Bitcoin Forum

with mike hearns plans to add code that will red-list coins.

and other bitcoin foundation plans to change the blockchain to something more U.S government friendly. the solution is simple.

DO NOT upgrade your client to a newer version that contains these ridiculous idea's.

if the majority of us stick with the same version, the bitcoin sticks with us. If a fork occurs, the new versions with those ridiculous idea's will use the fork. simply let them. we/they can call their fork govcoin.. and let the 1% of foundation loving, government loving users play around with their silly fork just like any other alt coin. while we continue using bitcoin as it remains in its current state.

give it a few minutes/hours and the exchanges will see the majority wants bitcoin and not govcoin, thus leaving govcoin to die

I'm actually going to have to agree with this one.

Yeah lets call the new bitcoin tainted version USAgovcoin and dump it in the altcoin section. There is no way we should accept this to be implemented in the bitcoin code.

Here is a little reminder of Satoshi's words

"We can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years" - Satoshi Nakamoto

This is not the spirit of USAgovcoin

I'm worried that the word won't get out and people will update anyway.

I also think the problem goes beyond just the bitcoin client. What they are talking about is some kind of centralized database for tracking these 'tainted' coins. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the bitcoin protocol. The US gov itself could decide who manages this database of clean/dirty coins and come up with all sorts of arbitrary requirements as to what constitutes clean coins. They can then make legislation that says that companies can only legally accept these clean coins. It wouldn't be too hard to do this and wouldn't require a fork. The problem is more political than technical. It's a slippery slope we need to stop ourselves going down!

This won't work.  8)

Now that Bitcoin has entered into the mainstream (and w/ Satosi's abandonment of the coin) the establishment will spin the press to such a degree that the majority will update. The best solution would be to find an altcoin that is aligned with your ideals and attitudes regarding independence and freedom.

People can turn their noses up to altcoins all they want, but I know for a 100% fact that there are developers currently working on altcoins that are equally as talented, and some even more so, as Satoshi. There are a lot of bitcoin adopters with their heads in the sands as it relates to altcoins.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mP8ZUFUKq2g/T9HatVUbcDI/AAAAAAAAATI/EXKZ1sy8UaU/s400/box-house-thumb-400x300.jpg

It's time for these old timers to take a peak outside the Bitcoin box and get a glimpse of the future.   :D  ;D  :D

Good plan, but eventually the majority of people will probably update. But if we could get the word out fast enough maybe we can avoid GovCoin!

What's to stop the same thing happening if the ALT-COIN you've switched to becomes the de-facto ?

The government will just go after that one.

There is, in my mind, ONLY ONE SOLUTION..

The PROTOCOL.. The thing that utterly defines the coin, CANNOT CHANGE. (You can change the client and update code etc etc.. but NOT THE UNDERLYING PROTOCOL)

You write it and launch it. Then see where the chips fall..

For me - A crypto-coin IS IT'S PROTOCOL. If you change the protocol, it's a different coin.

The fact that the bitcoin protocol is still actively being updated and changed, is where the problem lies.

Can you stop that ?

Not sure, in a p2p environment, anyone can do what they like..

BUT - if you launched a coin, and specifically said.. THAT'S IT. No more protocol changes. It works or it doesn't, then maybe that might do it.

But maybe not..  ???

I don't understand how people are overlooking this.  Redlisting, cointracking, address monitoring, whitelisting, blacklisting, and any other term you can think of for tracking data in the blockchain does not require any change to the bitcoin protocol.  Anyone can do.  You can do.  I can do it.  

If a group of people want to setup a business that tracks coins and white/blacklists addresses/coins, they can do it...right now...exactly as the protocol exists today.  It could have been done from day 1 of bitcoin's existence.  This is possible with all distributed blockchain based cryptocurrencies.

This is true... 

BUT - BTC development is still FAR TOO CENTRALISED.. Because protocol changes are STILL being made, so no-one but Gavin and the BTC Foundation can actually develop the bitcoin-qt client. No Disrespect intended, Gavin's cool ;D

But, the bitcoin-qt client 'IS' The Bitcoin protocol.. for all intents and purposes.

Whereas, if the PROTOCOL was written on a piece of paper and NEVER CHANGED, there would be many IMPLEMENTATIONS, and the idea that one group could override the wishes of the many would be absurd..
 

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)

+1 this is going to become a political issue, nothing to do with bitcoin clients or forks. The US gov may demand coin blacklisting and there will be some enterprising people that decide they are the right people to do it, regardless of what version of the client is in use. Any person or company can decide to do this and it looks like it's starting to happen now.

What will be really interesting is how this pans out in a global sense. Will China give a fuck about US blacklisted coins?!

Agreed - also for an idea about a non-block chain coin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334576.0

This is quite a bad precedence. I think the EUcrats will catch on with the idea quickly as well. BTW tainting and listing addresses is an awesome tool for most governments. (I guess the less democratic govts will be the more happy with this, as their opposition can get BTC funds but will not be able to spend it easily and "anonymously" any longer.)
Tainting could be a great opportunity for big corporations and patent trolls too for suppressing crowd funded/opensource competing products. With a little patent trolling and then tainting all BTC funds as means of intellectual property breach (therefore making it unspendable e.g. in the US) can knock down any such efforts. But maybe this is just my own paranoia :). 

fuck the usa, fuck the bitcoin foundation, fuck kyc, fuck aml, fuck the rothschilds

they can whitelist redlist whatever all they want. satoshis paper is satoshis paper. if not bitcoin then litecoin worldcoin etc.

the bitcoin-qt IS the protocol.(well technically bitcoind.exe is the protocol) EG version 0.1-0.7 did not have a 1mb per block limit, it was smaller. that was one of the rules of the protocol. and people decided that upgrading the protocol to allow upto 1MB was a positive change to the protocol, so everyone followed suite. what mike hearn wants to do is make a change to the protocol that makes the txid be marked in some manner as to be red-listed. this would have to happen in a new version of the protocol as with any other change or update to the protocol. so we simply choose to avoid that update.


i do not worry too much about coinvalidations "service" as its not a threat to individuals personal identity, but is 'possibly' a threat to underground businesses and the usability of blackmarket customers. and as you said its not a protocol change, its a outside service. but i do find mike hearns protocol change to make it the protocols responsibility to red-list transactions.

i personally dont do anything notorious, but what i do hate is when bureaucracy plays around with my money, either risking me losing some or costing me time in doing the simplest of tasks as sending money from one place to another. third party services can be ignored. but the important things like protocol changes cant be ignored and require people to choose. stick with bitcoinqt0.8 or allow the altered protocol of a future bitcoin-qt. if the majority population were sheep hearded into upgrading the bitcoin-qt client with the protocol change that makes coins red-listed. then imagine all the faucets filling up with red-listed coins. which then merge in with peoples clean coins. making their whole stash red-listed.

EG have 1BTC non redlisted, receive 0.0001 from a faucet that is redlisted. send the 1.0001 to someone else. their client flags up my transaction is red-listed... no thankyou!!!!

if this mike-heard protocol became the popular fork. i am moving to litecoin permenently. so lets all ensure that OUR bitcoin protocol stays the same as it is now, dont allow bitcoin updates containing mike-hearn red-listing protocol changes. and when this 'update' comes along EG if it were bitcoin 0.956(random number).. we call that client update the USGov coin.. and warn people about what they are truly downloading

Can you support any of this with evidence?  Quotes, etc?  Especially your first two statements.

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Bitcoin-qt is developed as an open source project on github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin), You do NOT need to be a Bitcoin Foundation member to contribute (just have an account on github).

And no, no changes will be merged into Bitcoin-Qt that reduce privacy. And no, Mike Hearn is not planning to do that either. And yes, we're open to privacy improvements such as CoinJoin, I look forward to pull requests implementing it.

In fact, it has been done, many times. Call it "crypto-forensics" or what have you... it's just people using the blockchain in another way.

No one in their right mind is talking about blacklisting coins... that's impossible, since anyone with one full tainted bictoin can send 100,000,000,000 satoshis across the network to 100,000,000,000 addresses, thus tainting them all.

What the hells happened to this forum?!?. People making massive wild assumptions which reach the point of somehow becomming fact, then turning into a fever and all kinds of negative "BURN THE WITCHES" threads popping up.

I had hoped there would be more adults here, ones willing to , you know, actually realise its mearly at the DISCUSSION STAGE, that being an adult is looking at a situation from ALL ANGLES, to discuss, debate, and THEN start forming strategys and conclusions.

This is very very early days still, and yet people here are acting like TEH BIG CONSPIRACY TAKEOVER HAS BEGUN!!

Gimme a break....

i agree,
i did write "plan" a few times and rediculous "idea" and a few If's.

i did not say mike hearn is/has done anything.

i do hate it when these if's and maybes are then meandered and chinese whispered into gospel facts

That's not what I mean..

Yes, it's open-source. yes i can contribute..

But the truth is : Everyone uses the client Gav and the BTC team build.. as in EVERYONE..

If the Protocol was set in stone, I can guarantee you there would be many MANY more implementations to choose from. And then trying to do a HARD FORK would be basically impossible.. without MASSIVE overall consent. (more than 51% - as at 51% a fork would be very MESSY)

At the moment, if they put something into the latest version of bitcoind.exe, MOST would just take it, and use it.

That's what I mean by the centralised nature of bitcoin's development.

Here is an even better idea.

The client is open source, correct?

So every time a new version is released with new features (many of which we probably want), we can just strip out the red-list features we don't want and re-release that "parallel" client.

In the U.S.A. taxes were introduced as a "temporary" measure.

In 1971, Nixon decided to "temporarily" remove the Gold fix for the US Dollar.

In 2013, the Bitcoin Foundation is "just discussing" major issues with the US Government.

See a pattern here at all?

+ 1000

Also, if shit-listing ever happens, I am here to fork it.

Lets see what Litecoin devs have to say about this. It's been asked on litecoin forums

As much as I hate this idea, as much as I voted for Mike not being my voice ever again through the BF, you're just hallucinating, here.
This was just a dicussion. Not a sane one, for sure, but just a discussion. It did not include any plan to make it real in a distant future.

Disagree, but let people voice their opinion, please.

There is no technical reason why an altcoin shouldnt increase in value at some point.

Some altcoins is already quite popular, at the same time as bitcoin is getting more popular as well.

plans to add code,

=

NOT added code already
Not created code and decided the date at which to enter it
NOT PLANNED(past tense, conversation and idea finalised), but plans(/present/future tense)....

a plan is something that is thought out but not implemented.
like the plans you make to go to meetings next week or the clothes you plan on wearing tomorrow.. you have not worn them yet, you may not even looked at the clothes to decide if the would even look good on you. you have only made plans...

its an idea... its an IF, its a maybe.

I think the best way and the best tool to fight blacklists is BLACKLISTS and TAINT, lots of blacklists and a lots of taint. If you only have a couple of blacklists and a small amount of tainted coins we are vulnerable but if we can create lots of blacklists and have most of the coins tainted we are safe and all the coin-holders should swap their currently clean coins to tainted coins for their own benefit. Why?

Because then all this blacklist-taint business is old news and boring and nobody can achieve nothing by creating one more blacklist and declaring some coins as tainted. We can just say that all of the coins are tainted just like all of the dollar-bills are tainted and nothing can be done about it and that explanation is going to be accepted because it is old news and boring for dollar-bills. In near future nobody is going to care just like nobody cares about silk road as a threat to bitcoin as whole although that is the number one most published use for bitcoins. The only thing to be afraid for is the fear itself.

Have to say I dont want to sound hysterical but Im in agreement here.

The government is all talking about "fraud prevention" and "consumer protection"

Thats a blatant lie and actually they do not give a rats ass about protecting consumers, otherwise all those late night infomercials telling you how to become a millionare, and websites promising to make you "$30K per month from your computer" simply would not exist. Butterfly Labs would not exist. For Christ sake, Citibank and half the other banks who sold us on bogus credit default swaps wouldnt exist, as they are all scammers, cons, and crooks. Cliff notes is this, is doesnt matter who you scam if you can pay your taxes and pay whatever "fines" they levy on you in court, which in the world of banking and pro scamming is just looked at as a cost of doing business.

They want to control it. First it starts with "monitoring" and "regulation," then it moves to "auditing" and "taxation" and "identity verification" and blacklisting coins, then eventually they use "eminent domain" on the bitcoin protocol and begin issuing coins themselves to "better protect the American public."

How people cant see that amazes me.

Who's to stop someone with 'redlisted' coins from sending tainted mBTC unsolicited to 1000's of 'clean' addresses just for the sake of undermining 'taint' analysis?

The bitcoin protocol can't prevent anyone from creating payments to any other address. The devs all know this so it's baffling how this idea has come as far as it has without being delegitimized completely.

This is what we need.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qtevg/zerocoin_reduces_proof_size_by_98_plans_to/

1) Create distributed anonymous extensible exchange system. (Open Transactions?)
2) As soon as Zerocoin is released as an alt-chain, everyone use it instead of Bitcoin.

Other protocol implementations are coming into existence, like btcd and gocoin.



The most important thing for a government is probably to have a system where money circulate back to them eventually. Whether it be through taxes, duties, printing or whatever.
Tainting could be used to achieve this of course. Just taint everything that has not been whitewashed and reissued by the gov.
But I doubt China is willing to send all their coins to Bernanke to have it whitewashed  ;D

the government love bitcoin because

instead of a foreign worker putting US Dollar bank notes into an envelope to send to his family abroad, he puts the U.S dollar into a US dollar bank account to then transfer the funds to a US bank account of OKPAY/ (now redundant) Dwolla. so that the US Dollar does infact stat within the borders of america.

the bitcoin travels the world and gets exchanged for whatever, but america doesnt/ shouldnt care about that.

because:
now they can get a little extra income tax/ sales tax from OKPAY/Dwolla.

the government regulations should only remain at the american FIAT touching businesses (that withdraw to US Banks).

Idk about that, but they remain and Satoshi has disappeared.