discovering that lobbyists are infiltrating the bitcoin foundation is worth a shitstorm of massive proportions too. Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence. It's like arguing with someone who watches fox news. No interest in understanding the issues involved, at all. They just want to scream at the tv. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 05:36:18 PM @btcdrak, did you meant to say exactly this (I empfased the words)?: I corrected the post - thanks! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: anarchy on November 15, 2013, 05:42:52 PM If you can see through the fudge, there is just 1 thing to conclude from this. People are DESPERATE for clear principles from the bitcoin foundation. It's pretty normal they are in a panic, because they don't really have any principles. I will tell you 1 thing. If tomorrow someone starts a new foundation, with clear principles 1) 21 million 2) Total privacy 3) Decentralisation ; then pretty much everyone will rally behind it. The fact that the chair is even discussing this, is grounds for a complete violation. The root cause is not Mike and not coin taint, it's: not having clear principles and standing behind them. You touched on the holy trinity/essence of bitcoin. Since the foundation is seen as a political organisation, which is supposed to protect the bitcoin essence, there is huge backlash.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 15, 2013, 05:46:51 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture. First of all, thank you for not respecting my privacy by "leaking" "what is going on behind closed doors".It is VERY important that you understand what is going on behind closed doors of the Bitcoin Foundation. I am absolutely disgusted by the approach the foundation is taking to make Bitcoin no longer an open payments system, but rather a restricted, locked down platform with central control in the form of the current certificate authority structure, blacklisting of Bitcoins, reversing transactions and much more. Those doors are wide open to anyone who's willing to come up with a negligible fee for access. That's why I personally fail to see the need for "leaking" private discussions of this particular closed user group. I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't approve of copy-and-pasting my intellectual property somewhere where it necessarily will be taken out of context (because the context is just not available outside of the Foundation's forums). Also, I'd like to congratulate you on "finding" something that's been discussed publicly right here at bitcointalk.org more than half a year ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130.0 You didn't think it was appropriate to at least look for a minute at what you're "leaking" and wether or not it was already available here? http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/43032180.jpg Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 05:50:12 PM If you can see through the fudge, there is just 1 thing to conclude from this. People are DESPERATE for clear principles from the bitcoin foundation. It's pretty normal they are in a panic, because they don't really have any principles. I will tell you 1 thing. If tomorrow someone starts a new foundation, with clear principles 1) 21 million 2) Total privacy 3) Decentralisation ; then pretty much everyone will rally behind it. The fact that the chair is even discussing this, is grounds for a complete violation. The root cause is not Mike and not coin taint, it's: not having clear principles and standing behind them. You touched on the holy trinity/essence of bitcoin. Since the foundation is seen as a political organisation, which is supposed to protect the bitcoin essence, there is huge backlash. You ruined a good post by saying that the chair discussing it is grounds for a violation. That's the whole problem here. It's absolutely required for him to discuss it in order to know all the argument for an against, and the likely ways it could be implemented technically and their implications. That has nothing to do with being completely against it in principle. You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat. Also, this: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/ Quote Our mission is to help people exchange resources and ideas more freely. We approach that mission with Bitcoin’s technology and community as our focus. There is tremendous potential in Bitcoin—from the opportunities it creates for entrepreneurs to the purchasing power it provides for citizens of countries large and small. Our goal is to help Bitcoin deliver on that potential. Bitcoin Foundation has chosen three primary objectives for fulfilling its mission. We believe that these activities will be of the greatest benefit to the Bitcoin community: Standardizing Bitcoin As a non-political online money, Bitcoin is backed exclusively by code. This means that—ultimately—it is only as good as its software design. By funding the Bitcoin infrastructure, including a core development team, we can make Bitcoin more respected, trusted and useful to people worldwide. Protecting Bitcoin Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin’s success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal Bitcoins. If Bitcoin is to be a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we need to maintain, improve and legally protect the integrity of the protocol. Promoting Bitcoin In the context of public misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, Bitcoin needs to be clearer about its purpose and technology. Allowing the community to speak through a single source will enable Bitcoin to improve its reputation. And yeah, they need to do a better job of communication and members need to be more careful about their behaviour (top and bottom). I'm sure they realise this now. Note: I went to look at signing up for the foundation but it appeared that forum access was $1000. Is that true? Can regular members not access the forum? It's a little hard to tell. EDIT: I'm told all members can, so it's hardly private if that's the case. $20 if so. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Raize on November 15, 2013, 05:51:15 PM Reading this is disappointing for a number of other reasons...
Taint tracking is precisely why we need ZeroCoin or CoinJoin or whatever. Do it now. I am NOT joking. Bitcoin is useless without fungibility. Tracking taint programmatically or with regulatory intent is a clear attack on Bitcoin in perhaps the only way that it can presently be attempted since theres no way anyone can get mining superiority anymore. The Bitcoin Foundation should be renamed the Fiat Foundation if they aren't going to take this seriously. Besides, the miners aren't going to let anything get changed to track taint anyway, so why would the devs even talk about this. I like how in one breath, kjj both says that "these forums aren't elitist" and then goes on to brag that he's an "early lifetime member" and no one calls him out on it. Yah, those forums aren't elitist or anything... They purposely feel a need to hide their posts from the public? No publicly accessible posts whatsoever? I mean, for Christ's sake, people had to provide us with copies of html files so we could see the discussion that apparently we're "misinterpreting to be support for tracking taint". What is the intent of not having that discussion here if not to *avoid* having an actual discussion about it? No one even took the fungibility issue seriously there till someone linked to Adam Back's comment, which was, not surprisingly, here on the forums: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.msg3585877#msg3585877 Today on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/ I don't see this quality of comment in any of the HTMLs provided... I think its pretty clear the discussion was had in the wrong location. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it was INTENTIONALLY had there, but they have to realize talking about controversial stuff isn't going to be done any more eloquently amongst a group that actually desires to be elitist than the community as a whole. Seriously guys, what is the purpose of the Bitcoin Foundation other than to boost your egos and "work with government"? Your messages to government officials should be singular in intent and broad in scope: The US will lose it's best and brightest to China, Canada, Germany, etc. if they intend to control Bitcoin. Bitcoin is exploding in popularity among the young here in the US. I spoke to a dozen teenagers about future job opportunities in technology the other day expecting to have to explain Bitcoin. Every single one of them knew what it was and about half of them said they already do video game (some sort of game card) transactions nearly daily in it and make some money that way. These were just random kids I didn't even know, they probably have forum accounts. Bitcoin has taken off in ways I don't even understand yet, and I've been around now for a while. Does the US government really want to take the gamble that Bitcoin supporters, adopters, users aren't going to leave the country and eventually take the smartest up-and-comers out of it? I'd almost imagine this would be an issue of national security to start getting serious about building a better Bitcoin infrastructure in finance and government to actually start accepting Bitcoins for taxes, fees, and payments. That seems to me to be the real conversation they should be having with you, how to accept it for "services rendered" to the taxpayer. They should want the US adopting it faster than elsewhere in the world. Are they seriously going to sit idle while the Chinese population obtains most of the coin? China is running roughshod all over the Western world with their superior populace interest and support. Bitcoin is a direct threat to the petrodollar and the government is sitting on their assess. If they don't adopt and start accepting it now, they lose. It's too fricking late to even be having these stupid discussions about regulating or modifying or controlling. Now it's adopt or die. That should be your message to Western government officials... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: cryptocoinsnews on November 15, 2013, 05:56:42 PM http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2013/11/15/leaked-private-bitcoin-foundation-discussions-enforcing-central-control/
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 15, 2013, 05:56:42 PM Note: I went to look at signing up for the foundation but it appeared that forum access was $1000. Is that true? Can regular members not access the forum? It's a little hard to tell. I don't know the exact pricing right now, but regular members are definitely able to access the forum.Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: allthingsluxury on November 15, 2013, 06:00:42 PM Thanks for sharing this information.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 06:04:24 PM WILL YOU ALL STOP WITH THE FUD.
You are like a bunch of animals. Did you not receive even a highschool education? Take the time to read the facts and stop all this crap! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 06:05:22 PM I like how in one breath, kjj both says that "these forums aren't elitist" and then goes on to brag that he's an "early lifetime member" and no one calls him out on it. People still read his posts?Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 06:08:50 PM You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat. Who can change the protocol. Certainly not the US government. And frankly, not even the developers can do it without consent of the mining community. They will just refuse to upgrade... in fact, many of the miners are quite capable programmers who can carry on the work of maintain the code. We have real democracy in action here. You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid. The US is not everywhere but you can be sure other countries will follow. Have you seen what they're trying to do behind closed doors regarding IP? The EFF have several good posts on the lack of democratic and completely hidden process going on. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 06:10:32 PM You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat. Who can change the protocol. Certainly not the US government. And frankly, not even the developers can do it without consent of the mining community. They will just refuse to upgrade... in fact, many of the miners are quite capable programmers who can carry on the work of maintain the code. We have real democracy in action here. You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid. The US is not everywhere but you can be sure other countries will follow. Have you seen what they're trying to do behind closed doors regarding IP? The EFF have several good posts on the lack of democratic and completely hidden process going on. Then you clear dont understand the innovation of bitcoin (nor bittorrent for that matter). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 06:18:57 PM Then you clear dont understand the innovation of bitcoin (nor bittorrent for that matter). I very much do, and about bittorrent. However, there is a difference between what a smallish group of users will use and the masses. Whatever regulators do there will be ways around it using black market crytpocurrencies or new tech or straight forward criminality. However, mainstream users and legit businesses can have a lot forced on them with no protocol changes or fork. We'll then end up in a ridiculous game of cat and mouse that no one can win. Drug wars -> Money wars. Who wants that?! Remember I think the same as everyone else here, I'm just very aware of what may happen in the real world. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Lauda on November 15, 2013, 06:59:02 PM This reminds me of Edward and the US Government.
How about we destroy the foundation before it destroys us? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: virtualmaster on November 15, 2013, 07:01:05 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture. They are very serious issues what you have posted.It is VERY important that you understand what is going on behind closed doors of the Bitcoin Foundation. I am absolutely disgusted by the approach the foundation is taking to make Bitcoin no longer an open payments system, but rather a restricted, locked down platform with central control in the form of the current certificate authority structure, blacklisting of Bitcoins, reversing transactions and much more. It always starts off small - like a UI that tells you coins are no longer fungible. It will lead into a locked down Bitcoin - that the rich wants. PLEASE READ SATOSHI'S BITCOIN WHITE PAPER. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf This Is What Bitcoin Stands For. No trusted central authorities like Verisign. No transaction "meditating" or reversing. No blacklists of bitcoin - bitcoins must be fungible. ------- DUMP ------ http://uppit.com/qu6jyr37eata (fastest?) http://depositfiles.com/files/z6shx9x8d http://www.putlocker.com/file/55BC84500FAC90FE ----------------------- Included: A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation A network of your peers - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 2 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 3 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 4 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - General - Bitcoin Foundation Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation Just in case you think Bitcoin has it hard with AML laws - General - Bitcoin Foundation Position C.1 - Selectively mediated transactions are good for consumer protection - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation ----------------------- Also please read this. Quote Preface: Your upvotes contribute to his google search. I believe it is worth exposing each person in this new CoInvalidation team. Yifu is a dishonest criminal of bitcoins, dollars, time, and his actions speak to a nefarious character. Google him, it's been covered. Well, what about the other guys? The coin purse, cofounder, and government connections guy is Matthew Mellon. First, let me preface this with saying Matt has really great family lawyers. They have attacked (and removed) a lot of articles exposing him and reporting on his past. If you report on this on your blog, he will send legal to come after you. So, who is Matt? Matthew Mellon is part of one of America’s most influential and wealthy families — with ties like Gulf Oil, Carnegie Mellon University and Alcoa. Matthew inherited a $25 million trust fund at only 21, and started blowing it on cocaine, guns, celebrity company, and whatever other ridiculous or dangerous things he could get his hands on. He almost overdosed, and instead of reforming, he divorced his wife went back to hit the slopes some more. He fired his next fiancee, and left her financially dry, only to jump to another woman shortly after. Some stuff he's done that went public: Matthew Mellon historically had a nasty breakup which exposed his crack, cocaine, and business embezzlement. Matthew Mellon is friends enough with this ex-Paris Hilton boyfriend asshat, having borrowed him funds which also funded Brandon's drug use. Matthew Mellon was likely involved in a hacking scandal which his lawyers cleaned up nicely. The problem with making a website also apologize is it leaves traces. Matthew Mellon also threatened lawsuit to take another article down here. "the wealthy Matthew Mellon thought they needn't act as average people, so instead they've, through their attorneys, tried to scare us." A report still up shows that Matthew Mellon allegedly hired wire-tapping on his ex-wife. Do you trust him with your validation? On further research, he was arrested and charged. For you political folks, I will let you make your own decision on Matthew Mellon's contributions to Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. He has donated both separately (majorly to Ryan) and combined. This includes the defunding of Medicare and Medicaid. I'm sure I could keep digging wonderful things, but this post is getting too fucking long. Matthew Mellon, and associates [Alex Waters & Yufi Guo, if you read this: fuck. you. Alex Waters, you're next. And Kashmir Hill - thanks for your previous exposure but you are a shill. Your spin shows your lack of spine and willingness to suck the institutionalized finance dick. Fuck you too. ----------------------- BOYCOTT anything that places control of bitcoin to any authority (Verisign, US FinCEN, Bitcoin Foundation or Anything) - instead of being a very decentralized payment network and digital currency. The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts. On depositfiles doesn't work the download. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 07:04:33 PM They are very serious issues what you have posted. The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts. On depositfiles doesn't work the download. The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread. The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: testerx on November 15, 2013, 07:09:04 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 15, 2013, 07:38:46 PM It is not helpful to keep this information quiet and shutting people out while asking them to use Bitcoin. I fail to see how 2707 posts by Mike Hearn, some of them (months ago even) precisely about the issue at hand (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130) correlate to keeping information quiet and shutting people out.That a tiny part of Mike's communication with some members of the community and also developers like Gavin takes place in a "quieter" forum than bitcointalk... well, seeing the torches and pitchforks these days I actually wonder why he even bothers leaving that oasis of peace and quiet. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: Lauda on November 15, 2013, 07:49:59 PM They dont have the final say. They dont even have a say. The bitcoin core devs do and the major mining pools. That's still not that good, they can influence them. FUD FUD FUD .... lord save us. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: davidtehbest on November 15, 2013, 07:50:34 PM I want to know what the operators of the largest pools have to say about the changes being made to bitcoin, they hold a lots of the power in endorsing these new features that the foundation seems to want to add to our bitcoin. Does anyone have any idea what the operators of the major pools have to say or think about all of this?
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 08:07:02 PM I want to know what the operators of the largest pools have to say about the changes being made to bitcoin, they hold a lots of the power in endorsing these new features that the foundation seems to want to add to our bitcoin. Does anyone have any idea what the operators of the major pools have to say or think about all of this? For the nth time there are no changes of this type, the foundation hasn't said they wanted anything, and the foundation members who posted on those threads made their views very clear that it ain't gonna work. Will people please just read the actual thread. As someone else posted, mike has discussed this in public but in this forum it ends up full of people who just troll or react or don't read properly - as this thread is perfect evidence of. I've had it confirmed that any one here can go join the other one for $20 or so and take part in adult discussions with rather less pitchforks and trash posts. Bitcoin is so important to all of us yet some of you can't be bothered to try to properly read about this topic, which I think says an awful lot about you rather than mike or anyone else. If you want to react to what mike actually said and the actual discussions (ie go and read them) then fair enough but barely anyone who is shouting and screaming is doing that. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: hayek on November 15, 2013, 08:15:08 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?Aaaaaaaaaand that's how we create a breeding ground for a new state of rulers. No. You just defund them. Make them pay for their bullshit themselves. Educate people. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BigJohn on November 15, 2013, 08:23:14 PM The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread. The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things. Here's the thing. I'm a just a casual user, not a developer, or a programmer or anything. But I do spend a lot of time reading and understanding Bitcoin for years now. After reading all the stuff that you've quoted, I'm afraid I'm even more dismayed than before. I see what you were trying to do. You're trying to show that the foundation is merely discussing this issue and not actually trying to implement anything. That this backlash is an over-reaction. But what I'm seeing in the very stuff you've quoted is people suggesting that it could be a good idea. Now, you're saying that this is their job, to explore this issue. But that's unacceptable to me personally. I just expect more from them. What I mean is, I have a casual view of Bitcoin. I like it for its real-world application. So when I come to forums to read up on the latest and greatest, I hope to see the latest and greatest. When in the last few days the idea of coin-listing came up (again!), I fully expected to come on here and read all sorts of ingenious solutions, in true open-source fashion. Instead I'm seeing secrecy and attempts to appease would-be regulators. This forum even has an Alternative Cryptocurrency subforum with stuff derived from the original Bitcoin code. This is only possible because of the open nature of Bitcoin. Yet the going-ons of the foundation itself is closed? It's not even read-only. This stuff had to be "leaked"? What is this? CoinValidation is real. So it's not simply a matter of a theoretical debate. This shit's real. And as far as I can tell, nobody in those documents is suggesting any way to counter it. Even if the discussion would have been on the topic of how to counter something like CoinValidation, and the conclusion would have been that it's impossible, that would have been fine. At least the discussion was had. But instead there's some secret discussion on the possible merits of lists! That's not what I want to hear from the people running the show. In fact, this was stated in one of the parts you quoted: Quote If you want to discuss it further, knock yourself out. But there is every reason for community members to be worried when someone in a position of power - Mike Hearn is chair of the Foundation Legal and Policy committee - starts promoting a discredited and dangerous idea yet again. And I know, you could say he's not promoting anything, but that's just BS really. Do you hear people say let's have a discussion on the roundness or flatness of the Earth? Why not discuss it? Because we've already decided that the Earth is round.Bottom line: CoinValidation and its kind are bad for Bitcoin. What I expected was an open discussion on how to counter them. What I got was a closed discussion on why it may have merit. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 08:30:04 PM Bottom line: CoinValidation and its kind are bad for Bitcoin. What I expected was an open discussion on how to counter them. What I got was a closed discussion on why it may have merit. You are missing it all over again. CoinValidation is not the Bitcoin Foundation nor the devs. CoinValidation can be done, by anyone. And you can bet the NSA is already compiling a list, and linking address to email addresses (since so much is emailed these daya like the idiots at Coinbase.com do). Emails are easily linked to real identities. It's all there already so STOP YOUR CONSPIRACY BS. The Foundation is discussing things that regulators are going to ask. Informed debate requires good understanding of all opposing views. This is not bitcoin level. The Bitcoin devs are not going to implement stuff that hurts bitcoin - end of. The foundation has no say over the bitcoin development team. end of. Any changes made by the bitcoin devs still need to be adopted by miners, none of whom are going to hurt bitcoin interests. So please, stop all this FUD and nonesense. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BigJohn on November 15, 2013, 08:37:48 PM No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: TraderTimm on November 15, 2013, 08:49:44 PM @ffssixtynine
I see you like government involvement, or at the very least - you think that there's no use in resisting it. With your little crafted example of Bin retard, for instance. Fear as a tactic? Its working for the DHS rather well, isn't it? So naturally you adopt this stance and say "Well, look - we can catch bad people if we do X, Y and Z" without stopping for one second and looking at the principles being violated. Personal freedom and financial freedom are worthwhile, no matter how many horrible counter-examples you can give. For every system there are positives and negatives, and I'm not going to give up this fight just because someone is scared the "bad guys" will abuse it. As for the "Bitcoin Foundation", all they've done is raise Bitcoin's visibility towards the very forces that can cause us harm (Depending on where you live, I guess.). Thanks a load, guys, you're really pals. Entertaining or "just discussing" these issues with government aren't helping anyone, at all. All they'll end up achieving is crippling U.S. involvement with Bitcoin, and then other countries will take the torch and leave them in the dust. This is simply idiocy. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 08:50:51 PM No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents. Clearly you lack any education in debating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8#t=6m42s watch George Galloway run rings around a US Senator. THAT is being prepared, and THAT is how to debate - I suggest you watch it. This is what Bitcoin is up against: to be unprepared would be the most foolish thing in the world. I find it medieval that you would censor any discussion of debates. Seriously - watch that video and get some clear idea of how debating works before you open your mouth again. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Lauda on November 15, 2013, 08:51:53 PM So, Redlists / Blacklists and Cointaining is OUT ! Got it... While the idea is good, wouldn't it harm the anonymity of bitcoin?So what can we do about stolen coins being used... because lets imagine you have 100 BTC stolen from you.. you can see it in the blockchain and want to catch this guy right ? Thats the idea behind the cointainting.. except, the coin tainting only creates more issues... So whats the solution ? Blockchain Analysis Police So, let us propose that a company [from MIT because why not? lol] who have developed some really cool algorithms for analysing the blockchain really fast and finding common connections. Now, with the new merchant style address, ie: IF you pay for something in BTC you just pay the same BTC address as everyone else only include some meta data like order ref for example.. this company could quite quickly build up a list (from google and more) of commonly known addresses. When I get my 100 BTC stolen, I go to this company website and plugin the transaction id(s) of the theft, maybe upload some documents (such as previous proof of addresss payment, police report, id..etc?) and this company then logs this theft and begins watching the coins. Now imagine is doing it with loads of stolen coin thefts over a long period.. Eventually, these coins would find there way into a publically known address.. at which point, the question can be asked, 'who did you get the coins off ? ' . .they might tell, you, they might not - this email could be automated to a form on the site ? Over time this goes on and on and on until eventually a profile is made to a certain degree of certainty as to who the criminal is. -- Now, I'm not saying this idea is how it would / should / could work, I'm just saying it's an idea of how I could possibly see coin thefts being resolved in the future.. feel free to add / amend / change / improve / bash idea as much as possible. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BigJohn on November 15, 2013, 08:57:50 PM No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents. Clearly you lack any education in debating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8#t=6m42s watch George Galloway run rings around a US Senator. THAT is being prepared, and THAT is how to debate - I suggest you watch it. This is what Bitcoin is up against: to be unprepared would be the most foolish thing in the world. I find it medieval that you would censor any discussion of debates. Seriously - watch that video and get some clear idea of how debating works before you open your mouth again. You find it medieval? How old are you? What does debating have to do with this? I'm not trying to win some debate, and I don't want to debate you. I'm just saying that you guys are saying the outrage is uncalled for, and I disagree. If the Foundation's sole purpose is to debate regulators, then fuck it, we don't need it. Or at least I don't need or want it. The whole thing should be about finding solutions. Not debating the two-bit whores in congress. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 09:09:29 PM What does debating have to do with this? I'm not trying to win some debate, and I don't want to debate you. I'm just saying that you guys are saying the outrage is uncalled for, and I disagree. If the Foundation's sole purpose is to debate regulators, then fuck it, we don't need it. Or at least I don't need or want it. The whole thing should be about finding solutions. Not debating the two-bit whores in congress. Because people are clearly not even reading what has actually been said. If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. if you think the regulators understand bitcoin, you are a fool. If you think meeting the government and openly discussing the issues in a way that they can understand is unhelp, you are a fool. If you think discussing some of the possibilities (even though none of them are feasible anyhow) is somehow a crime, you are a fool. What urks me more than anything is that people are jumping up and down and getting all heated over stuff they a) have not read, and b) don't seem to understand and c) are just jumping on the bandwagon like a bunch of medieval villagers with pitchforks to go burn down the next village. It's not possible to have intelligent conversation with such people. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BigJohn on November 15, 2013, 09:16:35 PM None of what you said has anything to do with what I said. Talk about someone not reading...
I'm just saying I came here looking for a solution for this CoinValidation business. I got none. And not only that, but the foundation is actually talking about its merits. Regulators, debates, meeting the government... cool story bro. But it's off topic. I'm just talking about how I'm not seeing any solutions to the CoinValidation issue coming from the Foundation. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: archangel689 on November 15, 2013, 09:18:37 PM Utility in bitcoin derived from popularity had to be established before someone proposed centralized influence in the name of social "justice." People prefer freedom to coercion.
The implementation of taint means groups would wage an endless struggle for privileges. Everyone would want to have direct access to this power of forcing their subjective view of what actions ought result in a tainted coin and what ought not. The system should wash it's hands of such judgements of morality. If such interventions are imposed, the utility derived from liquidity and popularity will be outweighed by the loss of utility from being "tagged and tracked"--especially if for taxation purposes. I can see the code base being forked and more robust systems created. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Sopap on November 15, 2013, 09:20:24 PM It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 09:21:08 PM If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links.Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed. You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies. The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: CanaryInTheMine on November 15, 2013, 09:21:15 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?Aaaaaaaaaand that's how we create a breeding ground for a new state of rulers. No. You just defund them. Make them pay for their bullshit themselves. Educate people. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: virtualmaster on November 15, 2013, 09:21:56 PM They are very serious issues what you have posted. The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts. On depositfiles doesn't work the download. The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread. The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things. But how is your representation ? So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit. Oh you forget some small details:It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword. www.veteranstoday.com/ 2013/ 04/ 20/ the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/ 2013/ 04/ 20/ the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/) And not only Americans like to live. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256) BBC News - Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000 For what did they died ? For a non existent nuclear program ? This is what happened and not a fictive scenario like yours. Killing people with pushing buttons in sovereign countries: news.yahoo.com/ blogs/ ticket/ drones-killed-4-700-u-senator-says-141143752--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ blogs/ ticket/ drones-killed-4-700-u-senator-says-141143752--politics.html) Who is financing this and with what money ? Do you want to rollback the money which would come in the hands of those who are killing thousands and would you give it in the hands of those who are killing millions ? I don't want anything that's been proposed but I can see the need for a good digital identity system. Here I must give you right. But Namecoin ID is exactly the proper solution for it.A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 09:27:31 PM A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need. Actually, no.A pseudonymous reputation is one of those things that's possible in theory, but utterly fails in practise because humans are involved. We need to make trade between anonymous parties so safe that reputation (thus, identity) is not needed at all. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Lauda on November 15, 2013, 09:28:45 PM It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers That is also a possibility. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 09:30:41 PM If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. Google met You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies.Rubbish: The United Kingdom had a real problem with terrorism back in the 1980 and 90's, called the IRA. Google it. Domestic terrorism, bombs going of every week. Meeting them and resolving their issues solved it, not guns, not bombs, not wars waged in other countries that just incite more hatred. They brought them to the table and worked to resolve the conflict. Result, people, kids not getting blown up (weekly for years). Nepal too, how did they resolve the civil war of 10 years? Oh my, not with guns... by negotiation. History proves you wrong. So don't say talking cant end in positive results. You are just looking for a fight. Be civil. Work with the situation - we all know that bitcoin, like bittorrent is unstoppable, short of turning of the internet. Aint gonna happen... and even if they do, peer to peer meshnets using mobile devices is the next step. Now you have networks that function so long as there are people, and electricity (which you can get free from the sun). Maybe you don't really trust the technology. If you did, you wouldn't be so worried. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 09:33:18 PM I don't want anything that's been proposed but I can see the need for a good digital identity system. Here I must give you right. But Namecoin ID is exactly the proper solution for it.A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need. Cryptography gives us is the ability to have identity without the need to reveal who we are. The tech started in the 1970s but the missing link was decentralization. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tkbx on November 15, 2013, 09:51:56 PM I cannot formulate the words to adequately express my anger about this. I consider Bitcoin to be revolutionary. It could completely free people from the failing fiat system. It could completely free the people from the restrictions of credit card payments. It combines the best qualities of cash and plastic, AND it's impossible to steal (assuming the proper precautions are taken). And now, as with everything great that's happened since 1920, the US government and some multinational corporations have to find some way to stomp it to the ground for a few kickbacks and maybe a few years in office.
If I could find a person who knowingly allowed this to happen, and I were in the same room as him with a gun in my hand, I would have a very difficult time not pulling the trigger. Some people might argue that "compromise is the only way to keep Bitcoin legal". If Bitcoin becomes popular enough, this may be true. I say, why gives a fuck? I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I believe that in the modern world, which revolves around the Internet, free software (especially free software infrastructures such as Bitcoin) is the greatest tool we have against authoritarianism. I believe that freedom from governmental and corporate control is a human right. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin has even a small number of users, it is my moral duty to do my best to keep the Bitcoin ecosystem alive, regardless of the consequences. If everyone shared this same philosophy, Bitcoin would be literally unstoppable. 1. Reject all closed source Bitcoin software, including web wallets, and, God forbid it comes to this, the official client. 2. Reject all Bitcoin software that contradicts Satoshi's paper. This paper is the Constitution of Bitcoin. This includes any software which blacklists addresses, reverses transactions, or has ANY central point of failure, especially a central authority. The difference between Bitcoin and Paypal is that Bitcion is decentralized. 3. Governments exist to catch proverbial murderers. They do not exist to prevent the purchase of proverbial weapons. No matter what governments say, control of currency (Bitcoin or otherwise) does nothing but control innocent people. 4. Corporations exist to serve customers. They do not exist to control customers. Boycott companies that place any restrictions other than the price of their goods or services. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on November 15, 2013, 09:57:39 PM You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid. ... Ya, that kind of sucks. I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies. gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind. Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation. Until they didn't. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 15, 2013, 09:59:30 PM I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I agree with this.On a related note, there's nothing wrong with feeling and expressing anger but escalating it to hypothetical acts of violence isn't cool. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 15, 2013, 10:00:33 PM I cannot formulate the words to adequately express my anger about this. I consider Bitcoin to be revolutionary. It could completely free people from the failing fiat system. It could completely free the people from the restrictions of credit card payments. It combines the best qualities of cash and plastic, AND it's impossible to steal (assuming the proper precautions are taken). And now, as with everything great that's happened since 1920, the US government and some multinational corporations have to find some way to stomp it to the ground for a few kickbacks and maybe a few years in office. If I could find a person who knowingly allowed this to happen, and I were in the same room as him with a gun in my hand, I would have a very difficult time not pulling the trigger. Some people might argue that "compromise is the only way to keep Bitcoin legal". If Bitcoin becomes popular enough, this may be true. I say, why gives a fuck? I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I believe that in the modern world, which revolves around the Internet, free software (especially free software infrastructures such as Bitcoin) is the greatest tool we have against authoritarianism. I believe that freedom from governmental and corporate control is a human right. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin has even a small number of users, it is my moral duty to do my best to keep the Bitcoin ecosystem alive, regardless of the consequences. If everyone shared this same philosophy, Bitcoin would be literally unstoppable. 1. Reject all closed source Bitcoin software, including web wallets, and, God forbid it comes to this, the official client. 2. Reject all Bitcoin software that contradicts Satoshi's paper. This paper is the Constitution of Bitcoin. This includes any software which blacklists addresses, reverses transactions, or has ANY central point of failure, especially a central authority. The difference between Bitcoin and Paypal is that Bitcion is decentralized. 3. Governments exist to catch proverbial murderers. They do not exist to prevent the purchase of proverbial weapons. No matter what governments say, control of currency (Bitcoin or otherwise) does nothing but control innocent people. 4. Corporations exist to serve customers. They do not exist to control customers. Boycott companies that place any restrictions other than the price of their goods or services. Quoted For Awesomness. Well said, sir. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Rez on November 15, 2013, 10:06:10 PM I will be the lowest, laziest form of scum you can imagine. I.e., I will pretend to be "poor" even though I'm not. So you will become everything you claim you despise. If you can find it in you to live a life like this, you should perhaps pursue what may be your calling. Quote ..we will essentially all become higher order beggars and criminals. Please don't speak for me. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Mageant on November 15, 2013, 10:06:35 PM If this starts happening I'm selling all my Bitcoin to the first suckers buying. I'm also never going to work a normal job again. I'll get a brain dead job in government and do as little as possible at all times. I'll completely opt out and exploit this corrupt system some call "society" to the fullest of my ability. Many others will follow (because what's the point...) and money will in time be replaced by pecking orders that naturally form within government – but as I said I will not participate in that; I will be the lowest, laziest form of scum you can imagine. I.e., I will pretend to be "poor" even though I'm not. ..we will essentially all become higher order beggars and criminals. Stay calm. Also, there are always Altcoins. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: aenemic on November 15, 2013, 10:09:40 PM I cannot formulate the words to adequately express my anger about this. I consider Bitcoin to be revolutionary. It could completely free people from the failing fiat system. It could completely free the people from the restrictions of credit card payments. It combines the best qualities of cash and plastic, AND it's impossible to steal (assuming the proper precautions are taken). And now, as with everything great that's happened since 1920, the US government and some multinational corporations have to find some way to stomp it to the ground for a few kickbacks and maybe a few years in office. If I could find a person who knowingly allowed this to happen, and I were in the same room as him with a gun in my hand, I would have a very difficult time not pulling the trigger. Some people might argue that "compromise is the only way to keep Bitcoin legal". If Bitcoin becomes popular enough, this may be true. I say, why gives a fuck? I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I believe that in the modern world, which revolves around the Internet, free software (especially free software infrastructures such as Bitcoin) is the greatest tool we have against authoritarianism. I believe that freedom from governmental and corporate control is a human right. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin has even a small number of users, it is my moral duty to do my best to keep the Bitcoin ecosystem alive, regardless of the consequences. If everyone shared this same philosophy, Bitcoin would be literally unstoppable. 1. Reject all closed source Bitcoin software, including web wallets, and, God forbid it comes to this, the official client. 2. Reject all Bitcoin software that contradicts Satoshi's paper. This paper is the Constitution of Bitcoin. This includes any software which blacklists addresses, reverses transactions, or has ANY central point of failure, especially a central authority. The difference between Bitcoin and Paypal is that Bitcion is decentralized. 3. Governments exist to catch proverbial murderers. They do not exist to prevent the purchase of proverbial weapons. No matter what governments say, control of currency (Bitcoin or otherwise) does nothing but control innocent people. 4. Corporations exist to serve customers. They do not exist to control customers. Boycott companies that place any restrictions other than the price of their goods or services. Free as in Freedom! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 15, 2013, 10:16:37 PM I have just read some of this crap. It is really disgusting.
People like that should not have the power to represent or decide ANYTHING in Bitcoin. Mike should be kicked out of the foundation immediately and the foundation should be moved to Switzerland in order to remove pro-government lobbying & political pressure (if that even helps - but after reading I doubt it). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 10:19:13 PM They are destroying the work of satoshi which aimed decentralized currency. Maybe its time to find a new bitcoin developers. please have a look at what I'm working on(links below). it addresses many of these issues as it does away with mining altogether. thanks and I 100% agree with OP, it's a huge problem. This isn't really what Bitcoin was meant to be. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: C. Bergmann on November 15, 2013, 10:19:41 PM If this starts happening I'm selling all my Bitcoin to the first suckers buying. I'm also never going to work a normal job again. I'll get a brain dead job in government and do as little as possible at all times. I'll completely opt out and exploit this corrupt system some call "society" to the fullest of my ability. Many others will follow (because what's the point...) and money will in time be replaced by pecking orders that naturally form within government – but as I said I will not participate in that; I will be the lowest, laziest form of scum you can imagine. I.e., I will pretend to be "poor" even though I'm not. ..we will essentially all become higher order beggars and criminals. Stay calm. Also, there are always Altcoins. listen to this. Let' them destroy bitcoin, if they want and can. They act out of greed cause they want bitcoin to be complete legitimate to become mainstream. If they want ... it'll never happen. They sell bitcoins soul for their wannabe-profit and 'll end with nothing. Every smart person owning bitcoins will rush into altcoins if those plans become reality, altcoins will rise, bitcoin will fall ... you'll loose nothing, they loose everything. Stay calm. The technology is here to stay. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 15, 2013, 10:21:50 PM Every smart person owning bitcoins will rush into altcoins if those plans become reality, altcoins will rise, bitcoin will fall ... you'll loose nothing, they loose everything. Stay calm. The technology is here to stay. No need to rush into any altcoins, a simple hard fork is all we need.Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: SebastianJu on November 15, 2013, 10:27:59 PM This idea is already useless from the start. I mean its to fight scams right? But any scammer that isnt fully stupid will collect the coins and change it to good ones instantly. I mean you never know before that its a scam. And then, when its a known scam, the coins are marked. And completely innocent people will lose possibly everything.
This is completely useless for preventing scams. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: notthematrix on November 15, 2013, 10:29:26 PM Quote from: ffssixtynine Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence. Maybe it is a fabrication, maybe not, I don't care much. I don't think blacklists will go anywhere because people are mixing their coins for privacy reasons anyway to avoid data mining by vendors, so coins connected to crime already spread through everyone's hands.I'm just saying that it's actually a good sign when the community shows clearly what they think about such ideas. Developers and entrepreneurs should not see this as an attack against themselves, but rather against the idea itself. After all, if no one plans anything evil it means that this is just a misunderstanding and all attacks are directed against foundation members in a parallel universe. And if such discussions didn't have to get leaked, people wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that something shady is going on. And if those leaks weren't in .zip format people would be able to check for themselves much easier. yep like the 96% of coke on dollar bills , only bitcoins can not be printed and never leave the blockchain! so can not be replaced by clean ones , this simply does not make sense! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 10:30:44 PM I cannot formulate the words to adequately express my anger about this. I consider Bitcoin to be revolutionary. It could completely free people from the failing fiat system. It could completely free the people from the restrictions of credit card payments. It combines the best qualities of cash and plastic, AND it's impossible to steal (assuming the proper precautions are taken). And now, as with everything great that's happened since 1920, the US government and some multinational corporations have to find some way to stomp it to the ground for a few kickbacks and maybe a few years in office. If I could find a person who knowingly allowed this to happen, and I were in the same room as him with a gun in my hand, I would have a very difficult time not pulling the trigger. Some people might argue that "compromise is the only way to keep Bitcoin legal". If Bitcoin becomes popular enough, this may be true. I say, why gives a fuck? I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I believe that in the modern world, which revolves around the Internet, free software (especially free software infrastructures such as Bitcoin) is the greatest tool we have against authoritarianism. I believe that freedom from governmental and corporate control is a human right. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin has even a small number of users, it is my moral duty to do my best to keep the Bitcoin ecosystem alive, regardless of the consequences. If everyone shared this same philosophy, Bitcoin would be literally unstoppable. 1. Reject all closed source Bitcoin software, including web wallets, and, God forbid it comes to this, the official client. 2. Reject all Bitcoin software that contradicts Satoshi's paper. This paper is the Constitution of Bitcoin. This includes any software which blacklists addresses, reverses transactions, or has ANY central point of failure, especially a central authority. The difference between Bitcoin and Paypal is that Bitcion is decentralized. 3. Governments exist to catch proverbial murderers. They do not exist to prevent the purchase of proverbial weapons. No matter what governments say, control of currency (Bitcoin or otherwise) does nothing but control innocent people. 4. Corporations exist to serve customers. They do not exist to control customers. Boycott companies that place any restrictions other than the price of their goods or services. Interesting points but it's not really quite so simple to combat these problems. Things like web wallets do contributee to the centalization aspect, making it far easier for large banks to come in and start capitalizing- just build a feature that has some price advantage, but uses centralized technologies, and suddenly everyone is back on the old program again. One problem we face is tolerating technologies that abuse the underlying network. In my view Color Coins and Mastercoin are an example of this. The notion of having some kind of for-profit Color Coin system that exploits the assumptions of the network participants is just flat out intolerable if you ask me. This issue of government charter in the realm of finance has been going on for quite some time. J. Orlin Grabbe identitied these conflicts some time ago. http://orlingrabbe.com/money2.htm Quote There's a specter haunting the international financial markets: the specter of crime by nomenclature, by theological semantics. To be sure, the faceless piece of transaction information that makes money "money"--a useful medium of exchange, whereby we exchange everything for it, and avoid the direct bartering of wheelbarrows for oranges--has been under attack before. The 60s brought us "euro"-dollars, and the 70s "petro"-dollars. Now we have "narco"-dollars, "terror"-dollars, and (who knows?) maybe "kiddie-porn"-dollars. For some of the data bits stored in banks' computers comprise "clean" money and others "dirty" money, the latter legalistically smitten with original sin. As Yoga Berra might say, it's digital voodoo, all over again. As we know in post-Bailout America, there is an 'insider group' and these people are working for money interests while telling us that they want to keep up safe from terror, kiddie porn, and irreversible transactions. Do we still believe these people? The solution though is to stay vigilant with our values and continue to forge ahead despite the 'knowns' being now salaried employees of various banking interests. Have a look at my Confidence Chains project, it came out of some of the conclusions I came to regarding these issues and the drawbacks of other similar platforms. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Coin.Karma on November 15, 2013, 10:31:56 PM and we thought the foundation had good intentions
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Peter Todd on November 15, 2013, 10:33:48 PM I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies. gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind. Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation. Until they didn't. You already have a codebase released from that group, the one at http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin If it is changed in a way that is seriously objectionable, as opposed to minor disagreements about engineering tradeoffs, believe me, you will see alternative releases from myself and many others pop up. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 15, 2013, 10:34:28 PM So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit. It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. ... Bitcoin is not supposed to be a tool that replaces the incompetence of law enforcement. We need an altcoin that improves the weaknesses bitcoin has, hence allows people to be free once again, and not treated as potential Bin Ladens. You know this Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 10:37:11 PM Every smart person owning bitcoins will rush into altcoins if those plans become reality, altcoins will rise, bitcoin will fall ... you'll loose nothing, they loose everything. Stay calm. The technology is here to stay. No need to rush into any altcoins, a simple hard fork is all we need.You people are so stupid I need to go find popcorn to watch this. You are fighting your own shadow. Let me repeat this: Bitcoin Foundation is not imposing anything Bitcoin Devs are not doing anything along these lines Bitcoin miners wont allow anyone to go against the best interests of network. It's a closed book. please stop all this stupid banter. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 10:38:26 PM So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit. It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. ... Bitcoin is not supposed to be a tool that replaces the incompetence of law enforcement. We need an altcoin that improves the weaknesses bitcoin has, hence allows people to be free once again, and not treated as potential Bin Ladens. You know this Ya and we know how successful the altcoins are. Go take a rest. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: beetcoin on November 15, 2013, 10:38:47 PM Every smart person owning bitcoins will rush into altcoins if those plans become reality, altcoins will rise, bitcoin will fall ... you'll loose nothing, they loose everything. Stay calm. The technology is here to stay. No need to rush into any altcoins, a simple hard fork is all we need.You people are so stupid I need to go find popcorn to watch this. You are fighting your own shadow. Let me repeat this: Bitcoin Foundation is not imposing anything Bitcoin Devs are not doing anything along these lines Bitcoin miners wont allow anyone to go against the best interests of network. It's a closed book. please stop all this stupid banter. you shouldn't be so inflammatory and call people stupid, especially when you don't know the meaning of the word banter: 1. an exchange of light, playful, teasing remarks; good-natured raillery. verb (used with object) 2. to address with banter; chaff. verb (used without object) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 10:39:13 PM I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies. gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind. Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation. Until they didn't. You already have a codebase released from that group, the one at http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin If it is changed in a way that is seriously objectionable, as opposed to minor disagreements about engineering tradeoffs, believe me, you will see alternative releases from myself and many others pop up. you do realize that code base is a labyrinthine maze of C code, GOTOs, global variables, and other off-putting things? there are only a few people who are effectively capable of modifying the bitcoin code in any serious way. The only alternative client is BitcoinJ, written by Mike Hearn, who appears to be at the center of this whole controversy. Given that not many people here seem to even know the basics of software engineering, that leaves precious few people who can have an impact and haven't been bought out. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 10:45:23 PM We need an altcoin that improves the weaknesses bitcoin has So none of the altcoins out there already, to be clear. They all use addresses like Bitcoin and are data-minable just as Bitcoin is. Perhaps more so given their smaller blockchains and lack of alternative clients.at best you will duplicate the pattern and buy some time perhaps? If the underlying technology is identical, then it's not immune to the same effects. Some of the altcoins have departed considerably from the basic Bitcoin structure thus it takes more work to couple the various commercial systems to them, but it's not a major barrier. All the alt-coins are structurally similar if not identical to Bitcoin. Confidence Chains IS immune to these effects. I re-factored some very low level elements. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 15, 2013, 10:58:27 PM I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies. gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind. Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation. Until they didn't. You already have a codebase released from that group, the one at http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin If it is changed in a way that is seriously objectionable, as opposed to minor disagreements about engineering tradeoffs, believe me, you will see alternative releases from myself and many others pop up. you do realize that code base is a labyrinthine maze of C code, GOTOs, global variables, and other off-putting things? there are only a few people who are effectively capable of modifying the bitcoin code in any serious way. The only alternative client is BitcoinJ, written by Mike Hearn, who appears to be at the center of this whole controversy. Given that not many people here seem to even know the basics of software engineering, that leaves precious few people who can have an impact and haven't been bought out. There is alternatives. http://www.assets-otc.com/gocoin/ He's code looks sane, as go code usually does. - I was thinking that if this rubbish is implemented, the network will become a battlegound for hacking and attacks. And with the crap that gov is likely to contribute, those attacks will likely succeed. The foundation needs to improve the strength of the protocol and its resilience, not bend it to anyone's will Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: 600watt on November 15, 2013, 10:58:58 PM watching
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:02:18 PM watching does anyone think it's a coincidence that we have a huge run up in BTC price EXACTLY at the time this stuff is going on behind closed doors? certainly suggests and implicates various parties in some dastardly doings. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: DPoS on November 15, 2013, 11:07:47 PM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. Keep your fairytails to yourself... the CIA works with the Saudis to run all those merc groups in the middle east. Wake up. Not to mention Mossad Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:08:39 PM There is alternatives. http://www.assets-otc.com/gocoin/ He's code looks sane, as go code usually does. have you actually tried this? apparently a web link is some sort of new form of argument proof in our modern times. argumentum ad hrefium? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:13:00 PM @ffssixtynine I see you like government involvement, or at the very least - you think that there's no use in resisting it. With your little crafted example of Bin retard, for instance. Fear as a tactic? Its working for the DHS rather well, isn't it? So naturally you adopt this stance and say "Well, look - we can catch bad people if we do X, Y and Z" without stopping for one second and looking at the principles being violated. Personal freedom and financial freedom are worthwhile, no matter how many horrible counter-examples you can give. For every system there are positives and negatives, and I'm not going to give up this fight just because someone is scared the "bad guys" will abuse it. As for the "Bitcoin Foundation", all they've done is raise Bitcoin's visibility towards the very forces that can cause us harm (Depending on where you live, I guess.). Thanks a load, guys, you're really pals. Entertaining or "just discussing" these issues with government aren't helping anyone, at all. All they'll end up achieving is crippling U.S. involvement with Bitcoin, and then other countries will take the torch and leave them in the dust. This is simply idiocy. Can I just clarify that no no no I'm not in favour of any of it. I have said that several times :) However, some form of regulation is going to happen. It doesn't matter what you say, what I say, what the foundation say, it is going to happen. Just like with KYC with exchanges. Refusing to discuss it internally, let alone externally, is folly in the extreme. You'll then have people like yifu having the regulator's ear instead. That would be an utter nightmare - there would be no balance. They haven't raised Bitcoin's visibility in this respect - this is being discussing heavily at regulators world wide and multiple companies are working on how they can make money by getting in bed with the gov at our expense (some may even believe it's the right thing to do). I've known this was under discussion in the UK and US since July. It only takes a few contacts to know what's going on, plus enough has been said in public, and many other people here know this too. The only people with their knickers in a twist over a simple discussion are people here. Let me make clear the difference between something being discussed to as to know how to deal with questioning, which is absolutely essential, and coming out and saying at we should do x. It's important to recognise the difference. In order to counter arguments for black green grey etc listing, you need to have discussed it, including technical approaches. Not doing so means being caught with your pants down. Regulators are not necessarily your enemy, but governments and law enforcement certainly can be. Regulators are the guys in the middle. It's all rather more complex than you seem to realise. Btw This issue goes way beyond the US. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:18:06 PM The only people with their knickers in a twist over a simple discussion are people here. Why does it seem we have so many British on this side of the discussion lately? Also the IBM rep who was poking around was also London based. I think maybe theyre concerned this might happen again: http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/ownmoney.txt Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 15, 2013, 11:19:12 PM watching does anyone think it's a coincidence that we have a huge run up in BTC price EXACTLY at the time this stuff is going on behind closed doors? certainly suggests and implicates various parties in some dastardly doings. Some "groups" have concluded that Bitcoin will go mainstream and it has to be controlled before it can harm their business and powers. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:21:29 PM None of what you said has anything to do with what I said. Talk about someone not reading... I'm just saying I came here looking for a solution for this CoinValidation business. I got none. And not only that, but the foundation is actually talking about its merits. Regulators, debates, meeting the government... cool story bro. But it's off topic. I'm just talking about how I'm not seeing any solutions to the CoinValidation issue coming from the Foundation. CoinValidation was literally only just announced and is not even what's under discussion! You're conflating issues. The foundation themselves are nothing to do with it. I hope I'm not being out of turn but I contacted Mike Hearn and he said he doesn't know about their plans. They need to be looked at and an approach formulated because you can bet govs will love CoinValidation - it could give them more than they ever dreamed. Imagine the US or your knowing every single thing you spend, when, maybe even where. It turns bitcoin into our worst nightmare. However, if the bitcoin crowd refuse to budge, we'll see a gov supported crypto or a layer on top of bitcoin and it'll all get unnecessarily messy and no one will win. Man in the street doesn't know or care about is, and they don't trust bitcoin anyway. Don't trust govs or banks much either but money wise I guarantee they will trust the dollar or a Visa card many times more than this currency that looks like a ponzi to them and is used by criminals apparently (just putting across a common pov). So you may not want anyone speaking to regulators or the gov, but you're not thinking it through and whether you agree or not, it isn't on to start making personal attacks and throwing around inaccurate information as we've seen (I'm not saying you are yourself!). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:21:58 PM watching does anyone think it's a coincidence that we have a huge run up in BTC price EXACTLY at the time this stuff is going on behind closed doors? certainly suggests and implicates various parties in some dastardly doings. Some "groups" have concluded that Bitcoin will go mainstream and it has to be controlled before it can harm their business and powers. well if the insiders(who are supposed to be representing the community) covertly agree to work in controls that are beneficial for capital interests, then they know its safe to start buying BTC, and they know this before the general public does and can profit from it. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:23:39 PM It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers How many times - read read read. Stop just reading a headline and throwing out a random statement based on fiction. No wonder Fox News has such a huge effect - people don't want to think for themselves, they just want to be outraged. Virtually no one wants tainting. Based on the forum posts the op put up, the foundation members don't either. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:29:37 PM It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers How many times - read read read. Stop just reading a headline and throwing out a random statement based on fiction. No wonder Fox News has such a huge effect - people don't want to think for themselves, they just want to be outraged. Virtually no one wants tainting. Based on the forum posts the op put up, the foundation members don't either. did you read this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10394831/City-workers-face-investigation-over-Libor-fixing.html who do you think is culpable? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:30:05 PM Stuff about the us gov actions... You've misunderstood my point. I was showing how the media and the gov and the public will react. How the gov actually behave themselves has nothing to do with it. All the media, but perhaps the US particular, have to take a lot of the blame for not raising merry hell about what's gone on. However, it's nothing to do with my point and I don't trust any gov to anything related to blacklisting. It'd be a disaster of epic proportions and cannot be allowed. However... That does not mean something can be done to prevent the gov doing a major hatchet job such as a third party verification service mandated for all crypto currencies. I don't want anything done but that's wishful thinking. Too much is at stake. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:30:57 PM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10394831/City-workers-face-investigation-over-Libor-fixing.html who do you think is culpable? I don't understand that this has to do with anything? Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: tinus42 on November 15, 2013, 11:31:14 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?No, no centralization please. Existing members of the BF should consider withdrawing their membership. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Boussac on November 15, 2013, 11:32:27 PM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. Imagine Bin Laden is still around.We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword. We find out his bank account. It contains 5 MUSD and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. The US Dollar being so public is a double-edged sword. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:33:08 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?No, no centralization please. Existing members of the BF should consider withdrawing their membership. BF + ECB/FR = BFF Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:33:35 PM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10394831/City-workers-face-investigation-over-Libor-fixing.html who do you think is culpable? I don't understand that this has to do with anything? don't want to answer my question huh? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:35:08 PM Bitcoin is not supposed to be a tool that replaces the incompetence of law enforcement. We need an altcoin that improves the weaknesses bitcoin has, hence allows people to be free once again, and not treated as potential Bin Ladens. You know this Yes, where have I said any different? My point wasn't that it's wrong about bin laden's account in my example, my point was about how it would play out. I thought that was obvious but sorry if it wasn't. If you read the foundation threads, someone made exactly the same point as your first line. Banks have had all this too - they don't want all this KYC but they were forced to give in. Hopefully bitcoin won't. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:36:29 PM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10394831/City-workers-face-investigation-over-Libor-fixing.html who do you think is culpable? I don't understand that this has to do with anything? don't want to answer my question huh? I just don't understand what on earth it has to do with anything? Corrupt bankers? Inept regulators? Gov letting this go on under their noses? What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? Seriously, I don't understand your point. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: leopard2 on November 15, 2013, 11:36:34 PM Bitcoin is like cash, and who would use a dollar bill that could be remotely seized or invalidated by someone? just because bin laden is using dollar bills?
In contrast to paper bills, btc can be converted to any altcoin at exchanges anywhere on the planet, so how could a tainted version of btc survive? Fiat exchange can be regulated because there are bank accounts involved but btc-altcoin conversion are nearly impossible to regulate. Each of the various altcoins could replace btc instantly, only problem being that many BTC owners would lose money. Maybe it is time to get a bunch of the most common altcoins just in case? ;D Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 15, 2013, 11:39:55 PM Bitcoin is not supposed to be a tool that replaces the incompetence of law enforcement. We need an altcoin that improves the weaknesses bitcoin has, hence allows people to be free once again, and not treated as potential Bin Ladens. You know this Yes, where have I said any different? My point wasn't that it's wrong about bin laden's account in my example, my point was about how it would play out. I thought that was obvious but sorry if it wasn't. If you read the foundation threads, someone made exactly the same point as your first line. Banks have had all this too - they don't want all this KYC but they were forced to give in. Hopefully bitcoin won't. I guess you didn't, I just needed an entry point ;D Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 15, 2013, 11:40:17 PM Quote from: Gavin (foundation forum post) In my head, I picture people sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALAL DON'T TALK ABOUT COINTAINT LALALALAL" Or maybe somebody in a funny hat pointing their finger at Mike and shouting "BLASPHEMY!" It is fine if y'all want to pretend that coin-tracking won't happen if the Foundation ignores it, and maybe it is such a hot-button issue that the Foundation should ignore it right now. But it will happen anyway, because the technology to make it happen is pretty straightforward, and any victim of CryptoLocker will be VERY sympathetic to law enforcement tracking "dirty" coins. More than sympathetic, I think we should expect a lot of pressure on law enforcement to DO SOMETHING. The above was posted by Gavin. I have emphasised the point I was also making. This doesn't mean do something, it means absolute and complete preparation for how to deal with it. In order to do that, you have to be able to discuss it without being burned at the stake. That's just to shoot oneself in the head. Isn't the obvious response to the bolded portion, especially from the foundation and core devs, to implement technical solutions that make harder/impossible to redlist/blacklist/whitelist? That is exactly what the core devs are looking at already. CoinJoin, BIP32 and Luke-Jr's test to incentivize unique address use (which comes for free with BIP32 - just need to get more wallets to implement it!!). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:40:49 PM I was thinking that if this rubbish is implemented, the network will become a battlegound for hacking and attacks. And with the crap that gov is likely to contribute, those attacks will likely succeed. The foundation needs to improve the strength of the protocol and its resilience, not bend it to anyone's will Yes it will and that's why it would be terrible to leave it to crazy money hungry coin verification companies to have discussions with those in power as that's exactly what would happen. The foundation are not the bitcoin developers though. The protocol and resilience is down to them. The foundation aren't there to bend to anyone's will, they are there to inform and protect. If they go to the gov and say we need to implement green addresses etc then I'd be all over it. I have seen no sign of that, only of recognition and discussion of the legal issues at hand. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on November 15, 2013, 11:41:08 PM In contrast to paper bills, btc can be converted to any altcoin at exchanges anywhere on the planet, so how could a tainted version of btc survive? Fiat exchange can be regulated because there are bank accounts involved but btc-altcoin conversion are nearly impossible to regulate. the other alt-coins dont significantly differ from Bitcoin thus they can easily and cheaply repeat the process with them. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 15, 2013, 11:43:24 PM Bitcoin is like cash, and who would use a dollar bill that could be remotely seized or invalidated by someone? just because bin laden is using dollar bills? In contrast to paper bills, btc can be converted to any altcoin at exchanges anywhere on the planet, so how could a tainted version of btc survive? Fiat exchange can be regulated because there are bank accounts involved but btc-altcoin conversion are nearly impossible to regulate. Each of the various altcoins could replace btc instantly, only problem being that many BTC owners would lose money. Maybe it is time to get a bunch of the most common altcoins just in case? ;D An altcoin could be bought with bitcoins. It doesn't need to be a problem Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:45:50 PM Isn't the obvious response to the bolded portion, especially from the foundation and core devs, to implement technical solutions that make it harder/impossible to redlist/blacklist/whitelist? Aye, so how do you do that? You have a discussion on how it would be achieved technically so you can then know how to design systems to protect. You can also have a legit discussion about if there is a way to deal with clear criminality within the protocol (I don't think you can because it's all in the eye of the beholder). However, apparently they aren't allowed to discuss it... Sarcasm! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: leopard2 on November 15, 2013, 11:47:35 PM In contrast to paper bills, btc can be converted to any altcoin at exchanges anywhere on the planet, so how could a tainted version of btc survive? Fiat exchange can be regulated because there are bank accounts involved but btc-altcoin conversion are nearly impossible to regulate. the other alt-coins dont significantly differ from Bitcoin thus they can easily and cheaply repeat the process with them. Who is "they"? Is there a central organization that controls the code behind all existing and future altcoins? You are funny. :D Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:48:14 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?No, no centralization please. Existing members of the BF should consider withdrawing their membership. To you as well, go and read properly and think for yourself rather than just replying to a topic title. The foundation have not asked for this. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 11:50:26 PM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his bank account. It contains 5 MUSD and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. The US Dollar being so public is a double-edged sword. The bank account would be/have been confiscated. That's the entire point I was making. The media, the people, the gov will want to know why it wasn't. In the case of bitcoin, they simply can't do it. In regular banks they can. End result, massive backlash against bitcoin. Totally inevitable. I remember people not eating french fries because the French dared to make their own decision about the war! Comical. And you couldn't criticise the war because it was anti American and not supporting the soldiers. So you'll get the same thing, but about bitcoin. And people will stop accepting it or using it on principle. And draconian laws will come in. That is the real world and it sucks, but people like to run with the pack rather than engage their brain. You can see that all over this thread and reddit, it's not actually any different. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: safeminer on November 15, 2013, 11:52:31 PM This should be stopped at all costs !!!!
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Lauda on November 15, 2013, 11:53:44 PM We need CoinJoin or something similar asap.
Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: Voodah on November 16, 2013, 12:08:13 AM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Or an alternative, true, foundation?No, no centralization please. Existing members of the BF should consider withdrawing their membership. To you as well, go and read properly and think for yourself rather than just replying to a topic title. The foundation have not asked for this. Please stop giving the same "go read" to everyone and treating anyone but yourself as an ignorant. The fact is, the foundation HAS asked for this. It did so by disastrously handling this whole situation. I agree 100% with you on the need for open healthy discussion to be had, specially regarding sensitive issues like these. Knowing how sensitive they are though, obvious care should be taken as to how it is proposed, discussed and assesed. It seems to me AFTER READING the htmls they did exactly the opposite of that. Idk why you have such a clear agenda of blindly defending what is clearly a mistake ( not even in what's being discussed but in HOW ). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 12:22:03 AM None of the discussion I read seemed geared towards how we could prevent such financial censorship (and yes I read all of the threads). It was all about how it could be implemented "safely". And then countered by how it wouldn't work. Anyone looking at implementing it has to do the same thing. Moreover, the bitcoin devs know that it may come down to them doing something less evil vs an external doing something very evil. Even to do that would be hugely difficult for them because miners will simply say no unless there is a very compelling case. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 12:32:48 AM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Yup this is why Litecoion, in case bitcoin ever gets fucked up. Whatever they do there will be black market cryptos, but there will never be legal cryptos that don't follow the same rules that Bitcoin is made to follow. So Litecoin has the same issue, hence if Litecoin stays 'legal' (in the US let's say) then something else with be created. In a sense, that's why the whole discussion is rather moot, but that never stopped the drug war and it won't stop this. It's not about being logical. The wonderfully free US seems to be anything but. (Not saying the UK is much better either - oh look, CCTV) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BigJohn on November 16, 2013, 12:33:35 AM That is exactly what the core devs are looking at already. CoinJoin, BIP32 and Luke-Jr's test to incentivize unique address use (which comes for free with BIP32 - just need to get more wallets to implement it!!). Can you elaborate on incentivizing unique address use? I hope you are referring to single use addresses, not re-using the same address permanently. I think he means this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0 Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcdrak on November 16, 2013, 12:43:16 AM Their biggest problem is to have a members only forum. They should open it up to non-members, just maybe restrict commenting to members only if they wish.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 01:58:44 AM -As for Mike Hearn, I contacted him directly about Inputs.io and the fact that it was promoted by the administrator of this site. I suggested he make announcements somewhere else and no longer support Bitcointalk.org because it was defrauding new users with the ads. he told me to "go away" and hire my own programmer to fork the code. I know this is a bit of an aside, but what has the admin of this site got to do with any of us who use it? If you don't like it, leave. God knows I've got issues with the way this place is run but it is what it is. Even so, whatever suspicions you or someone else may have (me included), there is no evidence. That's a slippery slope you're asking for and is just mob rule. Not sure what any of this has to do with forking the code? Agree that maybe the foundation should have read only forums for Joe Public. It's not like anything posted there is confidential because anyone can pay a few bucks to read it. I think you'll get a handful of trouble makers picking up on every little thing (like today) but at least you can't be accused of doing things behind people's backs. Also, whenever people throw words like cheerleader around they're just name calling and insinuating rather than discussing facts. You're better than that so please don't stoop that low. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: pera on November 16, 2013, 02:02:34 AM Reading this is disappointing for a number of other reasons... Taint tracking is precisely why we need ZeroCoin or CoinJoin or whatever. Do it now. [...] I don't think that the Bitcoin Foundation (as a whole) is going to encourage ZeroCoin nor CoinJoin as they are looking for the approval of the government. Although I believe some members of the Foundation (like gavin and gmaxwell) have good intentions, I'm still very sceptically of the real intentions behind it. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: wxg10 on November 16, 2013, 02:11:01 AM If bitcoins become somehow confiscable because of this meassures, _the_ gold 2.0 will be dead.
Real bitcoins are like cryptonite to super-cleptocrats.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: masterluc on November 16, 2013, 02:39:47 AM BF is absolutely useless private club. They answer regulator questions? Why to talk to govs, when they are dead in future with their monetary system?
Why they hide their conversations? Maybe they also should close the bitcoin code? I will completely stop using official client when centralized shit will be added. I already don't like alert keys trojan (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/alert.cpp). Who owns keys? Who will protect owner from external pressure of interested parties? You will not stop the crime with centralization, but kill bitcoin while crime will grow. Crime is a standalone system out of Bitcoin. Imagine Bin Laden is still around. Stop spread the FUD about terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Kaida were created by CIA. Almost every "evil dictator" US fighted with was created by CIA. They created evil and now they scare us by it. How Bitcoin is responsible for that? Fuck the binladen, fuck the US. US invaded into Afganistan and control biggest fields of poppy. They spread drugs around the world. How Bitcoin is responsible to this? Why Bitcoin should submit its features to US authorities who fuck the world in the ass? You know what? Governments are the real crime. Stop speak to them. Fuck them off. They will eat themselves in the end. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: lizardflix on November 16, 2013, 03:19:50 AM It seems like for a lot of people involved in bitcoin, there's a need for drama all the time. Talking about issues and possible solutions is not a reason to freak out. And just because people might not agree with you on something doesn't mean they're the spawn of satan.
I'm a big believer in btc but there sure are a lot of people in this community who seems to always have something to scream about. Chill out. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: archangel689 on November 16, 2013, 03:25:12 AM Does this alert thing do what I think it does? It looks as if it sends the user a message to upgrade with a link? If this is the case and there was a hard fork wouldn't the guy with the key control the upgrade path of those who weren't paying attention to recent on goings? It would take advantage of users ignorance.
BF is absolutely useless private club. They answer regulator questions? Why to talk to govs, when they are dead in future with their monetary system? Why they hide their conversations? Maybe they also should close the bitcoin code? I will completely stop using official client when centralized shit will be added. I already don't like alert keys trojan (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/alert.cpp). Who owns keys? Who will protect owner from external pressure of interested parties? You will not stop the crime with centralization, but kill bitcoin while crime will grow. Crime is a standalone system out of Bitcoin. Imagine Bin Laden is still around. Stop spread the FUD about terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Kaida were created by CIA. Almost every "evil dictator" US fighted with was created by CIA. They created evil and now they scare us by it. How Bitcoin is responsible for that? Fuck the binladen, fuck the US. US invaded into Afganistan and control biggest fields of poppy. They spread drugs around the world. How Bitcoin is responsible to this? Why Bitcoin should submit its features to US authorities who fuck the world in the ass? You know what? Governments are the real crime. Stop speak to them. Fuck them off. They will eat themselves in the end. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: FreakNet on November 16, 2013, 03:35:22 AM Blacklisting is so stupid, soon enough the government will make you register your name and contact info with each btc address.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on November 16, 2013, 04:02:50 AM I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies. gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind. Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation. Until they didn't. You already have a codebase released from that group, the one at http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin If it is changed in a way that is seriously objectionable, as opposed to minor disagreements about engineering tradeoffs, believe me, you will see alternative releases from myself and many others pop up. The way I envision this is that a separate repository holds the source code, but it exactly matches the 'Bitcoin Foundation' one (for lack of a better term.) Releases would come off of it and be distributed via a different channel. The implementation of the protocol would be the same of course. There would be several goals: - People could express their interest in either Mike and Gavin's conception of Bitcoin by taking the 'official' release, or alternately, express their support for the philosophical principles of a different set of developers by taking from the alternate channel. There would be no difference in function, but it would be a good way to gauge community sentiment. - A distribution channel would be primed, tested, and already in use if there came a point when the differences exceeded the 'minor disagreements about engineering.' --- I am not aware of any other project which has a construct such as I've described, but Bitcoin is a bit unique in the open-source world in that - there are some real and deep philosophical differences about how monetary systems work (and don't work.) - there is a large amount of value riding on the solution and it's trajectory, not to mention some significant socio-political considerations. - consequences of a mis-step in terms of protocol direction would be very difficult to back out of and would leave a lot of residual baggage in the block chain. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: NewLiberty on November 16, 2013, 04:15:55 AM you are out of the topic . The truth is Laden bought weapons using USD not bitcoin ,so why not ban USD worldwide ? Because it's not money's fault . If he'd been using bitcoin, he'd have been found sooner. Not to mention bitcoin transactions take technology, modern electronic communication and connectivity... all things he was forbidden to use and forbidding others around him to use. From a practical perspective, this terrorist funding angle is vulnerable to accusations of being a false premise, or worse yet, a theoretical fear floated to grab authority. It is fine to discuss it, but why be surprised when it invites severe criticism? It borders on the trollish. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: jedunnigan on November 16, 2013, 04:21:53 AM I like Peter Todd's response the most:
Quote When you are chair of a position you have to accept that you no longer are speaking for yourself, especially when you are specifically talking about an idea positively and in relation to setting official policy. In bureaucrat speak, that's promoting an idea, and given his other posts he's promoting it pretty heavily. You know I mentioned this debacle today to someone I know who is a high-profile government bureaucrat. They read jdillon's initial post and their response was pretty blunt: the fact that this blew up as quickly and as big as it did by itself indicates that Mike doesn't know what he's doing. .... An important part of not being disorganized on the inside is accepting common principles - there is rough consensus that fungibility and privacy is important and that blacklists and coin taint are bad ideas. Given that the first few times the idea has come up it's been thoroughly shot down a good committee chair would put their personal opinions aside, and work with that consensus to figure out how to best implement it into policy that was accepted by the community and achieved the goals of the community. Instead Mike is pushing a very minority opinion and is wasting his time and credibility. Now if Mike did want to fix this situation he could do so very easily: Just say that while his personal opinions differ, as chair he accepts that the community is strongly opposed to any form of blacklist, redlist or whatever is the latest name applied to them, and in his official capacity will respect that and will honestly work towards policy that reflects those desires. I think it's time for Mike to reconsider his role. Even if the redlisting thread was just a thought experiment/discussion, he should have known better. The Foundation (and Mike) have done quite a bit in the past to piss off the community, but I think these most recent events could pose a real problem for the Foundation moving forward. In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that. And while I do believe there is a certain level of overreaction here, there is no doubt Mike (and others) are in support of this idea--whether or not they are willing to openly admit it anymore is another question. Redlisting was always going to happen, question was who was going to push the idea and implement the software. Never did I ever think we would see something like this from the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 16, 2013, 04:33:38 AM Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate (http://redonate.net/) account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: jedunnigan on November 16, 2013, 04:48:27 AM Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate (http://redonate.net/) account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.I like you, let's be friends. Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: NewLiberty on November 16, 2013, 04:51:49 AM Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate (http://redonate.net/) account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.I like you, let's be friends. Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no. Truly, they work for him. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on November 16, 2013, 04:59:36 AM Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate (http://redonate.net/) account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.I would not donate to an effort led by Gavin. I do not believe that he has the mindset to lead a unique and important effort such as Bitcoin. That is not to say I don't think he's a good guy or lacks skill or whatever. He's just not the right guy for the job in this case. The reason I say this is that the first thing out of his mouth at the SJ 2013 'state of bitcoin' presentation was the standard faire 'we must rapidly innovate or be left behind' sentiment that permeates the thinking in the valley. I would not say that this is necessarily true or false in the case of Bitcoin, but it certainly needs to be carefully considered and not taken as a standard and obvious given as might be the case with lesser software systems. My personal feeling is that Bitcoin had a huge potential just as it was/is, and by far the most critical focus should be to make it rock solid and defensible against all potential attacks even if we have yet to witness them. This is very much the opposite of adding various bells and whistles. Worse yet, my interpretation of the direction of the project is that the 'defense' is to build in and/or retain constructs necessary to comply with the interests of more powerful entities. I am certain that this acquiescent defense will be a mistake in direction and will end in failure. The shame of it would be that Bitcoin probably has the basic architecture to survive in a very hostile environment. Barely. Giving up a position of strength is a bad move in my opinion. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Severian on November 16, 2013, 05:00:42 AM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. Anyone playing the bin Laden card as an argument for why Bitcoin should be debased and debilitated can be safely dismissed. You're dismissed. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 16, 2013, 05:49:42 AM Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate (http://redonate.net/) account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.I like you, let's be friends. Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no. He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof. I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: dancingnancy on November 16, 2013, 05:56:15 AM Paging Satoshi for cleanup on aisle 7....
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: jedunnigan on November 16, 2013, 09:20:40 AM Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate (http://redonate.net/) account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.I like you, let's be friends. Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no. He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof. I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind... Well, I am always reminded of this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611) post by satoshi: Quote I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint. Although there are so many scenarios Satoshi could not have been expected to plan for. I've always been a fan of alternative implementations although they must be maintained and tested with utmost care and precision. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 10:22:55 AM There is alternatives. http://www.assets-otc.com/gocoin/ He's code looks sane, as go code usually does. have you actually tried this? apparently a web link is some sort of new form of argument proof in our modern times. argumentum ad hrefium? Yea I have tried it before and I tried it again. It works like a charm. Here is the output Code: Using NewEC wrapper for EC_Verify And the web client http://i41.tinypic.com/14o4wnd.jpg Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: El Dude on November 16, 2013, 10:26:24 AM and this is why you never put all your eggs in 1 blockchain , hurry and buy LTC before it skyrockets.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: laanwj on November 16, 2013, 11:48:21 AM In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that. You know you can simply create a github account and start contributing? (right here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin, behold the Fork button) Like many others in this community you make it sound like forking the code is some grandiose act of rebellion. But it's simply how open source works.the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol. No need to BF member, or go through a secret core dev initiation ritual. Seriously, we can use more active contributors for Bitcoind/-qt. Get involved! Stop complaining, start coding (or as Erik Hughes wrote in his manifesto in 1993: Cypherpunks write code). Forking the code is not a threat to anyone. Don't confuse it with forking the blockchain. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 16, 2013, 11:52:44 AM Well, I am always reminded of this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611) post by satoshi: I think this is an artifact of Satoshi being stronger in crypto than in software engineering.Quote I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint. Although there are so many scenarios Satoshi could not have been expected to plan for. I've always been a fan of alternative implementations although they must be maintained and tested with utmost care and precision. http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 12:06:26 PM I don't see anything wrong with the blacklisting issues being discussed. I think the suggestions are rather naïve but people are already worried that the development team is small and has significant say over what goes into the code. The perception, whether true or not, is that issues are being hidden and this whole discussion board things adds fuel that perception. When you want mass adoption perception matters more than facts. In a sense I agree with you. Communication and trust is important. I posted earlier in this thread to explain why I wasn't a member. The Foundation know that the bitcoin crowd is a hard one to please as many have extreme views, however they don't help themselves by not being whiter than white with regard to some members. I think they have to bite the bullet in that respect. There should be a separate business lead organisation IMHO. This would happen in other industries but in the bitcoin world it's all over connected still. Re: forum - can't agree. This is pretty much the only place bitcoin people go, this and reddit. It is intentionally open to everything. Virtually all it's members will be on here. Bitcoin is (currently!) completely free, so scammers and businesses and everyone can use it. This forum has the same philosophy, and so do a very large number of bitcoiners. Once we have a better place, then your argument will begin to hold more water. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 12:09:06 PM you are out of the topic . The truth is Laden bought weapons using USD not bitcoin ,so why not ban USD worldwide ? Because it's not money's fault . If he'd been using bitcoin, he'd have been found sooner. Not to mention bitcoin transactions take technology, modern electronic communication and connectivity... all things he was forbidden to use and forbidding others around him to use. From a practical perspective, this terrorist funding angle is vulnerable to accusations of being a false premise, or worse yet, a theoretical fear floated to grab authority. It is fine to discuss it, but why be surprised when it invites severe criticism? It borders on the trollish. The example was about the media, public and political reaction to it being done in public, not about bitcoin being usable by terrorists. It'd be very, very bad for bitcoin indeed and it is going to happen. I apologise for not making that clear enough. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 12:10:18 PM In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that. You know you can simply create a github account and start contributing? (right here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin, behold the Fork button) Like many others in this community you make it sound like forking the code is some grandiose act of rebellion. But it's simply how open source works.the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol. No need to BF member, or go through a secret core dev initiation ritual. Seriously, we can use more active contributors for Bitcoind/-qt. Get involved! Stop complaining, start coding (or as Erik Hughes wrote in his manifesto in 1993: Cypherpunks write code). Forking the code is not a threat to anyone. Don't confuse it with forking the blockchain. Well said. Developers should also be positive to alternative clients. Gatekeeper mentality will only hurt open source projects Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 12:19:37 PM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. Anyone playing the bin Laden card as an argument for why Bitcoin should be debased and debilitated can be safely dismissed. You're dismissed. Except I didn't. It's funny that people see a terrorist name, immediately assume I'm playing the card that govs play, and then don't read the actual argument. Which is exactly the same behaviour that allowed the US et al to start all this shit off in the first place, just from the opposite viewpoint. So once again, follow the argument through and it's about the focus on bitcoin if/when that happens, not that they could use bitcoin as a bank but that everyone could see it and no one could stop it. A little bit of rhetoric from media and politicians and you'll immediately have the villagers besieging bitcoin and everyone who accepts it. This entire thread is a great example of people only reading headlines and conflating topics. Imagine this on a US wide scale. Think for yourselves. Read for yourselves. Use your brains. I don't agree but at least those discussing forks or new currencies are perfectly valid in doing so and I'm sure we'll see a more anonymous coin take hold for black market and anon activities. It won't be used by legal businesses, but you'll just exchange it for btc. So what can they do? That's my view on why any significant move on bitcoin is ludicrous. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: wetroof on November 16, 2013, 12:25:23 PM the future of bitcoin is with the miners. I'm excited to watch the battle unfold.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 12:36:04 PM Looks like the cartel is much farther with conspiring against the bitcoin principles, than I had ever expected.
That's exactly what we could predict after Google itself had put their dirty hands on the development - anyone with a working brain knew that nothing good could have come from it. Anyway, thanks for the leak! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 12:46:17 PM Looks like the cartel is much farther with conspiring against the bitcoin principles, than I had ever expected. That's exactly what we could predict after Google itself had put their dirty hands on the development - anyone with a working brain knew that nothing good could have come from You haven't read the posts or the thread have you. Please go back and read what was actually said. I even posted a fair summary of quotes but you can read all the originals for yourself. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 12:47:40 PM Looks like the cartel is much farther with conspiring against the bitcoin principles, than I had ever expected. That's exactly what we could predict after Google itself had put their dirty hands on the development - anyone with a working brain knew that nothing good could have come from You haven't read the posts or the thread have you. Please go back and read what was actually said. I even posted a fair summary of quotes but you can read all the originals for yourself. Spare me the bullshit, man. I'm totally capable of drawing my own conclusions, not interested at all in your stupid excuses and I don't trust you a bit. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 12:50:13 PM ... Good to see you around. Keep up the good work on gocoin. You take pull requests? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 12:54:59 PM Good to see you around. Keep up the good work on gocoin. You take pull requests? Thanks. I haven't been taking pull requests so far, because I wanted to stay the only copyright holder, hoping to cash on it some day selling it for a commerce apps. But unlike the fucking bunch of traitors I do care about the future of the bitcoin as we know it, more than personal profits, so I'm open for suggestions and ideas... If there will be a need for it, I will make gocoin free also for commercial use. I can also add bitcoind compatible mining API, if anyone is interested. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 16, 2013, 12:56:09 PM Looks like the cartel is much farther with conspiring against the bitcoin principles, than I had ever expected. That's exactly what we could predict after Google itself had put their dirty hands on the development - anyone with a working brain knew that nothing good could have come from You haven't read the posts or the thread have you. Please go back and read what was actually said. I even posted a fair summary of quotes but you can read all the originals for yourself. Of course the worst quotes aren't going to be made public - we've got to infer what's going on behind the scenes based on what is public. From the Forbes article: Quote “Essentially, we’ve been working with regulators for a structured approach for Bitcoin customers to be compliant,” says Waters. “We set up an API to work with their systems and we supply reporting tools they need for their databases. Which bitcoin addresses belong to a person? That’s the problem we’re solving.” Who started telling the regulators this was even possible in the first place and also a good idea? Peter Vessenes. Where is Peter right now? Chairman of the Board for Bitcoin Foundation. The leaked thread is not where the important discussions and decisions are being made. A group of people including US government officials and business owners have decided this is going to happen, and the thread is one of many attempts to figure out a way to sell it to the community, before they give up and just ram it down everybody's throats (at least, everybody within the grasp of the US government). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 01:07:31 PM Good to see you around. Keep up the good work on gocoin. You take pull requests? I haven't so far since I wanted to stay the only copyright holder, hoping to cash on it some day selling it for a commerce apps. But unlike the fucking bunch of traitors I do care about the future of the bitcoin as we know it, more than personal profits, so I'm open for suggestions and ideas... Is that why you are using openssl instead of https://github.com/titanous/bitcoin-crypto (https://github.com/titanous/bitcoin-crypto) ? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: forzendiablo on November 16, 2013, 01:10:50 PM if tghe thign listed here happends - then BTC is no different than USD or any other currency.
if there is reversile charges and easy tracking of wallets that means its no longer bitcoin. surely the market is big and there are people who want to enter it fro mthe backdoor, but we as a community should do everything o stop that. even if that will mean moving to some altcoin in the end. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 01:15:45 PM if tghe thign listed here happends - then BTC is no different than USD or any other currency. if there is reversile charges and easy tracking of wallets that means its no longer bitcoin. surely the market is big and there are people who want to enter it fro mthe backdoor, but we as a community should do everything o stop that. even if that will mean moving to some altcoin in the end. Why would I want to use bitcoins instead of traditional currencies and payment systems if any of these suggestions is implemented? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 01:18:29 PM Good to see you around. Keep up the good work on gocoin. You take pull requests? I haven't so far since I wanted to stay the only copyright holder, hoping to cash on it some day selling it for a commerce apps. But unlike the fucking bunch of traitors I do care about the future of the bitcoin as we know it, more than personal profits, so I'm open for suggestions and ideas... Is that why you are using openssl instead of https://github.com/titanous/bitcoin-crypto (https://github.com/titanous/bitcoin-crypto) ? OpenSSL is optional - its there just to speed up ECDSA verify operations, since the ones from standard go libs are damn slow. But I ported sipa's ECDSA lib into native Go and it performs even better than openssl wrapper, so these days openssl is even disabled by default. I left it there though, for the kind of paranoid people who trust more in the openssl mess than in the clean code from sipa and my re-implementation of it. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 01:22:35 PM Good to see you around. Keep up the good work on gocoin. You take pull requests? I haven't so far since I wanted to stay the only copyright holder, hoping to cash on it some day selling it for a commerce apps. But unlike the fucking bunch of traitors I do care about the future of the bitcoin as we know it, more than personal profits, so I'm open for suggestions and ideas... Is that why you are using openssl instead of https://github.com/titanous/bitcoin-crypto (https://github.com/titanous/bitcoin-crypto) ? OpenSSL is optional - its there just to speed up ECDSA verify operations, since the ones from standard go libs are damn slow. But I ported sipa's ECDSA lib into native Go and it performs even better than openssl, so these days openssl is even disabled by default. I left it there though, for paranoid people who trust more in the openssl mess than in the nice sipa's code :) (I'm definitely not one of them). I see. By the way, what do you think about the memory usage, Are you considering/doing memory profiling and optimizations? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 01:27:34 PM By the way, what do you think about the memory usage, Are you considering/doing memory profiling and optimizations? If you'd switch to a different kind of UTXO database (e.g. LevelDB), the memory usage should go down significantly. But 3 GB that it takes in peeks these days doesn't seem like something that people cannot afford - I definitely can, so I'm not wasting my time on this. But the interface to UTXO db is fairly simple, so if anyone wants to try wrapping it over a different engine, you're welcome to try. https://github.com/piotrnar/gocoin/blob/master/btc/dbif.go Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: archangel689 on November 16, 2013, 01:44:36 PM Why would I want to use bitcoins instead of traditional currencies and payment systems if any of these suggestions is implemented? ^ this a thousand times this. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Lauda on November 16, 2013, 02:03:03 PM Why would I want to use bitcoins instead of traditional currencies and payment systems if any of these suggestions is implemented? ^ this a thousand times this. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Severian on November 16, 2013, 02:13:05 PM Except I didn't. Yes, you did. In black and white. Your denial of the obvious makes you even more dismissable. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: notthematrix on November 16, 2013, 02:29:30 PM The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture. It is VERY important that you understand what is going on behind closed doors of the Bitcoin Foundation. I am absolutely disgusted by the approach the foundation is taking to make Bitcoin no longer an open payments system, but rather a restricted, locked down platform with central control in the form of the current certificate authority structure, blacklisting of Bitcoins, reversing transactions and much more. It always starts off small - like a UI that tells you coins are no longer fungible. It will lead into a locked down Bitcoin - that the rich wants. PLEASE READ SATOSHI'S BITCOIN WHITE PAPER. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf This Is What Bitcoin Stands For. No trusted central authorities like Verisign. No transaction "meditating" or reversing. No blacklists of bitcoin - bitcoins must be fungible. ------- DUMP ------ http://uppit.com/qu6jyr37eata (fastest?) http://depositfiles.com/files/z6shx9x8d http://www.putlocker.com/file/55BC84500FAC90FE ----------------------- Included: A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation A network of your peers - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 2 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 3 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Coin tracking - Page 4 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - General - Bitcoin Foundation Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation Just in case you think Bitcoin has it hard with AML laws - General - Bitcoin Foundation Position C.1 - Selectively mediated transactions are good for consumer protection - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation ----------------------- Also please read this. Quote Preface: Your upvotes contribute to his google search. I believe it is worth exposing each person in this new CoInvalidation team. Yifu is a dishonest criminal of bitcoins, dollars, time, and his actions speak to a nefarious character. Google him, it's been covered. Well, what about the other guys? The coin purse, cofounder, and government connections guy is Matthew Mellon. First, let me preface this with saying Matt has really great family lawyers. They have attacked (and removed) a lot of articles exposing him and reporting on his past. If you report on this on your blog, he will send legal to come after you. So, who is Matt? Matthew Mellon is part of one of America’s most influential and wealthy families — with ties like Gulf Oil, Carnegie Mellon University and Alcoa. Matthew inherited a $25 million trust fund at only 21, and started blowing it on cocaine, guns, celebrity company, and whatever other ridiculous or dangerous things he could get his hands on. He almost overdosed, and instead of reforming, he divorced his wife went back to hit the slopes some more. He fired his next fiancee, and left her financially dry, only to jump to another woman shortly after. Some stuff he's done that went public: Matthew Mellon historically had a nasty breakup which exposed his crack, cocaine, and business embezzlement. Matthew Mellon is friends enough with this ex-Paris Hilton boyfriend asshat, having borrowed him funds which also funded Brandon's drug use. Matthew Mellon was likely involved in a hacking scandal which his lawyers cleaned up nicely. The problem with making a website also apologize is it leaves traces. Matthew Mellon also threatened lawsuit to take another article down here. "the wealthy Matthew Mellon thought they needn't act as average people, so instead they've, through their attorneys, tried to scare us." A report still up shows that Matthew Mellon allegedly hired wire-tapping on his ex-wife. Do you trust him with your validation? On further research, he was arrested and charged. For you political folks, I will let you make your own decision on Matthew Mellon's contributions to Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. He has donated both separately (majorly to Ryan) and combined. This includes the defunding of Medicare and Medicaid. I'm sure I could keep digging wonderful things, but this post is getting too fucking long. Matthew Mellon, and associates [Alex Waters & Yufi Guo, if you read this: fuck. you. Alex Waters, you're next. And Kashmir Hill - thanks for your previous exposure but you are a shill. Your spin shows your lack of spine and willingness to suck the institutionalized finance dick. Fuck you too. ----------------------- BOYCOTT anything that places control of bitcoin to any authority (Verisign, US FinCEN, Bitcoin Foundation or Anything) - instead of being a very decentralized payment network and digital currency. Bitcoin dont move! they just change adress after trade! So what is the point of taint tracing all coins are tainted within no time!!!!!! there will be no new bitcoins when tainted , its like dollars with coke traces! even worse , bitcoins cant be replaced! The more users the more tainted , and dont forget 1 bitcoin can be hold by 100.000.000 address at the same time! So clean coins is a illusion! :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 02:46:54 PM Except I didn't. Yes, you did. In black and white. Your denial of the obvious makes you even more dismissable. Full quote please of what I said then please? Then explain it. Piotr: where have I made an excuse and where in the zips posted is all the evidence for the foundation wanting blacklisting, greenlisting and soon? The only thing I found was mike's initial post where it's clear he has some sympathies with the issue at hands he sees the problem. Now I can understand people not liking that, but its the absolute worst I could find. Almost everyone posting afterwards was against the idea. Also, in all places I have made very clear that I'm against it, so let's not have that one levelled against me. All I've been doing is trying to stop FUD being lapped up. Ten pages and still no evidence of what the op implied and still a few people coming here, writing something angry, and not taking the time to look at the facts. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: notthematrix on November 16, 2013, 02:52:06 PM Bitcoin dont move! they just change adress after trade! So what is the point of taint tracing all coins are tainted within no time!!!!!! there will be no new bitcoins when tainted , its like dollars with coke traces! even worse , bitcoins cant be replaced! The more users the more tainted , and dont forget 1 bitcoin can be hold by 100.000.000 address at the same time! So clean coins is a illusion! :) If someone gets some tainted coins they can just start sending satoshis to all the people they don't like to taint their addresses. exactly all coins are dirty in no time , problem solved! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 02:53:20 PM It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword. Severian, I picked the quote out for you. Take note of the bit in bold. If you don't see that bitcoin needs some kind of plan to counter accusations when this happens, you're wrong. Bitcoin is so public that we can see criminal money, e.g. Crypto locker. One day this will be mainstream news and but everyone will be lobbying to have a way to take that money. Does it mean they should be able to? Absolutely not. Does it mean that as a community we need to be fully prepared for this? Yep. If we don't, you'll get the coin verification stuff foisted on you or worse. The crypto stuff will become underground and kept away from the vast majority of people. That's the worst case scenario as far as I'm concerned, but I accept we may differ on opinion there. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: notthematrix on November 16, 2013, 02:54:39 PM Except I didn't. Yes, you did. In black and white. Your denial of the obvious makes you even more dismissable. Full quote please of what I said then please? Then explain it. Piotr: where have I made an excuse and where in the zips posted is all the evidence for the foundation wanting blacklisting, greenlisting and soon? The only thing I found was mike's initial post where it's clear he has some sympathies with the issue at hands he sees the problem. Now I can understand people not liking that, but its the absolute worst I could find. Almost everyone posting afterwards was against the idea. Also, in all places I have made very clear that I'm against it, so let's not have that one levelled against me. All I've been doing is trying to stop FUD being lapped up. Ten pages and still no evidence of what the op implied and still a few people coming here, writing something angry, and not taking the time to look at the facts. those silly LEAKS.... please the only thing leaking here is DOLLARS IN TO BITCOIN! http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/btcnCNY#rg1ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv (http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/btcnCNY#rg1ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv) and all OUTSIDE the US! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: notthematrix on November 16, 2013, 03:04:48 PM Bitcoin Traitors. We need Real Bitcoin Leadership. There I said it. I dare you to retaliate. In fact a quadruple dare you to do so! Be forewarned I don't cower like you. Nor do I back down. Nor do I waver. Nor am I a Traitor to anything at all. And I am tenacious as a mad 200 pound starving Rottweiler on the hunt! Got it? GOOD. 1st: Secure Bitcoin.org = doing your jobs. Don't do that and you already proved your not up to the tasks at hand. Already you failed that too. Now this. What next? YOUR FIRED. Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware! WAKE UP! Bitcoin dont move! they just change adress after trade! So what is the point of taint tracing all coins are tainted within no time!!!!!! there will be no new bitcoins when tainted , its like dollars with coke traces! even worse , bitcoins cant be replaced! The more users the more tainted , and dont forget 1 bitcoin can be hold by 100.000.000 address at the same time! So CLEAN BITCOIN IS A ILLUSION!!!!! :) The only wapon the US can use is FUD!!!!! why THEY THE USA FREAK OUT http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/btcnCNY#rg1ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv (http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/btcnCNY#rg1ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv) chineese are killing the dollar!!!!! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 03:11:40 PM Piotr: where have I made an excuse and where in the zips posted is all the evidence for the foundation wanting blacklisting, greenlisting and soon? The only thing I found was mike's initial post where it's clear he has some sympathies with the issue at hands he sees the problem. Now I can understand people not liking that, but its the absolute worst I could find. Almost everyone posting afterwards was against the idea. I think I made myself clear that I am not interested in debating anything with you, nor with any of your co-conspirators from the cartel, otherwise known as a self proclaimed bitcoin elite. Just like the nazi government you are apparently working for, I also don't negotiate with terrorists - a subtle difference though is that for me you are the terrorists. So just fuck off and don't even speak to me, since we have no common goals anymore - and this part I am already sure about, after reading your bitcoin protocol improvement "proposals" that followed two years of a precious development time totally wasted on implementing some crappy SSL-based "payment system", because Google said so... Of course you will not break bitcoin, but definitely not because of a lack of trying... You won't break it because it was invented by a person much smarter than you and is now protected by the hashing power of the people who, unlike you, don't think that nazi USA is exceptional and can/should rule the world. You can keep committing genocides all around the world, calling it all you want "operation freedom" or whatever other Orwellian titles, but you won't break this network, no matter how hard you try and how dirty you play the game - I have already bet all my money on it :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: callem on November 16, 2013, 03:29:49 PM Satoshi would neither have proposed nor supported any form of black/red listing.
The determination of what constitutes illegal activity and enforcement thereof is in the realm of national governments, not payment systems. And certainly not a payment system that has no borders or national affiliation. Each country has laws and mechanisms to deal with what it considers to be illegal. Bitcoin does not belong to any nation, and definitely not to any single foundation, regardless of what it calls itself. Bitcoin belongs to its user-base alone, no one else can or should speak for it. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ImI on November 16, 2013, 03:33:40 PM Piotr: where have I made an excuse and where in the zips posted is all the evidence for the foundation wanting blacklisting, greenlisting and soon? The only thing I found was mike's initial post where it's clear he has some sympathies with the issue at hands he sees the problem. Now I can understand people not liking that, but its the absolute worst I could find. Almost everyone posting afterwards was against the idea. I think I made myself clear that I am not interested in debating anything with you, nor with any of your co-conspirators from the cartel, otherwise known as a self proclaimed bitcoin elite. Just like the nazi government you are apparently working for, I also don't negotiate with terrorists - a subtle difference though is that for me you are the terrorists. So just fuck off and don't even speak to me, since we have no common goals anymore - and this part I am already sure about, after reading your bitcoin protocol improvement "proposals" that followed two years of a precious development time totally wasted on implementing some crappy SSL-based "payment system", because Google said so... Of course you will not break bitcoin, but definitely not because of a lack of trying... You won't break it because it was invented by a person much smarter than you and is now protected by the hashing power of the people who, unlike you, don't think that nazi USA is exceptional and can/should rule the world. You can keep committing genocides all around the world, calling it all you want "operation freedom" or whatever other Orwellian titles, but you won't break this network, no matter how hard you try and how dirty you play this game - I have already bet all my money on it :) i smell cold war thinkin Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 03:42:16 PM i smell cold war thinkin Then you probably don't know history, sir.Cold war wasn't an actual war - it was only a propaganda served by the governments at both the sides of the Berlin wall, just to keep people scared thus more subjective. Whilst the Bitcoin blowup is an actual war, where the people are fighting corporations that have been enslaving us for the last century using the weapon of a money creation monopoly. But we have just built our own weapon and we are not giving it up! It has a power of 5PH/s, growing every day, and no WMDs they own are a thread to us anymore. They can assassinate a person, they can genocide a nation - but they cannot break Bitcoin. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 16, 2013, 03:48:11 PM It is not helpful to keep this information quiet and shutting people out while asking them to use Bitcoin. I fail to see how 2707 posts by Mike Hearn, some of them (months ago even) precisely about the issue at hand (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130) correlate to keeping information quiet and shutting people out.First of all, as you may clearly see in the above quotes I wasn't saying anything about not seeing flaws in the Foundation, but instead I was explicitly talking about the wrong assumption that the person Mike Hearn is keeping "information quiet" and that the people over at the Foundation were "shutting people out". Both assumptions lack any evidence whatsoever. Last I checked, forum access over at the Foundation was around 2 USD per month. Mike Hearn had more than 2707 posts over here at bitcointalk compared to 238 posts on the Foundation's forum. Basically, I've proven you wrong, and now you won't admit it. -Keeping the discussions board unavailable to the public its a major issue. The reply that is always given is that it will cause all this noise if anyone is allowed to post. the usual reply to that is top make them read only. No reply is ever given to that request and people keep claiming the discussion boards are public. The Foundation keeps claiming they are transparent when they obviously are not. This is a failure of Jon Matonis because he is not upholding the mission of the Foundation. Definitely, the decision to keep the Foundation's forum a "gated community" may be questioned. We had a long discussion about the pro's and con's of it, and we may yet make up our minds about wether or not we'd like to change that. I personally am opposed to "opening the gates", and now that there are already hundreds, if not thousand of posts over there that were made under the assumption that this was a private conversation, we cannot simply breach the contract and disrespect the privacy of the Foundation's members, as the OP did.Disrespect for the privacy of others is probably opposed to the basic beliefs of a large majority of Bitcoin's strongest supporters, which is why I personally despise such an act of barbarism. In the end, I guess the Foundation will have to have another discussion about read-only-access, but given the amount of uninformed trolling and the witch hunt over here, the decision against write-access for everyone was probably wise. -As for Mike Hearn, I contacted him directly about Inputs.io and the fact that it was promoted by the administrator of this site. I suggested he make announcements somewhere else and no longer support Bitcointalk.org because it was defrauding new users with the ads. he told me to "go away" and hire my own programmer to fork the code. That's another, completely unrelated matter and has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You may be right, you might also be lying, I don't know, and personally, I don't even care, since this has obviously nothing to do at all with the Foundation or Mike's role over there.Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 03:52:19 PM I think I made myself clear that I am not interested in debating anything with you, nor with any of your co-conspirators from the cartel, otherwise known as a self proclaimed bitcoin elite. Just like the nazi government you are apparently working for, I also don't negotiate with terrorists - a subtle difference though is that for me you are the terrorists. So just fuck off and don't even speak to me, since we have no common goals anymore - and this part I am already sure about, after reading your bitcoin protocol improvement "proposals" that followed two years of a precious development time totally wasted on implementing some crappy SSL-based "payment system", because Google said so... Of course you will not break bitcoin, but definitely not because of a lack of trying... You won't break it because it was invented by a person much smarter than you and is now protected by the hashing power of the people who, unlike you, don't think that nazi USA is exceptional and can/should rule the world. You can keep committing genocides all around the world, calling it all you want "operation freedom" or whatever other Orwellian titles, but you won't break this network, no matter how hard you try and how dirty you play the game - I have already bet all my money on it :) What on earth are you on about?! Are you on drugs? Nothing you said there makes sense, nor does it have any relevance whatsoever for anything I've said which is asking people to take an evidence based approach and not one based on FUD, extremism and insults. It's like arguing with religious extremists about how old the earth is! Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: qwk on November 16, 2013, 03:53:43 PM Or an alternative, true, foundation? No, no centralization please. Existing members of the BF should consider withdrawing their membership.The Foundation is a tiny organization. You want something changed over there? Join and make change happen. That's the way political progress happens, not uninformed rants on a pseudonymous forum like bitcointalk.org. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 03:55:36 PM The determination of what constitutes illegal activity and enforcement thereof is in the realm of national governments, not payment systems. And certainly not a payment system that has no borders or national affiliation. Each country has laws and mechanisms to deal with what it considers to be illegal. Bitcoin does not belong to any nation, and definitely not to any single foundation, regardless of what it calls itself. Bitcoin belongs to its user-base alone, no one else can or should speak for it. I agree 100% with all the above except for the very last bit. If you don't have anyone speaking for it, it won't survive (except maybe as a black market currency). You can't pretend national governments don't exist, certainly not if you want mainstream or business adoption. At the very least you need people educating them otherwise you'd quickly get whacky and ill thought out legislation. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: qwk on November 16, 2013, 03:55:52 PM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. Yup this is why Litecoion, in case bitcoin ever gets fucked up. Nah, that's okay, but the problem is not solved by just using Litecoin. You might actually escape blacklisting coins by chain-hopping from one alt-coin to another, though. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 03:56:21 PM i smell cold war thinkin Then you probably don't know history, sir.Cold war wasn't an actual war - it was only a propaganda served by the governments at both the sides of the Berlin wall, just to keep people scared thus more subjective. Whilst the Bitcoin blowup is an actual war, where the people are fighting corporations that have been enslaving us for the last century using the weapon of a money creation monopoly. But we have just built our own weapon and we are not giving it up! It has a power of 5PH/s, growing every day, and no WMDs they own are a thread to us anymore. They can assassinate a person, they can genocide a nation - but they cannot break Bitcoin. You are absolutely mental. Tin foil hat stuff. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: OleOle on November 16, 2013, 03:56:28 PM i smell cold war thinkin Then you probably don't know history, sir.Cold war wasn't an actual war - it was only a propaganda served by the governments at both the sides of the Berlin wall, just to keep people scared thus more subjective. Whilst the Bitcoin blowup is an actual war, where the people are fighting corporations, that have been enslaving us for the last century using a weapon of a monopoly of the money creation. Today we have our weapon and we are not giving it up. What a lot of nonsense. The Cold War was indeed a war, on many levels, and was fought by proxy all over the globe. The involvement of the USSR and the USA in Afghanistan is a case in point. So was the metaphorical throwing of movies, hamburgers and Coke over the Wall. Don't try to spin your petty Marxist drivel that you've been enslaved by corporations, that is a sheer fabrication. Next you'll be telling us that you are the 'vanguard of the people'. Gimme a break... sheesh. :-\ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 16, 2013, 03:58:46 PM I would not donate to an effort led by Gavin. I do not believe that he has the mindset to lead a unique and important effort such as Bitcoin. And you're probably right. I don't think Gavin believes that either.That's precisely the reason for the Foundation, to take some of the burden of "leading the Bitcoin effort" from him. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 04:06:14 PM Nothing you said there makes sense, nor does it have any relevance whatsoever for anything I've said which is asking people to take an evidence based approach and not one based on FUD, extremism and insults. Evidence? I am pretty sure that we have enough of evidence here - you are just playing stupid pretending that we don't understand what we are reading.The leaks from your cartel's closed forum are much more than I need for an evidence - and I haven't even read through half of it.. Let's take a random quote for instance - enough of an evidence for anyone capable of using his brain: Quote from: Mike Hearn Requiring an exchange to hand over all addresses would sort of work, but it's not ideal - we can do much better if we design systems ourselves Suddenly it turns out that Mike Hearn is nont only a Google employee - he and his friends have ambitions to become policemen, judges and punishers at the same time. Well thanks guys for your generous offer, but we really don't need you to take care of our coins. Just do us a favour and get the fuck out of our sight, before you make us to throw up right on your white shoes. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: foggyb on November 16, 2013, 04:15:58 PM i smell cold war thinkin Then you probably don't know history, sir.Cold war wasn't an actual war - it was only a propaganda served by the governments at both the sides of the Berlin wall, just to keep people scared thus more subjective. Whilst the Bitcoin blowup is an actual war, where the people are fighting corporations that have been enslaving us for the last century using the weapon of a money creation monopoly. But we have just built our own weapon and we are not giving it up! It has a power of 5PH/s, growing every day, and no WMDs they own are a thread to us anymore. They can assassinate a person, they can genocide a nation - but they cannot break Bitcoin. Flying active nuclear weapons around 24/7 is 'not an actual war'? No, they never set off a nuke in anger (which was a stroke of luck really, and for which we should all be extremely grateful). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 05:08:24 PM Evidence? I am pretty sure that we have enough of evidence here - you are just playing stupid pretending that we don't understand what we are reading. The leaks from your cartel's closed forum are much more than I need for an evidence - and I haven't even read through half of it.. Let's take a random quote for instance - enough of an evidence for anyone capable of using his brain: That'll be the cartel that 1) I'm not a member of, 2) that you can join for the grand sum of $20 and 3) That have discussed the same issues on this very forum. Quote Quote from: Mike Hearn Requiring an exchange to hand over all addresses would sort of work, but it's not ideal - we can do much better if we design systems ourselves Awesome - you've taken a quote out of context which is talking about the technical side and what's possible, and ignored absolutely everything else. You even admit you haven't read half of it, you just made up your mind. You're a compete tin foil hat, you don't know your history, you throw around words like nazi without actually knowing what one is (and since my family was persecuted directly by them you can shove that one where the sun don't shine)... You're a crazy person! Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 05:10:54 PM Evidence? I am pretty sure that we have enough of evidence here - you are just playing stupid pretending that we don't understand what we are reading. The leaks from your cartel's closed forum are much more than I need for an evidence - and I haven't even read through half of it.. Let's take a random quote for instance - enough of an evidence for anyone capable of using his brain: That'll be the cartel that 1) I'm not a member of, 2) that you can join for the grand sum of $20 and 3) That have discussed the same issues on this very forum. Quote Quote from: Mike Hearn Requiring an exchange to hand over all addresses would sort of work, but it's not ideal - we can do much better if we design systems ourselves Awesome - you've taken a quote out of context which is talking about the technical side and what's possible, and ignored absolutely everything else. You even admit you haven't read half of it, you just made up your mind. You're a compete tin foil hat, you don't know your history, you throw around words like nazi without actually knowing what one is (and since my family was persecuted directly by them you can shove that one where the sun don't shine)... You're a crazy person! Yeah, yeah... Once again, man: please, spare me your bullshit and get the fuck out of my face. You are not bitcoin developers, nor you are representing any - you are solely the enemies of bitcoin. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 16, 2013, 05:13:08 PM Disrespect for the privacy of others is probably opposed to the basic beliefs of a large majority of Bitcoin's strongest supporters, which is why I personally despise such an act of barbarism. This is the kind of stuff why people don't want to associate themselves with the Foundation. They say they are transparent and everyone should expect their posting to be public as Jon Matonis said in another thread. Now you are claiming it is "barbarism." You also discuss all this "we" stuff when referencing the Foundation. As explained to you many times you can't have mass adoption by shutting people out , calling them trolls, and all the other ridiculous stuff that comes out that Foundation at times. I'm calling the disrespect for the privacy of others an act of barbarism, absolutely. It's opposed to practically anything the (assumed) majority of Bitcoin users stand for. It would make little Satoshi cry. What's worse is calling this invasion of my privacy "LEAKED", willingly seeking the association with and thereby diminishing admirable efforts like Wikileaks or Edward Snowden's deeds. All this for boosting the OP's ego, who did not even think for a moment about actually looking at what he "leaked" and falsely assumed that this was relevant, new information, which, as proven in this thread, it wasn't. The rest of your reply is more of your Foundation shilling. The Foundation Shilling, cool name for an Altcoin ::)Seriously, call me a shill as you will, I joined the Foundation mostly to help pay Gavin's salary. I think that's a worthy cause, just the same as I thought a donation to bitcointalk.org was, or my efforts for transcriptions of LetsTalkBitcoin, or my bounty for m-of-n-escrow, and the list goes on... I have yet to see anything like donating to a worthy cause from you. (edited a few times because of f*** up quotes and stuff, sorry) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 05:14:03 PM i smell cold war thinkin Then you probably don't know history, sir.Cold war wasn't an actual war - it was only a propaganda served by the governments at both the sides of the Berlin wall, just to keep people scared thus more subjective. Whilst the Bitcoin blowup is an actual war, where the people are fighting corporations, that have been enslaving us for the last century using a weapon of a monopoly of the money creation. Today we have our weapon and we are not giving it up. What a lot of nonsense. The Cold War was indeed a war, on many levels, and was fought by proxy all over the globe. The involvement of the USSR and the USA in Afghanistan is a case in point. So was the metaphorical throwing of movies, hamburgers and Coke over the Wall. Don't try to spin your petty Marxist drivel that you've been enslaved by corporations, that is a sheer fabrication. Next you'll be telling us that you are the 'vanguard of the people'. Gimme a break... sheesh. :-\ I believe he does have a point about corporations. The IT giants, among others, have paid a pretty penny to get their own clown elected for president Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 05:16:20 PM Yeah, yeah... Once again, man: please, spare me your bullshit and get the fuck out of my face. You are not bitcoin developer, nor you are representing any. You are solely the enemies of bitcoin. All you've done is come out with a bunch of tinfoil hat nonsense and personal insults. I don't even know what we disagree on or what I'm accused of other than being some whacky government plant or something. Good luck with your tech developments, sincerely, but that conspiracy hat you're wearing is not pretty insane and everything you've said totally illogical. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 05:19:19 PM Yeah, yeah... Once again, man: please, spare me your bullshit and get the fuck out of my face. You are not bitcoin developer, nor you are representing any. You are solely the enemies of bitcoin. All you've done is come out with a bunch of tinfoil hat nonsense and personal insults. I don't even know what we disagree on or what I'm accused of other than being some whacky government plant or something. Good luck with your tech developments, sincerely, but that conspiracy hat you're wearing is not pretty insane and everything you've said totally illogical. And you are trying to focus the topic on things that are completely irrelevant, to drag the readers away from the point. Whether I am on any drugs or am I wearing any kind of hat - it isn't any of your business. Take your friend Mike and go suck your latest genocidal psychopath president's dick. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: qwk on November 16, 2013, 05:20:07 PM Why would the Foundation be about mass adoption at all? Because it says so on their web page. Mass adoption of Bitcoin != Mass adoption of the Foundation. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 05:20:27 PM I believe he does have a point about corporations. The IT giants, among others, have paid a pretty penny to get their own clown elected for presidency The IT giants? Nah, just say all large multinational corporations. I think it's hard to say 'clown' for presidency too because the whole system seems kinda rigged in the US. Whoever is president will get called a clown if you put it like that. Besides, you can't twist the fact that corporations have lobbyists and they can do bad things into the absolute conspiracy diatribe he was spouting. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 05:22:45 PM And you are trying to focus the topic on things that are completely irrelevant, to drag the readers away the point. Whether I am on any drugs or am I wearing any kind of hat - it isn't any of your business. No I'm not. The OP was pointing the finger at the Foundation for something it isn't doing. It's that simple. That's the entire point. It's not about what is or isn't a good idea and I've been abundantly clear where I stand on that. Your hat... is it a tinfoil lined bowler? Because that would be cool. http://www.raisinbun.com/uploads/2012/11/tin-foil-hat.jpg Oh noes, I've turned into crumbs. I shall hide in shame. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 16, 2013, 05:23:20 PM I believe he does have a point about corporations. The IT giants, among others, have paid a pretty penny to get their own clown elected for presidency The IT giants? Nah, just say all large multinational corporations. I think it's hard to say 'clown' for presidency too because the whole system seems kinda rigged in the US. Whoever is president will get called a clown if you put it like that. Besides, you can't twist the fact that corporations have lobbyists and they can do bad things into the absolute conspiracy diatribe he was spouting. Now you are being picky. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 05:25:49 PM Now you are being picky. The clown bit? I dunno, out of the Rep/Dem options in the last few elections... Is there anyone who you would describe as other than a clown? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: SebastianJu on November 16, 2013, 05:30:49 PM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. Ok... and since the weapon deliverer isnt stupid he took the bitcoins for the weapons and exchanged them fast for clean bitcoins. Now you go ahead and mark these bad weapon buy bitcoins as bad coins... who will suffer? Innocent people that hold these coins now. They couldnt know what these coins were used for when they got them. And that is true for nearly every scam imaginable. In total... tainted coins are totally useless against scams. At least when the scammer isnt stupid. Tainted coins will only create even more victims while the real scammer is fine. He exchanged long ago again, used mixer and more and you will never have a chance to hurt him with tainted coins. So i cant see how this concept can be of any use at all. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 05:34:02 PM I agree with you Seb. It can't. There are so, so many flaws.
My point was about how the media and politicians will use it to beat us up if we don't have answers. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 05:37:54 PM My point was about how the media and politicians will use it to beat us up if we don't have answers. You poor american slave. If your media and politicians will beat you up - how is it anyone's problem except your own? Trust me: unlike what they told you at school, world is much bigger than just your nazi fatherland and both; Bitcoin and the world will be just fine, maybe even better, after your once great USA is already a dead stinky body, killed by its own exceptionalism. You elect your own government, you pretend to spread "freedom & democracy" all over the world, but ironically you are the only ones who come crying that your own media and politicians are beating you up, thus forcing you to conspire against the bitcoin as we've known it... And in the meantime I am the one who wears a tinfoil hat... You know, not that I wear it, but considering the fact that you are quite aware of how fucked up the country you live in actually is, does't it make you feel like maybe tinfoil hats actually work? :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: jedunnigan on November 16, 2013, 05:43:42 PM In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that. You know you can simply create a github account and start contributing? (right here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin, behold the Fork button) Like many others in this community you make it sound like forking the code is some grandiose act of rebellion. But it's simply how open source works.the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol. No need to BF member, or go through a secret core dev initiation ritual. Seriously, we can use more active contributors for Bitcoind/-qt. Get involved! Stop complaining, start coding (or as Erik Hughes wrote in his manifesto in 1993: Cypherpunks write code). Forking the code is not a threat to anyone. Don't confuse it with forking the blockchain. And yes I am aware we are just one good fork away from a break off from the BF. Their version of QT is the one featured on bitcoin.org, which is what I was getting at. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. Oh and if you were going to bother responding to this post, don't. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 06:16:29 PM You poor american slave. I can tell you don't read because if you did you would know that I'm not American, not in America, and not a member of the Foundation! Also, Jewish and with family who suffered at the Nazi's hands, so please stop being insulting and using that label when you have no idea what it even means. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 06:19:21 PM You poor american slave. I can tell you don't read because if you did you would know that I'm not American, not in America, and not a member of the Foundation! Then we can only wonder why are you shitting your pants thinking about "the media and politicians beating you up", just because you did not adjust the bitcoin protocol to please the US gov... Where do you live, if I may ask - in Guantanamo? :) Obviously one does not need to be an American to be a poor american slave - you are the very proof. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 06:22:00 PM You poor american slave. I can tell you don't read because if you did you would know that I'm not American, not in America, and not a member of the Foundation! Then we can only wonder why are you shitting your pants thinking about "the media and politicians beating you up", just because you did not adjust the bitcoin protocol to please US gov. Where do you live - in Guantanamo? :) Obviously one does not need to be an American to be a poor american slave - you are the proof. Erm, so where have I suggested adjusting the Bitcoin protocol and where have I said I do anything other than oppose anything like that? It's nice of you to take a view without facts, which probably explains the rest of your views posted as well. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 06:26:07 PM Erm, so where have I suggested adjusting the Bitcoin protocol and where have I said I do anything other than oppose anything like that? It's nice of you to take a view without facts, which probably explains the rest of your views posted as well. Some things don't need to be spoken literally to be understood - all a person needs is an IQ higher than yours and he can easily read between the lines. So you won't tell us where you live, will you? I'm betting it isn't China, nor Russia - because none of their citizens are asking "how high?" when the nazi US government says "jump!" UK? You seem to be matching Mike's profile pretty well and the guy is the queen's servant, though as the leaks have shown, obviously very proud of sucking Obama's black cock... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 06:34:59 PM Erm, so where have I suggested adjusting the Bitcoin protocol and where have I said I do anything other than oppose anything like that? It's nice of you to take a view without facts, which probably explains the rest of your views posted as well. Some things don't need to be spoken literally to be understood - all a person needs is an IQ higher than yours and he can easily read between the lines. So you won't tell us where you live, will you? I'm betting it isn't China, nor Russia - because none of their citizens are asking "how high?" when the nazi US government says "jump!" UK? You seem to be matching Mike's profile pretty well and the guy is the queen's servant, though as the leaks have shown, obviously very proud of sucking Obama's black cock... You're lovely, you know that. I've never hidden anything, you're just to lazy to read. And with that, ignored. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: SebastianJu on November 16, 2013, 06:36:10 PM I agree with you Seb. It can't. There are so, so many flaws. My point was about how the media and politicians will use it to beat us up if we don't have answers. Ah, didnt notice that... My point was about how the media and politicians will use it to beat us up if we don't have answers. You poor american slave. If your media and politicians will beat you up - how is it anyone's problem except your own? Trust me: unlike what they told you at school, world is much bigger than just your nazi fatherland and both; Bitcoin and the world will be just fine, maybe even better, after your once great USA is already a dead stinky body, killed by its own exceptionalism. You elect your own government, you pretend to spread "freedom & democracy" all over the world, but ironically you are the only ones who come crying that your own media and politicians are beating you up, thus forcing you to conspire against the bitcoin as we've known it... And in the meantime I am the one who wears a tinfoil hat... You know, not that I wear it, but considering the fact that you are quite aware of how fucked up the country you live in actually is, does't it make you feel like maybe tinfoil hats actually work? :) Erm... i wonder where you life since the control of people is a disease spreading worldwide. And yes they use all kind of excuses to forward their plans. Be it terrorism or money laundering. They will spread fear to get the plans through they need to earn money. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 06:45:08 PM You're lovely, you know that. I've never hidden anything, you're just to lazy to read. Like I cared which country has issued your passport; for me you are a poor american slave anyway. A man is what he does - even Forrest Gump knew it :) And no - it doesn't take a genius to figure out that I am too lazy to read through all your bullshit. And with that, ignored. Finally.It's amazing how much time a person needs to waste sometimes to effectively say "fuck off" :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 16, 2013, 06:47:06 PM Erm... i wonder where you life since the control of people is a disease spreading worldwide. And yes they use all kind of excuses to forward their plans. Be it terrorism or money laundering. They will spread fear to get the plans through they need to earn money. Yes. So you are going to surrender? Well - do what you please... I am going to stand up, because I am not a slave, I have my rights as a human being and I am going to use them to promote my human interests. And Bitcoin is today my most powerful weapon, which I will not give up even after my dead body. :) These days I live in Holland, but I was born and raised in Poland, though today I consider myself a citizen of the world. Unfortunately as it turns out, the World does not issue passports, and without a passport a human being is nobody. So I am doomed to have a nationality, even though I think nationalism is stupid and inhumane Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: TraderTimm on November 16, 2013, 08:01:46 PM @ffssixtynine I see you like government involvement, or at the very least - you think that there's no use in resisting it. With your little crafted example of Bin retard, for instance. Fear as a tactic? Its working for the DHS rather well, isn't it? So naturally you adopt this stance and say "Well, look - we can catch bad people if we do X, Y and Z" without stopping for one second and looking at the principles being violated. Personal freedom and financial freedom are worthwhile, no matter how many horrible counter-examples you can give. For every system there are positives and negatives, and I'm not going to give up this fight just because someone is scared the "bad guys" will abuse it. As for the "Bitcoin Foundation", all they've done is raise Bitcoin's visibility towards the very forces that can cause us harm (Depending on where you live, I guess.). Thanks a load, guys, you're really pals. Entertaining or "just discussing" these issues with government aren't helping anyone, at all. All they'll end up achieving is crippling U.S. involvement with Bitcoin, and then other countries will take the torch and leave them in the dust. This is simply idiocy. Can I just clarify that no no no I'm not in favour of any of it. I have said that several times :) However, some form of regulation is going to happen. It doesn't matter what you say, what I say, what the foundation say, it is going to happen. Just like with KYC with exchanges. Refusing to discuss it internally, let alone externally, is folly in the extreme. You'll then have people like yifu having the regulator's ear instead. That would be an utter nightmare - there would be no balance. They haven't raised Bitcoin's visibility in this respect - this is being discussing heavily at regulators world wide and multiple companies are working on how they can make money by getting in bed with the gov at our expense (some may even believe it's the right thing to do). I've known this was under discussion in the UK and US since July. It only takes a few contacts to know what's going on, plus enough has been said in public, and many other people here know this too. The only people with their knickers in a twist over a simple discussion are people here. Let me make clear the difference between something being discussed to as to know how to deal with questioning, which is absolutely essential, and coming out and saying at we should do x. It's important to recognise the difference. In order to counter arguments for black green grey etc listing, you need to have discussed it, including technical approaches. Not doing so means being caught with your pants down. Regulators are not necessarily your enemy, but governments and law enforcement certainly can be. Regulators are the guys in the middle. It's all rather more complex than you seem to realise. Btw This issue goes way beyond the US. Most certainly the issue is beyond any given national border - I agree. Thank you for asserting that you don't back the "governance by fear" technique, it gives me hope in humanity in general. Here's the real problem that I think the non-elected-by-majority-of-bitcoin-users Bitcoin Foundation is causing: They are operating under the assumption that the U.S. Government will play fair. The government in this case has already proven that they will not play fair, in fact, they'll utilize whatever they can grasp to get their will imposed upon any nation-state or system they choose. By going up to the government, and essentially baring Bitcoin's throat saying "You could kill us by cutting our jugular, but we know you won't because you're a good bunch" is such an extreme example of niave thinking, that it has stunned us all. That explains the reaction, and it most certainly explains why all these "mere discussions" about the "inevitability" of regulation are happening in the least-transparent way possible. History is a harsh judge, and upon the Bitcoin Foundation, it will be the harshest of all. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ffssixtynine on November 16, 2013, 08:11:02 PM I hesitate to say it again but I did find Mike's post a bit naive (which I'm sure he isn't, it's just my reading of it). You need to differentiate that from 'the foundation', despite his post (it was not a public statement). I think you're misreading the Foundation's position, perhaps because they haven't come out with definitive statements at this point AFAIK.
I've reread some of Mike's posts and I can see he's after a technical solution, but I can't help but feel he's missing the point. Bitcoin is a transaction system and has no moral say on a transaction. The only way it could do so is by human input somewhere along the line, whether a centralised database or decentralised. The moment that happens is the moment you've broken the trustless nature of the system. Besides, there'll be a million and one ways around it before you could say jump. My worry is that Bitcoin will get neutered due to those with heavy political influence (CoinV) or replaced. We'll all be the worse off but anyone who wants to can proceed with the same criminal activities as before. That, to me, is the crux of the problem. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Michael_S on November 16, 2013, 09:14:54 PM my 5 cents to this thread, which I read completely:
- sincere thanks to ffs69 for using his brain - don't feed a master troll. - never change bitcoin protocol to better suit any govnm't's wishes. - if govnm't XYZ wants to track bitcoins by blockchain analysis, we cannot avoid it anyway, and they do it anyway, that's for sure. Whether some make national laws using such data is also outside our influence (but it would weaken the country's competitiveness) - moving BF HQ outside US to a more liberal country might be a good idea to reduce US influence/pressure. It's time to make it international! Then this whole discussion would be carried out as a discussion of the "US local chapter" of the BF, and not within the BF "HQ" itself. Then it would all be about lobbying and talking to the national regulators, and the bitcoin devs would not even be involved/bothered by such a local (national) discussion. As a location for BF I propose e.g. Finland, which I think is most compatible w.r.t. tech savyness, btc adoption rate per capita, political frame and people's culture. It is not as dominated by the banking sector as Switzerland which might therefore not be the best candidate. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: SebastianJu on November 17, 2013, 02:07:22 AM Erm... i wonder where you life since the control of people is a disease spreading worldwide. And yes they use all kind of excuses to forward their plans. Be it terrorism or money laundering. They will spread fear to get the plans through they need to earn money. Yes. So you are going to surrender? Well - do what you please... I am going to stand up, because I am not a slave, I have my rights as a human being and I am going to use them to promote my human interests. And Bitcoin is today my most powerful weapon, which I will not give up even after my dead body. :) These days I live in Holland, but I was born and raised in Poland, though today I consider myself a citizen of the world. Unfortunately as it turns out, the World does not issue passports, and without a passport a human being is nobody. So I am doomed to have a nationality, even though I think nationalism is stupid and inhumane Of course i fight against. I only wondered that you speak about US-Slaves since its long time away that only USA citizens had problems with that surveillance state. Its not acceptable. I think i now will join bitcoin foundation to make my opinion be heard. I was told its only $25 per year now anymore. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: NewLiberty on November 17, 2013, 04:32:29 AM Erm... i wonder where you life since the control of people is a disease spreading worldwide. And yes they use all kind of excuses to forward their plans. Be it terrorism or money laundering. They will spread fear to get the plans through they need to earn money. Yes. So you are going to surrender? Well - do what you please... I am going to stand up, because I am not a slave, I have my rights as a human being and I am going to use them to promote my human interests. And Bitcoin is today my most powerful weapon, which I will not give up even after my dead body. :) These days I live in Holland, but I was born and raised in Poland, though today I consider myself a citizen of the world. Unfortunately as it turns out, the World does not issue passports, and without a passport a human being is nobody. So I am doomed to have a nationality, even though I think nationalism is stupid and inhumane Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 17, 2013, 08:50:04 AM - if govnm't XYZ wants to track bitcoins by blockchain analysis, we cannot avoid it anyway, and they do it anyway, that's for sure. Whether some make national laws using such data is also outside our influence (but it would weaken the country's competitiveness) But that is exactly why the bitcoin development should put much more focus on improving anonymity.Tracking coins via blockchain analysis is the most important issue that ought to be addressed by the developers - but it hasn't been. Ever since Satoshi is gone, no actual privacy improvement have been made in bitcoin. The people in charge who he left the project to have obviously sold it to corporations and are now busy not developing bitcoin, but a surveillance system around it. Am I the only person who actually sees it? Of course i fight against. I only wondered that you speak about US-Slaves since its long time away that only USA citizens had problems with that surveillance state. I did not mean that all the people living in US are slaves. There are millions of brilliant and thoughtful people living in US, just like there are tens on millions, if not billions, of american slaves living outside US. Ironically, some of them don't even speak English. :) But the system of the economic slavery that is on stake here was made in USA - first raised along with the FED, then forced onto the rest of the wold in Bretton Woods and at the end totally released by another genocidal psychopath US president who decoupled the dollar from the gold, thus lifting any limits on the debt slavery. Bitcoin is going to destroy this system, but not without a fight. The war is already happening and people need to choose sides. I don't have a problem with people saying to me (and I hear it every day) that they prefer dollars over bitcoins. What I do have a problem with though are the hypocrites who pretend to be developing bitcoin, while in fact they are conspiring to kill it... or not conspiring, but just promote the "media and politicians will use it to beat us up if we don't turn bitcoin into dollar" approach - these are the american slaves and trust me; they live all around the world. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 17, 2013, 09:00:06 AM Ever since Satoshi is gone, no actual privacy improvement have been made in bitcoin. The people in charge who he left the project to have obviously sold it to corporations and are now busy not developing bitcoin, but a surveillance system around it. Am I the only person who actually sees it? I seem to remember there's some organization whose favourite pastime is going around compromising open source projects and standards committees to make sure they implement security incorrectly in subtle ways.Don't remember their name off the top of my head, but I think it rhymed with NASA maybe? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bee7 on November 17, 2013, 12:41:16 PM May be it worth to support proposals that targets the increase of privacy?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0 You would ask: "how it could help?" Simple: the less the addresses are reused the more complex the graph of connections between addresses become. Thus it takes much more resources to analyse that data and make conclusions. This is not the complete solution. It is a small step among others but it has to be done if we want privacy. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ShadowOfHarbringer on November 17, 2013, 12:43:21 PM - if govnm't XYZ wants to track bitcoins by blockchain analysis, we cannot avoid it anyway, and they do it anyway, that's for sure. Whether some make national laws using such data is also outside our influence (but it would weaken the country's competitiveness) But that is exactly why the bitcoin development should put much more focus on improving anonymity.Tracking coins via blockchain analysis is the most important issue that ought to be addressed by the developers - but it hasn't been. Ever since Satoshi is gone, no actual privacy improvement have been made in bitcoin. Actually, wrong aaaand... WRONG again. What about CoinControl, CoinJoin and Coinswap ? The first one is being merged into Bitcoin-QT, second is being worked on and avaiable already at blockchain.info's wallet, and third is at the concept stage. These are all new ideas, give it time. The people in charge who he left the project to have obviously sold it to corporations and are now busy not developing bitcoin, but a surveillance system around it. Am I the only person who actually sees it? Actually AFAIK for now it's just Mike Hearn from core devs, do you have proof that other core devs are also working on it ?Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: notthematrix on November 17, 2013, 12:50:39 PM - if govnm't XYZ wants to track bitcoins by blockchain analysis, we cannot avoid it anyway, and they do it anyway, that's for sure. Whether some make national laws using such data is also outside our influence (but it would weaken the country's competitiveness) But that is exactly why the bitcoin development should put much more focus on improving anonymity.Tracking coins via blockchain analysis is the most important issue that ought to be addressed by the developers - but it hasn't been. Ever since Satoshi is gone, no actual privacy improvement have been made in bitcoin. Actually, wrong aaaand... WRONG again. What about CoinControl, CoinJoin and Coinswap ? The first one is being merged into Bitcoin-QT, second is being worked on and avaiable already at blockchain.info's wallet, and third is at the concept stage. These are all new ideas, give it time. The people in charge who he left the project to have obviously sold it to corporations and are now busy not developing bitcoin, but a surveillance system around it. Am I the only person who actually sees it? Actually AFAIK for now it's just Mike Hearn from core devs, do you have proof that other core devs are also working on it ?Why would they?? they dont NEED a dollar! , with bitcoin at $500 I dont even want dollars If I have bitcoin! scare people away is the ONLY tactic the US has left to save the sinking ship! and yes If I was foreced as developer I wopuld LEAVE the USA.... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: sushi on November 17, 2013, 01:54:12 PM Here is my 2 centavos....
This is American Thingy. As long as you are not Americans, may be less to worry about? I'm sure American get screwed by their own laws but other countries, we more than likely enjoy the traditional Bitcoin! This years laws got American booted from many Financial Institutions around the world, now, they are going to get booted from the majority of the Bitcoin world. USA is not the only country the BTC will be used, and the USA will be just the fraction of the pie chart as China is emerging very rapidly into the BTC world. Another Example... American Banks don't like to put Chip on the credit cards. Many Canadian Merchants refused to accept credit cards and debit cards from American due to there is no chip on the card. After American starts black listing the Bitcoin, many foreign merchants could refused to do business with American due to the risk of Red/Black/Gray whateer the color listing is. The very same people who came up with the idea will be booted from their own circle. Which will only hurt their own americans, because they will have to find the merchant that will accept other payment means and will be charged a lot higher transaction fees and extra in the price hike. May be the riches don't care about a few% price increases as it won't affect them but the average people or so called middle class will feel the pain. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: behindtext on November 17, 2013, 02:22:45 PM He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof. I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind... btcwallet, the wallet daemon for btcd, reads and stores its wallet data in the same format as Armory. there are likely some rpc calls that need to be added to accommodate it. the gui for btcd, btcgui, was just recently released and works fine on testnet. mainnet coming soon... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on November 17, 2013, 06:10:24 PM He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof. I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind... btcwallet, the wallet daemon for btcd, reads and stores its wallet data in the same format as Armory. there are likely some rpc calls that need to be added to accommodate it. the gui for btcd, btcgui, was just recently released and works fine on testnet. mainnet coming soon... Full nodes are network-facing applications which should have just the minimum necessary functionality to present a smaller attack surface and should focus on correctness and hardening. User-facing applications like wallets should be separate. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: virtualmaster on November 17, 2013, 07:58:36 PM I am really upset how they misused the trust of the bitcoiners.
It was never before such a scandal in the history of Bitcoin. By Namecoin it will never happen something like this because they are only honest people there. If the Bitcoin blockchain fork will be imminent I would recommend to change the bitcoins in namecoins for those who are worried.(at least temporary until it will be clear what happens) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 17, 2013, 08:13:26 PM - if govnm't XYZ wants to track bitcoins by blockchain analysis, we cannot avoid it anyway, and they do it anyway, that's for sure. Whether some make national laws using such data is also outside our influence (but it would weaken the country's competitiveness) But that is exactly why the bitcoin development should put much more focus on improving anonymity.Tracking coins via blockchain analysis is the most important issue that ought to be addressed by the developers - but it hasn't been. Ever since Satoshi is gone, no actual privacy improvement have been made in bitcoin. The people in charge who he left the project to have obviously sold it to corporations and are now busy not developing bitcoin, but a surveillance system around it. Am I the only person who actually sees it? Of course i fight against. I only wondered that you speak about US-Slaves since its long time away that only USA citizens had problems with that surveillance state. I did not mean that all the people living in US are slaves. There are millions of brilliant and thoughtful people living in US, just like there are tens on millions, if not billions, of american slaves living outside US. Ironically, some of them don't even speak English. :) But the system of the economic slavery that is on stake here was made in USA - first raised along with the FED, then forced onto the rest of the wold in Bretton Woods and at the end totally released by another genocidal psychopath US president who decoupled the dollar from the gold, thus lifting any limits on the debt slavery. Bitcoin is going to destroy this system, but not without a fight. The war is already happening and people need to choose sides. I don't have a problem with people saying to me (and I hear it every day) that they prefer dollars over bitcoins. What I do have a problem with though are the hypocrites who pretend to be developing bitcoin, while in fact they are conspiring to kill it... or not conspiring, but just promote the "media and politicians will use it to beat us up if we don't turn bitcoin into dollar" approach - these are the american slaves and trust me; they live all around the world. This is surprisingly accurate, even though I believe some of the developers are trying to do the right thing still. Its will be interesting to see how it plays out. Crypto currencies are still in its stone age so one way or another we will see anonymous transactions in the future imo. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on November 17, 2013, 08:15:29 PM Quote If the Bitcoin blockchain fork will be imminent I would recommend to change the bitcoins in namecoins for those who are worried.(at least temporary until it will be clear what happens) IMHO Bitcoin blockchain fork will never happen, unless the american slaves change the POW function.If they don't change the POW function, they cannot change a shit, since any fork's minority branch would be easily subjective to double-spend attacks. So all they can do is adding Mike's colored blacklists to US based exchanges or payment processors... But as someone had pointed it out already, it would only make the rest of the world to not accept US payment processors - just like American Express cards are not accepted in many countries anymore, because they suck and are not reliable. And I could not care less about US payment processors, could you? :) If USA wants to commit an economical suicide, they have enough options already today - they don't need Bitcoin to do it. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bee7 on November 17, 2013, 08:18:37 PM Quote If the Bitcoin blockchain fork will be imminent I would recommend to change the bitcoins in namecoins for those who are worried.(at least temporary until it will be clear what happens) IMHO Bitcoin blockchain fork will never happen, unless the american slaves change the POW function.If they don't change the POW function, they cannot change a shit, since any fork's minority branch would be easily exploitable. So all they can do is to add colored blacklists to US based exchanges or payment processors. But as someone had pointed it out already, it would only make the rest of the world to not accept US payment processors - just like American Express cards are not accepted in many countries anymore. And I could not care less about US payment processors, could you? :) Sorry, did not get your statement correctly. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: corebob on November 17, 2013, 08:37:38 PM Ugh another lame try to pump an altcoin, this time... Namecoin. WTF. namecoin is a decentralized domain name system (DNS)It really needs to get more attension Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: virtualmaster on November 17, 2013, 08:53:56 PM It can do much more than DNS, it is great, it's sad that no one exploit its, but it's completely unrelated to the discussion and not a solution to any of the issues here. It could very well solve the problems and it is related to it.STOP PUMPING ALTCOINS. They solve nothing here. By Namecoin they are no blacklists and they are also not intended to be created. If those who don't want to be regulated and blacklisted change to Namecoin(the second creation of Satoshi Nakamoto) then Bitcoin doesn't need to fork. Which solution would you prefer if you would decide ? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: virtualmaster on November 17, 2013, 09:36:19 PM See here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334520.msg3596360#msg3596360) And now back to topic please.Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Rez on November 17, 2013, 11:03:58 PM These days I live in Holland, but I was born and raised in Poland, though today I consider myself a citizen of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_PassportUnfortunately as it turns out, the World does not issue passports, and without a passport a human being is nobody. So I am doomed to have a nationality, even though I think nationalism is stupid and inhumane Now accepted as a valid travel document in at least four small countries. (That said, I've considered getting one on principle. But then again, I'm also an atheist and an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, so there you go.) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: haightst on November 17, 2013, 11:45:39 PM man i've read only one percent of this and wtf!!! ::) ~no comment!
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: leopard2 on November 18, 2013, 12:11:52 AM It can do much more than DNS, it is great, it's sad that no one exploit its, but it's completely unrelated to the discussion and not a solution to any of the issues here. It could very well solve the problems and it is related to it.STOP PUMPING ALTCOINS. They solve nothing here. By Namecoin they are no blacklists and they are also not intended to be created. If those who don't want to be regulated and blacklisted change to Namecoin(the second creation of Satoshi Nakamoto) then Bitcoin doesn't need to fork. Which solution would you prefer if you would decide ? I agree, NMC is, by design, blacklist proof. It is designed to circumvent "dns blacklisting" and NMC can transport the same dollar value like BTC or anything else. ;) And yes, BTC competitors (that is what altcoins are) can solve the problem. Like it was said before it will be difficult to fork a "Fascho-BTC" blockchain but it is childs play to migrate dollar value from BTC to XYZ. So anytime a coins "foundation" is coerced by the dark forces to accept control mechanisms, dollar value and hash power can just switch to something else... And mind you, if a coins code is controlled from a country outside the US, like China or Russia, the USG will not have an easy time coercing those into adopting such mechanisms. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: virtualmaster on November 22, 2013, 09:01:11 AM Erm... i wonder where you life since the control of people is a disease spreading worldwide. And yes they use all kind of excuses to forward their plans. Be it terrorism or money laundering. They will spread fear to get the plans through they need to earn money. Yes. So you are going to surrender? Well - do what you please... I am going to stand up, because I am not a slave, I have my rights as a human being and I am going to use them to promote my human interests. And Bitcoin is today my most powerful weapon, which I will not give up even after my dead body. :) These days I live in Holland, but I was born and raised in Poland, though today I consider myself a citizen of the world. Unfortunately as it turns out, the World does not issue passports, and without a passport a human being is nobody. So I am doomed to have a nationality, even though I think nationalism is stupid and inhumane I like the idea of World Citizenship and World Passport. What about improving the idea ? Why would we need a physical passport ? It has the disadvantage that you can loose it or it can be stolen. It could be a Namecoin Passport based on Namecoin ID(with Bitcoin and Bitmessage) where you upload you data entries in encrypted form. By crossing the border you just say your Namecoin Passport ID and your password and you can be checked with it. Passport number N5xH8xfy0 Nationality Namecoinia Name Refugee Robert Date of birth(YYMMDD) 1988.03.11 Place of birth Eritrea Expiration date of passport 2014.02.12 Namecoin ID refugeerobert7 Bitmessage address BM-BcbRqcFFSQUUmXFKsPJgVQPSiFA3Xash Bitcoin address(for border fee) 1Hq4JYkMvptxd28T4zQdieggwQpoc2T6rU Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Slingshot on November 24, 2013, 09:07:01 AM Steering way off topic for just a second:
Why does any free citizen need or require a Passport? Because we are not truly free. Caveat emptor Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Bicknellski on November 24, 2013, 09:33:06 AM I'm also an atheist and an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, so there you go.) Heehehe. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: coinrevo on January 20, 2014, 10:40:13 AM parts of this leak is public now? I was very surprised when I learned about this private forum, and read the attitude of the people there. its absolutely outrageous, that it takes leaks to get information on such important positions, and makes me really reconsider the current state of bitcoin.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: trilightzone.org on January 20, 2014, 12:12:46 PM Changing the core principles of bitcoin makes it worthless. Then people might as well keep using the traditional ways to make payments. Anyway, we would dump it in a heartbeat if bitcoin core principles were changed and another coin would take its place quickly.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: coinrevo on January 20, 2014, 12:30:47 PM my respect for these developers dropped by a lot given these actions + taking advisory positions in wallstreet /silicon valley companies - WTF is going on? all this work just to get the same kind of corruption we have. to me, those developers engaged in this kind of activity are diluting their share of the ideal. and the crap one reads in the foundation forum is outrageous. who are they that they think they own this process?
I find it somewhat doubtful that the hashing power would move away from the most "successful" currency. there is no viable competitor. would it be just a freeze? what would happen then? interestingly all this discussion is based on the idea that the US should own the world. its just assumed that the US makes the laws for the world. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: LiteCoinGuy on January 20, 2014, 12:58:20 PM Again, you understand nothing. It's about tracking what's happening in a blockchain, and altcoins do not prevent you at all from doing that, as their blockchains are all public and work in the exact same way. Moreover, they have much less tools available to circumvent that. There is nothing more to add. Zerocoin here we come. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: MikeH on January 20, 2014, 02:03:07 PM It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. Only on page 1 and already see a flaw here - you are assuming Bin Laden was guilty of 9/11 etc yet many of us know that is a lie so this is actually another argument against any form of blacklisting. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tacotime on January 20, 2014, 02:10:08 PM Between stealth addressing and coinjoin, we're already ahead of them.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Rampion on January 20, 2014, 03:03:53 PM Between stealth addressing and coinjoin, we're already ahead of them. Stealth addresses are indeed one of the most exciting developments - great job by Amir. Furthermore, I strongly believe that coinjoin should be implemented by default on Bitcoin-QT. Isn't there any discussion in that direction? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 20, 2014, 03:18:23 PM You are overestimating the privacy that the two features add to your coins.
Stealth addresses - they are only useful for those who'd like to receive funds from people they don't know. If they (like me) did know the people who send them the money, they could have just as well achieve the same level of "privacy" by giving a different payment address to each if the payers. So I don't know about you, but stealth addresses are not going to help me at all to improve my privacy. And the conjoin - as I had said once: no matter what, always claim that your transaction was a coinjoin transaction, since they are completely indistinguishable from regular transactions, and so: we have all been using coinjoin already, without even knowing it... bear it in mind! Claiming that not all of the inputs and outputs were yours in a certain tx - this is the only thing that matters in the coinjon technology. I think the real bitcoin privacy can only come from an off-chain mixers. Something like Bitcoin Fog does... But they charge 2% and we cannot be sure whether they actually destroy the logs. But this is definitely a proper way to address bitcoin privacy issues, while stealth addresses or conjoin transactions are not an actual privacy improvements - at least not according to my definition of bitcoin's privacy... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 05:11:54 PM Again, you understand nothing. It's about tracking what's happening in a blockchain, and altcoins do not prevent you at all from doing that, as their blockchains are all public and work in the exact same way. Moreover, they have much less tools available to circumvent that. There is nothing more to add. Zerocoin here we come. The technology im working on has an enhanced privacy model. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 05:13:18 PM It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why: Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. Only on page 1 and already see a flaw here - you are assuming Bin Laden was guilty of 9/11 etc yet many of us know that is a lie so this is actually another argument against any form of blacklisting. If you havent figured out yet that the spooks are all over this board and this space, youre not paying attention. If google is involved be afraid. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 05:23:39 PM You are overestimating the privacy that the two features add to your coins. Stealth addresses - they are only useful for those who'd like to receive funds from people they don't know. If they (like me) did know the people who send them the money, they could have just as well achieve the same level of "privacy" by giving a different payment address to each if the payers. So I don't know about you, but stealth addresses are not going to help me at all to improve my privacy. And the conjoin - as I had said once: no matter what, always claim that your transaction was a coinjoin transaction, since they are completely indistinguishable from regular transactions, and so: we have all been using coinjoin already, without even knowing it... bear it in mind! Claiming that not all of the inputs and outputs were yours in a certain tx - this is the only thing that matters in the coinjon technology. I think the real bitcoin privacy can only come from an off-chain mixers. Something like Bitcoin Fog does... But they charge 2% and we cannot be sure whether they actually destroy the logs. But this is definitely a proper way to address bitcoin privacy issues, while stealth addresses or conjoin transactions are not an actual privacy improvements - at least not according to my definition of bitcoin's privacy... Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: MikeH on January 20, 2014, 05:38:21 PM parts of this leak is public now? I was very surprised when I learned about this private forum, and read the attitude of the people there. its absolutely outrageous, that it takes leaks to get information on such important positions, and makes me really reconsider the current state of bitcoin. I was about to post about that, why aren't they releasing transcripts of all formal discussions? there should be no such thing as a leak in regards to bitcoin's development. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 20, 2014, 05:43:37 PM Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use. Well, I surely appreciate your skepticism and awareness of the environment that bitcoin needs to live in.That is exactly the approach that people who pretend to develop a privacy for Bitcoin need. But you must admit that mixing services like "Bitcoin Fog" are exactly like coinjoin - except that they are definitely so much better than coinjoin. Though, if you can propose an even better idea, a one which addresses the issues that you have just complained about - man, then you will be our hero! But first show us how it works - because only then we have something to talk about... The other way around (just talk - show nothing) is only a waste of our time. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 05:54:27 PM Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use. Well, I surely appreciate your skepticism and awareness of the environment that bitcoin needs to live in.That is exactly the approach that people who pretend to develop a privacy for Bitcoin need. But you must admit that mixing services like "Bitcoin Fog" are exactly like coinjoin - except that they are definitely so much better than coinjoin. Though, if you can propose an even better idea, a one which addresses the issues that you have just complained about - man, then you will be our hero! But first show us how it works - because only then we have something to talk about... The other way around (just talk - show nothing) is only a waste of our time. Not looking to be a hero, but keep in mind the real software is the ideas behind it. Code is just an expression of those ideas. My general goal is to provide flexible tools for private equity creation. Digital currencies fall under this. Confidence chains is a generalized solution to this problem. Im even hestinant to say anything because the moment I do the peanut gallery badtardizies whatever terminology I use. Ive been in the digital currency world long enough to know what kind of forces your dealing with and they shouldnt be underestimated. Im aware of your work btw, I think alternative bitcoin clients are certainly important. Part of what the big firms are doing is monopolizing knowledge of the open source software. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 20, 2014, 05:58:18 PM Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use. Well, I surely appreciate your skepticism and awareness of the environment that bitcoin needs to live in.That is exactly the approach that people who pretend to develop a privacy for Bitcoin need. But you must admit that mixing services like "Bitcoin Fog" are exactly like coinjoin - except that they are definitely so much better than coinjoin. Though, if you can propose an even better idea, a one which addresses the issues that you have just complained about - man, then you will be our hero! But first show us how it works - because only then we have something to talk about... The other way around (just talk - show nothing) is only a waste of our time. Not looking to be a hero, but keep in mind the real software is the ideas behind it. Code is just an expression of those ideas. My general goal is to provide flexible tools for private equity creation. Digital currencies fall under this. Confidence chains is a generalized solution to this problem. Im even hestinant to say anything because the moment I do the peanut gallery badtardizies whatever terminology I use. Ive been in the digital currency world long enough to know what kind of forces your dealing with and they shouldnt be underestimated. Im aware of your work btw, I think alternative bitcoin clients are certainly important. Part of what the big firms are doing is monopolizing knowledge of the open source software. I'm saying: what do you have to offer that would provide a better anonymity for my coins that the mentioned Bitcoin Fog which charges 2% of my money? I haven't seen anything better so far, but even as for this service I cannot be sure that it isn't run by NSA itself, can you? So I am looking for something better, but I see nothing better on the horizon... All these "stealth addresses" or "coinjoin" - for me it's just some PR bullshit that does not improve my privacy at all. Does it improve yours, BTW? I doubt it. And no offence for the people who came out with these ideas (I believe they wanted well), but that is not a real solution for a bitcoin privacy, so people should not get so delighted about it. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 06:07:31 PM Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use. Well, I surely appreciate your skepticism and awareness of the environment that bitcoin needs to live in.That is exactly the approach that people who pretend to develop a privacy for Bitcoin need. But you must admit that mixing services like "Bitcoin Fog" are exactly like coinjoin - except that they are definitely so much better than coinjoin. Though, if you can propose an even better idea, a one which addresses the issues that you have just complained about - man, then you will be our hero! But first show us how it works - because only then we have something to talk about... The other way around (just talk - show nothing) is only a waste of our time. Not looking to be a hero, but keep in mind the real software is the ideas behind it. Code is just an expression of those ideas. My general goal is to provide flexible tools for private equity creation. Digital currencies fall under this. Confidence chains is a generalized solution to this problem. Im even hestinant to say anything because the moment I do the peanut gallery badtardizies whatever terminology I use. Ive been in the digital currency world long enough to know what kind of forces your dealing with and they shouldnt be underestimated. Im aware of your work btw, I think alternative bitcoin clients are certainly important. Part of what the big firms are doing is monopolizing knowledge of the open source software. I'm saying: what do you have to offer that would provide a better anonymity for my coins that the example Bitcoin Fog that charges 2% of my money? I haven't seen anything better so far, but even as for this service I cannot be sure that it isnt run by NSA. All these "stealth addresses" or "coinjoin" - for me it's just some PR bullshit that does not improve my privacy at all. And no offence for the people who came out with these ideas - I believe they wanted well, but that's not a real solution for a bitcoin privacy. Its part of the plan I think. If you THINK no one can see you, then you are more likely to act candidly, and thats precisely what they want. Keep generating technologies that make people believe they have privacy and they never demand the real thing. There is a good case for ECC itself being such a technology. The field is riddled with assumptions and "experts" with layman popular understanding ala Bruce Schneier. Of course if you do attain privacy, you just might be a terrorist or a pedophile. We were warned that this was coming, but not many people did anything about it. Edward Snowden for President. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 20, 2014, 06:12:57 PM It's all true what you saying and I couldn't agree more.
But your approach does not provide us with any solutions - does it? And our job (as bitcoin developers) is to make solutions, not to cry about how hard the environment is... Of course it is hard - and that is exactly why making solutions to these problems give us so much fun. I mean: I can only speak for myself, but I'm not really such a unique person - as a human beings we usually all want the same things. And Osama Bin Laden is for me just a character from a fairy tail, made for stupid people like Mike Haren, so they'd have some point to anchor to... since they are obviously to lame to anchor directly into my ass, which is certainly the point of the resistance that they ought to fight, in order to win this 'people vs. corporations' war. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 06:38:29 PM Lol. Ya I agree, I am working on real code. Should be out soon. We also cant overlook that our underlying concepts must be sound as well. Seems many of the projects pretending to be the 2nd bitcoin skipped that part. Re. Osama bin laden, look up the writer John Perkins. Its a good place to start re whats happening internationally. Also Edward Snowden appears to be driven to expose the surveillance machine. Theres lots of layers to it, Israel is a big part of it, much of the surveillance technology is developed there. Also im a big fan of the original Cypherpunks. It's all true what you saying and I couldn't agree more. But your approach does not provide us with any solutions - does it? And our job (as bitcoin developers) is to make solutions, not to cry about how hard the environment is... Of course it is hard - and that is exactly why making solutions to these problems give us so much fun. I mean: I can only speak for myself, but I'm not really such a unique person - as a human beings we usually all want the same things. And Osama Bin Laden is for me just a character from a fairy tail, made for stupid people like Mike Haren, so they'd have some point to anchor to... since they are obviously to lame to anchor directly into my ass, which is certainly the point of the resistance that they ought to fight, in order to win this 'people vs. corporations' war. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BitcoinEXpress on January 20, 2014, 07:44:27 PM The bottom line is,
if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional. Bitcoin = Money Money = Power If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another. There will always be a desire and battle to control it. ~BCX~ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 20, 2014, 08:10:01 PM The bottom line is, if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional. Bitcoin = Money Money = Power If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another. There will always be a desire and battle to control it. ~BCX~ If its contolled, ie centralized, then its not p2p and functionally identical to Paypal, ie. Worthless. So your inevitability argument doesnt really support a case for bitcoin's use. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BitCoinDream on January 20, 2014, 08:21:34 PM People discussing here should not miss this thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BitcoinEXpress on January 20, 2014, 08:34:00 PM The bottom line is, if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional. Bitcoin = Money Money = Power If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another. There will always be a desire and battle to control it. ~BCX~ If its contolled, ie centralized, then its not p2p and functionally identical to Paypal, ie. Worthless. So your inevitability argument doesnt really support a case for bitcoin's use. I'm just stating the facts be they PC or not. and while I am not a fan of Paypal, it is anything but worthless. As long as Bitcoin = Money, then Bitcoin = Power and there will be inevitable battles for control. Start all the new coins you want. If it attains a value of Billions USD, it will meet the same fate of control by the powerful. ~BCX~ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Kungfucheez on January 20, 2014, 08:48:32 PM The bottom line is, if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional. Bitcoin = Money Money = Power If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another. There will always be a desire and battle to control it. ~BCX~ Seriously this. Doesn't matter if it's Bitcoins, USD, leaves on a tree or bags of sand, as long as it's something used to exchange goods and services, there will always be someone wanting more of it. And if we say that, then there must be a need to control it somehow, or else things would get out of hand very quickly. That's just human nature. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 20, 2014, 11:50:22 PM What is the Bitcoin foundation?
The more I read about the entities that are getting involved with Bitcoin the muddier my picture of Bitcoin gets. You say Bitcoin is decentralized? It is not and will never be as long as there's someone pulling the strings behind the scenes. Whether it's an entity within the network (a large pool), a shady wall-street investor or the big brother foundation... Where is the long term plan posted? Where is the list of planned features? Where do I send my feature suggestions? Where is the open discussion? Where are the miners in all of this? Are we just dumb, cheap labor? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 21, 2014, 12:48:59 AM ... If it attains a value of Billions USD, it will meet the same fate of control by the powerful. ~BCX~ One of my very early philosophies on Bitcoin, and why I consider it 'better' than gold (from the perspective of humanity), is this: Ultimately what gives Bitcoin it's strength is it's userbase and that is a simple decision about what software to run. In contrast, gold's strength is derived from it's scarcity. A tyrant with vault full of gold is not easy to dislodge because he/they can store it adequately and safely. Were he sitting on Bitcoin, the plebs could simply devalue it at the click of a mouse by switching to something else en-mass. No more need to stick anyone on a pike poll. They/we just need to organize effectively. (Parenthetically, I believe that the extreme resources and mandate granted to the NSA have a lot to do with the threat of people being able to organize since mapping out the individuals and org structures is key to quashing such a threat.) My advice to the Bitcoin Foundation is to not push their luck to far, though it is probably to late. From day one they got off on a bad start, and in exactly in the way I was concerned about (and mentioned in the relevant thread before TBF was created) regarding transparency. TBF had one chance to earn and retain the confidence of the userbase and I believe they may have already blown it. Whether they take Bitcoin down with them will be interesting to find out...it depends, I expect, on how much damage they are able to do before burning through the 'default' credibility they obtained as a natural consequence of forming any such body. edit: spelling, and additional estimate. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: tspacepilot on January 21, 2014, 01:57:00 AM This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream. We do not need alternate blockchains. There is only one Bitcoin. The real Bitcoin, as stated in the design paper, has fungible Bitcoins. The real Bitcoin, as stated in the design paper, has no authorities regulating it. The real Bitcoin, as stated in the design paper, has irreversible transactions. Anything that changes away from these 3 principles is not Bitcoin, despite what they may call itself. You (yes you) is a thousand times more powerful than the Bitcoin Foundation. Boycott any modification that makes Bitcoin no longer Bitcoin. This post seems to strike at the heart of it. Community members, keep true to the manifesto! Don't accept modifications that subvert the public interest. Title: Re: [DUMP] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Bitcoin Blacklisting Post by: tvbcof on January 21, 2014, 02:22:26 AM ... You (yes you) is a thousand times more powerful than the Bitcoin Foundation. Boycott any modification that makes Bitcoin no longer Bitcoin. This post seems to strike at the heart of it. Community members, keep true to the manifesto! Don't accept modifications that subvert the public interest. Do be a little bit cautious about this. Many people find many aspects of Libertarianism (and more generally, of various kinds of freedoms) to be somewhere between fringe and abhorrent. If/when Bitcoin becomes 'mainstream' it is very possible that the Bitcoin Foundation members ideas about blacklisting and such will have surprisingly broad support among the userbase. My personal feeling is that there will be unintended consequences to a lot of the plans (e.g., control methods and fantastic userbase growth) which will eventually kill the solution even though the individual efforts will be successful and solving the narrow problems that they are engineered for. At the end of the day, though, the cat is out of the bag. To kill distributed crypto-currencies means killing people's right and ability to interact. This would be challenging to do in a airtight and durable way, but it does not mean that it won't be attempted. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 21, 2014, 02:48:08 AM This my friends is the Bitcoin foundation:
https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current Protecting the interests of the hands that feed. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 21, 2014, 03:04:17 AM This my friends is the Bitcoin foundation: https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current Protecting the interests of the hands that feed. Yup, Inputs.io still there (and 'tradefortress' is still gone) demonstrating conclusively how much of a shit the Bitcoin Foundation gives about theft and fraud in the ecosystem. Of course they are all up on it when it comes to 'protecting the children' and things which don't threaten people who put money into their coffers...or almost anyone else due to the rarity of this and it's cousin 'terrorism' which are puffed up into existence almost exclusively as an excuse for certain projects such as coin blacklisting. The speed of the Bitcoin Foundations descent into standard trade organization level of secrecy, nepotism, and duplicitous behavior has surprised even me and I started out being pretty leery of this before the organization was even formed. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: MikeH on January 21, 2014, 03:24:04 AM This my friends is the Bitcoin foundation: https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current Protecting the interests of the hands that feed. yeah, what are these gold and silver members - are they based on size of donations? I hadn't heard of Circle (1 of the 2 gold members), looks to be a few dodgy characters running that. http://www.circle.com/about oh and this is kind of interesting too.. http://www.circle.com/regulatory eg. "Monitoring and reporting suspicious transactions" Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: pungopete468 on January 21, 2014, 04:14:09 AM This just ruined my mood this evening.
This implementation would be no more than a virus in the Bitcoin protocol and should be viewed and attacked as such. I understand the "Nanny State" mentality where "nobody should be allowed to touch money unless they identify themselves" because who knows, "they might be a terrorist, or a drug dealer, or a rapist, or a political extremist, or a religious nut, or a gun supporter, or mentally unstable, or a Republican, or a Democrat, or a Libertarian." Pretty much insert whatever you want and exclude those who disagree... Grow a spine people. If a majority base of the Bitcoin community supports this draconian approach at centralization then that majority base does not support nor believe in Bitcoin and should choose a different currency to stifle with their cowardice. I don't even care to express myself more on this thread. If this were actually implemented across the pools I could easily see a forked blockchain created by a rift of ideology and a mass migration between pools... The fork which deserves to win is the fork which preserves the integrity of the actual Bitcoin protocol. /Done with this thread... P.S. This is not a conversation anybody should be having or considering. Some things need to be determined and established at the start; which was obviously the case with this. This is a betrayal... Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ko2a on January 21, 2014, 04:49:32 AM It makes sense that certain people would want to authenticate the receivers of certain cc's i suppose this is somewhat inevitable. Hopefully this isn't leading to trying to get everyone to get a rfid chip in their hand.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BitcoinEXpress on January 21, 2014, 06:00:24 AM I don't know what is more amusing, the fringe few thinking that the masses would revolt against anything that Gavin et al
would release or the fringe few realizing they are indeed, the fringe few. I would say easily that 95% of the people that use and/or mine Bitcoin haven't even read Satoshi's writings on Bitcoin. On the flip side I would say less than 5% understand Bitcoin on any technical level beyond being able to point a miner at a pool. With that being said, Some form of regulation and control is coming, like it or not. ~BCX~ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 21, 2014, 06:16:34 AM I don't know what is more amusing, the fringe few thinking that the masses would revolt against anything that Gavin et al would release or the fringe few realizing they are indeed, the fringe few. I would say easily that 95% of the people that use and/or mine Bitcoin haven't even read Satoshi's writings on Bitcoin. On the flip side I would say less than 5% understand Bitcoin on any technical level beyond being able to point a miner at a pool. With that being said, Some form of regulation and control is coming, like it or not. ~BCX~ Bring it on. It's going to be a tricky needle to thread. Chop up a starfish into pieces to try to kill it and what you end up with is a whole bunch more starfish. To your other point, ya, not a lot of people understand networking and cryptography. A much larger number can recognize abusive and unfair strong-arm tactics, especially when it effects themselves and their friends and family. At some point in the regulatory process it's going to come time to clamp down on basic freedoms of association. 'Piss or get off the pot' one might say. It'll be interesting to see how (and if) that is accomplished. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BitcoinEXpress on January 21, 2014, 07:21:40 AM 'Piss or get off the pot' one might say. It'll be interesting to see how (and if) that is accomplished. Agreed ;D ;D ;D ~BCX~ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 02:00:54 PM The bottom line is, if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional. Bitcoin = Money Money = Power If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another. There will always be a desire and battle to control it. ~BCX~ If its contolled, ie centralized, then its not p2p and functionally identical to Paypal, ie. Worthless. So your inevitability argument doesnt really support a case for bitcoin's use. I'm just stating the facts be they PC or not. and while I am not a fan of Paypal, it is anything but worthless. As long as Bitcoin = Money, then Bitcoin = Power and there will be inevitable battles for control. Start all the new coins you want. If it attains a value of Billions USD, it will meet the same fate of control by the powerful. ~BCX~ There already have been the battles for control - there are, and certainly there will be more of them in a future. But so what? They are pretty bloodless, even quite funny, and all we need is to keep wining them. And we will because we are holding the proper weapon to win this war; 17000000000000000 hashes per second, and growing... Our weapon is pretty much decentralized, spread all over the world - it cannot be destroyed and so there is no way that any corporation, no matter how powerful, can beat it now. At least I don't see it happening in a foreseeable future. Plus I think you are totally missing the fact that if "Bitcoin = Money = Power", then sooner Bitcoin will destroy the governments than the other way around. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: OleOle on January 21, 2014, 02:35:01 PM *snip* Plus I think you are totally missing the fact that if "Bitcoin = Money = Power", then sooner Bitcoin will destroy the governments than the other way around. *snip* Take your hand off it, Bitcoin isn't going to destroy any governments, dream on soldier. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 02:37:01 PM *snip* Plus I think you are totally missing the fact that if "Bitcoin = Money = Power", then sooner Bitcoin will destroy the governments than the other way around. *snip* Take your hand off it, Bitcoin isn't going to destroy any governments, dream on soldier. Of course not. Because no governments will be stupid enough to go on war with Bitcoin. You don't fight things which you cannot beat - governments know it very well. If they didn't know it, they would not have been in power now. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: OleOle on January 21, 2014, 02:48:58 PM *snip* Plus I think you are totally missing the fact that if "Bitcoin = Money = Power", then sooner Bitcoin will destroy the governments than the other way around. *snip* Take your hand off it, Bitcoin isn't going to destroy any governments, dream on soldier. Of course not. Because no governments will be stupid enough to go on war with Bitcoin. Fair enough, but let's not over-extrapolate. There is significant strength in the network being disparate and decentralised but as we've seen from the topic of this thread, power tends to corrupt and those that are supposedly on the Foundation to advance Bitcoin are, according to the vast majority of commentators on this thread, doing quite the opposite. If those who are elected by a narrow minority cannot reflect the concerns of the broader majority, perhaps it's time to consider the dissolution of the Bitcoin Foundation or the establishment of another more responsive body that pursues a more egalitarian decentralised agenda. I'm probably not the only independent miner who might vote for that, indeed, it's probably the extension of the 'hard fork' thinking - a voice counter to those courting entrenched financial orthodoxy. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 02:56:51 PM Fair enough, but let's not over-extrapolate. There is significant strength in the network being disparate and decentralised but as we've seen from the topic of this thread, power tends to corrupt and those that are supposedly on the Foundation to advance Bitcoin are, according to the vast majority of commentators on this thread, doing quite the opposite. If those who are elected by a narrow minority cannot reflect the concerns of the broader majority, perhaps it's time to consider the dissolution of the Bitcoin Foundation or the establishment of another more responsive body that pursues a more egalitarian decentralised agenda. I'm probably not the only independent miner who might vote for that, indeed, it's probably the extension of the 'hard fork' thinking - a voice counter to those courting entrenched financial orthodoxy. You are overestimating capabilities of the devs or any other kind of "elected" entities. They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners - at least by 51% of them. And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. So the only thing the people from the foundation can do is to stop their development from happening. Which BTW they have been pretty efficient in, for the past couple of years - but since it didn't seem to disturb the price anyhow, rather caused it to skyrocket, apparently bitcoin protocol is already mature enough and its value doesn't really mind the ongoing no further protocol changes state. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 21, 2014, 03:05:10 PM And we will because we are holding the proper weapon to win this war; 17000000000000000 hashes per second, and growing... What use are 17000000000000000 hashes per second if they are held by weak hands? Miner's have become dependent on Bitcoin. No investor is going to flip the switch and let their $$$ hardware become paper weights in the name of ideals. The power of the network in overestimated. People have more reasons to continue mining even in unfavorable conditions than they have reasons to leave. Classic bait and hook. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 03:06:00 PM What use are 17000000000000000 hashes per second if they are held by weak hands? But why do you think that they are held by weak hands? Are you saying that bitcoin miners are stupid? :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: OleOle on January 21, 2014, 03:06:20 PM Fair enough, but let's not over-extrapolate. There is significant strength in the network being disparate and decentralised but as we've seen from the topic of this thread, power tends to corrupt and those that are supposedly on the Foundation to advance Bitcoin are, according to the vast majority of commentators on this thread, doing quite the opposite. If those who are elected by a narrow minority cannot reflect the concerns of the broader majority, perhaps it's time to consider the dissolution of the Bitcoin Foundation or the establishment of another more responsive body that pursues a more egalitarian decentralised agenda. I'm probably not the only independent miner who might vote for that, indeed, it's probably the extension of the 'hard fork' thinking - a voice counter to those courting entrenched financial orthodoxy. You are overestimating capabilities of the devs. They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners. And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. So the only thing the people from the foundation can do is to stop any development from happening. Which BTW they have been pretty efficient in for the past couple of years, but since it didn't seem to disturb the price anyhow, apparently bitcoin protocol is already mature enough and it's price doesn't really mind no development stage. Thanks for your perspective, it is quite optimistic, or rather, more correctly, quite positive. More positive indeed than many of the understandably angry voices who have commented here. I still think it is important that threads and conversations like this occur as I'd speculate that the vast majority of miners are in the dark with respect to what the Foundation are doing, especially with regards this topic. Perhaps you are right, maybe bitcoin will continue on its merry dance and resist those who seek to chain and dilute its value and utility? Let's hope so. :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 03:12:08 PM I still think it is important that threads and conversations like this occur as I'd speculate that the vast majority of miners are in the dark with respect to what the Foundation are doing, especially with regards this topic. Of course it is important to inform each other.It is like with every democracy; if you don't know the actual motives behind the changes that you are about to vote for, you might just hurt yourself by voting for them. But so far, this community has showed that they can speak up and listen, when there is a need for it. So yeah, I'm quite convinced that this project is going to work, as long as there is no backdoor in the secp256k1 - that's like the only thing which could still kill bitcoin. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 21, 2014, 03:14:23 PM What use are 17000000000000000 hashes per second if they are held by weak hands? But why do you think that they are held by weak hands? Are you saying that bitcoin miners are stupid? :) I am saying that most miners have more to lose by pulling out than by continuing to run their mining rigs. The hobbyists can pull out and take a small loss on their GPU's or whatever. The big guys, no way. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 03:15:21 PM What use are 17000000000000000 hashes per second if they are held by weak hands? But why do you think that they are held by weak hands? Are you saying that bitcoin miners are stupid? :) I am saying that most miners have more to lose by pulling out than by continuing to run their mining rigs. The hobbyists can pull out and take a small loss on their GPU's or whatever. The big guys, no way. Yeah. But why would they want to pull out? All they need to do is keep mining with the old software, if they don't like some changes in a new version - as long as they keep the majority, they loose completely nothing by not changing a protocol. Moreover: the only reason for them to vote for changing the protocol is to see an actual incentive in it. If you don't have an incentive, there is no way they would accept any change in the protocol. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 21, 2014, 03:17:43 PM And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. I would love to see this in practice. Maybe it's about time something happened to test this theory. My money is you wouldn't like the results. ;) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 03:47:36 PM And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. I would love to see this in practice. Maybe it's about time something happened to test this theory. I'm afraid you won't see it soon. I am not aware of any incoming blockchain protocol changes, and even if they would, last time it took like a year to upgrade the network to blocks version 2. But that was back in the times when the network hashing power was like million times lower and the miners had much more trust in the dev team. The situation today is totally different and no sane respected person is going to put his reputation on forcing a protocol change that has even a tiny chance to not be accepted by the miners. Just look what happened to our poor Mike - and he didn't even start to write any code yet for his red and black lists that were supposed to deliver some justice into bitcoins.. Apparently all the bitcoins sheep that Mike was just trying to protect don't give a shit about his justice, so he didn't even get his brilliant ideas to a pre-voting :) My money is you wouldn't like the results. ;) No worries - almost all my money is already in that bet ;) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 21, 2014, 04:13:32 PM Fair enough, but let's not over-extrapolate. There is significant strength in the network being disparate and decentralised but as we've seen from the topic of this thread, power tends to corrupt and those that are supposedly on the Foundation to advance Bitcoin are, according to the vast majority of commentators on this thread, doing quite the opposite. If those who are elected by a narrow minority cannot reflect the concerns of the broader majority, perhaps it's time to consider the dissolution of the Bitcoin Foundation or the establishment of another more responsive body that pursues a more egalitarian decentralised agenda. I'm probably not the only independent miner who might vote for that, indeed, it's probably the extension of the 'hard fork' thinking - a voice counter to those courting entrenched financial orthodoxy. You are overestimating capabilities of the devs or any other kind of "elected" entities. They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners - at least by 51% of them. And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. this only works for so long as BTC is appreciating. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 04:35:49 PM You are overestimating capabilities of the devs or any other kind of "elected" entities. They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners - at least by 51% of them. And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. this only works for so long as BTC is appreciating. It does not matter whether the BTC price goes up or down. In any case the miners will do anything to protect it, because they profit in bitcoins. Bitcoin was actually designed with this exact intent and the design is flawless. Well, at least I don't see how it can fail. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 21, 2014, 04:44:45 PM You are overestimating capabilities of the devs or any other kind of "elected" entities. They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners - at least by 51% of them. And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. this only works for so long as BTC is appreciating. It does not matter whether the BTC price goes up or down. In any case the miners will do anything to protect it, because they profit in bitcoins. Bitcoin was actually designed with this exact intent and the design is flawless. Well, at least I don't see how it can fail. you can't just create value from nothing by computing some hashes. Typically, when you bring this up, people contend that Bitcoin is 'peer to peer' but we've established that this isn't true. Bitcoin really delivers precisely NOTHING, but there are so many people invested in it, they keep the appearance of use and value intact. Earlier someone responded to my post that 'paypal is valuable', and he's right paypal is valuable, but a paypal that requires massive processor banks isn't valuable at all. This is not really the place where you're going to get a a reasoned argument so it's really not worth putting to much effort into it. There are loads of publications out there that explain why many of the ideas about Bitcoin simply aren't true. Most people here are just trying to get Venture Capital money or make a quick buck somehow. Practically no one uses Bitcoin for real commerce. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 04:48:39 PM you can't just create value from nothing by computing some hashes. well, the very existence of bitcoin has proven your statement to be totally faulty.apparently you can create value by computing some hashes, but it isn't "from nothing" - it is actually from computing these hashes... :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 21, 2014, 04:51:06 PM you can't just create value from nothing by computing some hashes. well, the very existence of bitcoin has proven your statement to be totally faulty.apparently you can create value by computing some hashes. :) but it isn't "from nothing" - it is from computing hashes. Quote You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. -Abraham Lincoln Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 04:53:08 PM Now you sound like my TV :)
If you think that the value of bitcoin comes from fooling people and not from hashing, then... well, what can I say; everyone has a right to be wrong :) But for all I know bitcoins value does come from hashing, because nobody would have trusted a p2p currency that is not properly protected, and the only thing that protects this system is the hashing. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 21, 2014, 04:55:24 PM Now you sound like my TV :) If you think that the value of bitcoin comes from fooling people and not from hashing, then... well, what can I say; everyone has a right to be wrong :) But for all I know bitcoins value does come from hashing, because nobody would have trusted a p2p currency that is not properly protected, and only the hashing protects this system, nothing else. didn't we already establish that Bitcoin is not p2p? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 05:00:38 PM didn't we already establish that Bitcoin is not p2p? OK - I get you: Bitcoin is not P2P and its value does not come from hashing, but rather from fooling people.. Any other original thoughts you have to share? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bloods-n-cryptos on January 21, 2014, 05:28:23 PM The bottom line is, if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional. Bitcoin = Money Money = Power If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another. There will always be a desire and battle to control it. ~BCX~ This is true. That said, decentralizing development by moving it away from centralized developers to make it objectively community-driven could be a step in the right direction. https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/3449-decentralizing-development-through-vanity-voting/ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 21, 2014, 06:10:33 PM didn't we already establish that Bitcoin is not p2p? OK - I get you: Bitcoin is not P2P and its value does not come from hashing, but rather from fooling people.. Any other original thoughts you have to share? not really sure what's happened since yesterday, but suddenly seems you're in favor of blacklists? did you get a PM invite to become a second-tier Bitcoin superfriend? Suddenly Blacklists are 'for our own protection'? the technology could go one of two ways: 1) they manage to introduce sufficient controls, then they keep the price afloat, people continue to use thinking it's 'cool' or whatever meanwhile they actually have less privacy than Dwolla, but believe otherwise. 2) they dont put in the controls due to community resistance, and subsequently the price of Bitcoin plummets and all the 'experts' on here pretend that they predicted this all along. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 06:17:55 PM Sorry mam, but the more I read you, the clearer it is to me that you are talking only bullshit.
In fact, I do support all kind of blacklists. One example would be a list containing all the people who I do not take seriously. And you've just got subscribed to this one. :) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bluemeanie1 on January 21, 2014, 06:21:38 PM Sorry mam, but the more I read you, the clearer it is to me that you are talking only bullshit. In fact, I do support all kind of blacklists. One example would be a list containing all the people who I do not take seriously. And you've just got subscribed to this one. :) seems you NEVER address my points. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 06:40:22 PM Right - I don't address you points. that's probably true.
But how do you expect people to address bullshit like "bitcoin is not p2p" or "you cannot create value by computing hashes"? Your points are in some abstract fantasy land, where my imagination cannot even reach them. I'm just a human being - unable to address things that I cannot perceive. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: PsySec on January 21, 2014, 06:46:47 PM thanks for the leak op!
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 21, 2014, 06:49:24 PM Right - I don't address you points. that's probably true. But how do you expect people to address bullshit like "bitcoin is not p2p" or "you cannot create value by computing hashes"? Your points are in some abstract fantasy land, where my imagination cannot even reach them. I'm just a human being - unable to address things that I cannot perceive. Seems to me that: - Bitcoin is less and less 'p2p', and is threatening to become vastly less so in the future. - 'Computing hashes' is just a means of accomplishing proof-of-work and facilitating the necessary book-keeping work in the system. It is no more special than that and is distinctly NOT what creates value in the Bitcoin system. Nor is it the only way to achieve the goals in a general sense. I don't consider either of these two of they guy's points to be 'bullshit'. Try again. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: piotr_n on January 21, 2014, 06:56:15 PM Gents, I really don't have time for this bullshit.
If you have any question to me, try to express it in a way that I would understand. Otherwise just give me a break, because I am not here to prove anything to you. I said what I had to say and that's it - you don't like it, not my problem. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tolega on January 21, 2014, 08:17:27 PM Came here to see honest enlightening arguments...
Leaving disappointed. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: NewLiberty on January 21, 2014, 09:25:00 PM What is the Bitcoin foundation? The more I read about the entities that are getting involved with Bitcoin the muddier my picture of Bitcoin gets. You say Bitcoin is decentralized? It is not and will never be as long as there's someone pulling the strings behind the scenes. Whether it's an entity within the network (a large pool), a shady wall-street investor or the big brother foundation... Where is the long term plan posted? Where is the list of planned features? Where do I send my feature suggestions? Where is the open discussion? Where are the miners in all of this? Are we just dumb, cheap labor? So long as the strings are held by enough people, that is decentralization. Where they get tied into ropes are the problems. If you have a private key and a mining rig, you have an untangled string. Most your questions have been adequately and repeatedly answered. If you can read code, even better than google, hop on github. Feature suggestion - pull request. Most people aren't in the group that can be useful there. Consequently the "Very Open Discussion".... most of which is more open than is useful, as incredible amounts of time are used by people-that-know-stuff explaining to people-that-don't-know-how-to-find-answers. There is some utility to this VOD process at this stage of the project (which is still beta) because the "issue identifiers" (complainers) are still giving enough useful input to the "issue resolvers" (people that make things) to be of some valuable guidance. And there are plenty of us around the edges that can talk to both. When you are at the point of identifying a novel issue that hasn't been addressed, you get tremendous acclaim and hatred. The automatic and persistent KYC proposals are in that category. There is a problem, some solutions to that problem may make it worse, and so it will be hotly debated. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: coinrevo on January 23, 2014, 12:11:29 AM Some form of regulation and control is coming, like it or not. ~BCX~ Regulation by whom? bitcoin can move wherever it wants. this only makes sense if you're completely US centric and blind to the impact cryptocurrencies can have on the world. I've read through the posts at TBF, and what people say there is completely opposed to bitcoin the ideal. we need more developers/enthusiasts outside of the US. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tolega on January 23, 2014, 02:58:32 PM If US and The Bitcoin Foundation create come kind of regulations then me plus every other non-American will jump ship.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 23, 2014, 06:57:12 PM OK above two posters, lemme ask you this: Say you live happily in Bumfuckistan. I can pay you in two different things: - BTC which can be used to buy trinkets from Amazon. (no taint.) - BTC which cannot be used to buy trinkets from Amazon. (tainted.) Remember that if you accept the BTC, you will also be asking the same question of whoever you are trying to pay the BTC to so it's not a matter of whether you yourself intend to buy trinkets from Amazon or not. Unless you are full of shit, your answer will be that you would prefer the non-tainted coins. Now we have a situation where tainted coins are not only useless for buying trinkets from Amazon, but are also devalued by everyone else no matter where they are or what their plans are. This further damages BTC which are tainted. It is a bit of a vicious cycle. The tainted BTC will have some real-world value, but it will be less than the non-tainted BTC. Perhaps much less. Tainting BTC in this manner does not require the participation of the Bitcoin developers. Mostly just that they do nothing significant to protect against taint. (This is one of the most significant defects of Bitcoin's architecture in my opinion.) As it happens, it seems that for whatever reason the Bitcoin Foundation is more likely to help tainting authorities than to hinder them. Effective tainting also requires that at least one semi-major player honors the output of a tainting authority to get the ball rolling, but this is trivial when a US or International corporation gets involved. Just threaten to put the CEO in jail which seems to be exactly what happened with Yahoo! and why they joined PRISM and handed bulk customer data over to the NSA. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Interized on January 23, 2014, 07:01:04 PM Micon I demand more hilarious videos during the down time.
Just so we know the FEDS didn't capture you. Nice piece brah. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on January 23, 2014, 07:27:16 PM Tainting BTC in this manner does not require the participation of the Bitcoin developers. Mostly just that they do nothing significant to protect against taint. So many people fail to acknowledge inaction as a viable attack route in their threat models.Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 23, 2014, 07:39:55 PM Who makes the decision on what is a tainted coin??
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 23, 2014, 08:01:21 PM Who makes the decision on what is a tainted coin?? Anyone the U.S. government chooses. My guess is that it will be these guys: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 23, 2014, 08:30:26 PM Who makes the decision on what is a tainted coin?? Anyone the U.S. government chooses. My guess is that it will be these guys: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/) What if users don't accept this method of coin validation? What about international users? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 23, 2014, 08:58:53 PM Who makes the decision on what is a tainted coin?? Anyone the U.S. government chooses. My guess is that it will be these guys: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/) What if users don't accept this method of coin validation? What about international users? See a few posts above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334520.msg4691189#msg4691189 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334520.msg4691189#msg4691189) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: whtchocla7e on January 23, 2014, 08:59:58 PM Who makes the decision on what is a tainted coin?? Anyone the U.S. government chooses. My guess is that it will be these guys: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/) What if users don't accept this method of coin validation? What about international users? See a few posts above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334520.msg4691189#msg4691189 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334520.msg4691189#msg4691189) So, Bitcoin becomes centralized. Funny and sad at the same time. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tvbcof on January 23, 2014, 09:11:14 PM So, Bitcoin becomes centralized. Funny and sad at the same time. Bitcoin is widely acknowledged to be 'an experiment' and 'beta'. As a first cut it is extraordinarily impressive in a lot of ways. I believe that at the end of the day, Bitcoin's real contribution will be in calling attention to the aspects of future distributed crypto-currency solutions which need to be focused on. The flip-side is that it could be incentive for the powers that be to tie up some loose ends in the global internet. Or try to. It is a distinct problem to a lot of people that in it's current implementation the internet allows a relatively high degree of freedom of association among the plebs. The technology exists to rectify this 'deficiency' but it's not clear what the most effective way to roll these in will be. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: jballs on January 24, 2014, 05:39:02 AM So, Bitcoin becomes centralized. Funny and sad at the same time. Bitcoin is widely acknowledged to be 'an experiment' and 'beta'. As a first cut it is extraordinarily impressive in a lot of ways. I believe that at the end of the day, Bitcoin's real contribution will be in calling attention to the aspects of future distributed crypto-currency solutions which need to be focused on. The flip-side is that it could be incentive for the powers that be to tie up some loose ends in the global internet. Or try to. It is a distinct problem to a lot of people that in it's current implementation the internet allows a relatively high degree of freedom of association among the plebs. The technology exists to rectify this 'deficiency' but it's not clear what the most effective way to roll these in will be. I do not understand your concern with taint...we all do business with criminals. That doesn't make us criminals. Every defense attorney in the world takes tainted money and he's a friend of the court and often times on the public salary too. I have no idea where my btc came from beyond who sent it to me (and some of it not even them). But what do you think of VTC as far as solving the centralization problem? Sounds good to me but I'm pretty novice still. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: btcash on March 20, 2014, 12:50:02 AM Jeff:
Quote 4. Donate to the Bitcoin Foundation, which supports two core developers. Who is the second core dev?Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: bananas on March 20, 2014, 02:43:15 AM We should change the core devolopers of bitcoin, we can just do it.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Bit_Happy on March 20, 2014, 03:41:31 AM If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links.Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed. You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies. The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt. You are a wise one. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: jesse11 on March 20, 2014, 07:29:11 PM Who pays "The Bitcoin Foundation"? Dry up their money or BTC problem solved!
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: ShadowOfHarbringer on March 20, 2014, 07:56:24 PM If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links.Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed. You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies. The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: subSTRATA on March 20, 2014, 08:53:31 PM Imagine Bin Laden is still around. We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it. We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident. What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword. I guess you would not have a problem with let's say Americans BTC funding radicals in some country with the goal to overthrow legit government. The status quo isn't going to work. Sure it will. We should change the core devolopers of bitcoin, we can just do it. In Bitcoin, miners are God. Do not waste time on wrong people. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: NewLiberty on March 22, 2014, 04:01:05 PM In Bitcoin, miners are God. Do not waste time on wrong people. QFT Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: BigV on March 22, 2014, 05:45:00 PM Every business should have a drug test kit to test cash for drug residue. If it contains any they should not take it. It could have been used in a crime.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: MarketNeutral on March 22, 2014, 07:36:21 PM If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links.Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed. You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies. The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt. Perceptive perspective. Thank you! A post that bears repeating. Are you listening, Gavin? Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: justusranvier on March 22, 2014, 07:56:51 PM Are you listening, Gavin? Bitcoin is fundamentally broken if its future depends on whether or not Gavin is listening.Fortunately, there are viable alternatives to Bitcoin Core now. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on March 22, 2014, 08:03:08 PM Every business should have a drug test kit to test cash for drug residue. If it contains any they should not take it. It could have been used in a crime. Wasn't the crime initiated during the printing of said cash? http://www.silverdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bernanke-Dimon-Fed-Tunnel.png Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: DoogieHouser on May 11, 2014, 03:03:30 AM For whatever it's worth, there appears to be a mass exodus from the Bitcoin Foundation...
Read about it here (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/951-post-your-bitcoin-foundation-resignations-here/). Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on May 11, 2014, 03:07:46 AM For whatever it's worth, there appears to be a mass exodus from the Bitcoin Foundation... Read about it here (http://"https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/951-post-your-bitcoin-foundation-resignations-here/"). Just correctly the link for your, bud: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/951-post-your-bitcoin-foundation-resignations-here/ Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: DoogieHouser on May 11, 2014, 04:34:58 AM Every business should have a drug test kit to test cash for drug residue. If it contains any they should not take it. It could have been used in a crime. Wasn't the crime initiated during the printing of said cash? http://www.silverdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bernanke-Dimon-Fed-Tunnel.png According to one of the alphabet agencies, the two most common things found on US dollar bills is cocaine and feces, so by the same logic, it the cash wasn't used in a crime . . . ;) Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: LesterTheEight on May 11, 2014, 08:30:16 AM The current influx of governments, organizations, and individuals that are attempting to exert control over bitcoin both directly and indirectly demonstrates just how far we've come. They see the value in bitcoin and are taking us seriously now.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: LesterTheEight on May 11, 2014, 08:36:44 AM We have come together into this new financial system to escape that very kind of control. Let's not allow that control to creep back into our lives. Not even a little. These threats to bitcoin will never stop. When we squash one, it will surely just pop back up with a different name. So we must never consider the battle to be won and we must always remain vigilant .
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: LesterTheEight on May 11, 2014, 08:44:11 AM I know I've said it before but I don't think it can be said enough: Let's not make the mistake of trading one master for another.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: vipgelsi on May 11, 2014, 01:09:17 PM This is not good for bitcoin hopefully it will be straightend out.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: SebastianJu on May 11, 2014, 02:08:35 PM I always lose my comprehension when good people claim they have to go because there are bad people. Letting the whole thing rule by these "bad people" at the end. Thats not a smart move in my eyes and those leaving people look to me like they are one of the reasons when things go bad afterwards.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: Bitcoin Foundation on May 29, 2014, 04:04:44 AM This is not good for bitcoin hopefully it will be straightend out. The best thing for bitcoin would be to disband the Bitcoin Foundation. Thanks a lot for posting threads from their closed forum here. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tspacepilot on May 29, 2014, 05:22:38 AM IMHO bitcoin foundation is just a foundation. The real decision power of btc is in the peer-to-peer network of computers hashing out those blocks---the miners. I mean, even if btc foundation released some software that everyone disagreed with, it'd be up to the miners to receive the update or not. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: freedombit on May 29, 2014, 06:00:01 AM I always lose my comprehension when good people claim they have to go because there are bad people. Letting the whole thing rule by these "bad people" at the end. Thats not a smart move in my eyes and those leaving people look to me like they are one of the reasons when things go bad afterwards. Yes. But what is more important? Bitcoin or the idea that it was built upon? The US Constitution or the ideas that it was written upon? (Forgive the country-centric view point.) Allow your citizens to burn the flag, or you might as well burn it yourself. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: SebastianJu on May 29, 2014, 03:02:40 PM I always lose my comprehension when good people claim they have to go because there are bad people. Letting the whole thing rule by these "bad people" at the end. Thats not a smart move in my eyes and those leaving people look to me like they are one of the reasons when things go bad afterwards. Yes. But what is more important? Bitcoin or the idea that it was built upon? The US Constitution or the ideas that it was written upon? (Forgive the country-centric view point.) Allow your citizens to burn the flag, or you might as well burn it yourself. The bitcoin foundation wont vanish until most miners drop their support. And i dont see that coming. So at the end leaving the foundation is like those guys that dont go voting. Its useless to vote in the US because of their voting system but other countries have other systems. If someone isnt voting he often claims he dont want to support the system. But he isnt changing anything with it. Even only 13% voting peoples in the last european parliament vote in slovakia didnt change anything about that the election was valid. Even worse... each non voter means this vote voted 30% winning party, 20% second winning party and so on. So non voters even support the system because they dont vote small parties instead that want to change things. So no... i dont think that the winning parties will cry about it. They are happy about them in fact. The same goes for the foundation i think. If one leaves because things go wrong... means the remaining members have more power to make it the bad way. Only saying. I dont wont to force anybody in when he doesnt feel like it of course. Its only factual not a good move. Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tigeRshoes on May 29, 2014, 07:58:26 PM There is a lot of hate directed at the Bitcoin foundation right now. I joined the foundation so that I could participate in this discussion precisely. (A $25 fee is worth being able to actually have a say).
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tigeRshoes on May 29, 2014, 08:04:42 PM People saying they have no right to represent us are absolutely correct they aren't elected by the general assembly of bitcoiners. However they work as a decent interface from a decentralized form of organization (us) to the centralized form of organization (the governments). As long as they represent the viewpoints of the collective all is well. And if they don't we can pull our support.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tigeRshoes on May 29, 2014, 08:11:05 PM That being said nothing I have seen has shown Mike Hearn was not pushing for redlisting. Just calling for a discussion of what the official position of the Bitcoin foundation should be.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tigeRshoes on May 29, 2014, 08:17:20 PM I strongly oppose this being supported by the foundation. I don't think it will solve the problems that its supposed to solve considering there is already a public ledger. But to come to that position without discussing it with the community would be definite grounds to rebel against the bitcoin foundation.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: tigeRshoes on May 29, 2014, 08:23:37 PM So far i have seen no untoward behaviour. the majority of posters are anti-tainting. And the pros have yet to demonstrate any benefits. But having the discussion is not prohibited and doesn't mean the Bitcoin foundation is evil just because it was discussed.
Title: Re: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) Post by: quyenpann198 on July 09, 2018, 05:20:00 PM What useful was added into Satoshi's client since the foundation was created?
|
