So... stick BTC0.00000001 in your account, and problem solved? If yes, I guess I could see this as being OK.

This service us just evolving to get better and better 

Relevant parts bolded. In blockchain.info you can create an anonymous receiving address, which, when receiving money, automatically sends it through the mixer using "anonymous transactions," and after a while, the money ends up in your personal wallet (someone else's coins, but of the same amount). As far as I know, that anonymous receiving address is yours, and stays there, ready to receive more coins to send through the "anonymous transactions" process until you manually delete it. Am I wrong?  Does that address disappear the first time it receives any coins?

I'll just leave this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I guess this is what I'm trying to figure out - what do you do if the agency that would issue a warrant, or require the release of info by law, does not exist? Like in cross-border disputes? How could this be handled by the companies themselves, while still protecting consumers?

That I agree with. If the coins had in fact been sent to nethead's anonymous address, they could have gotten stuck in the mixer for a day or so, without nethead even being aware of them. So, I guess patience is also important.

*bump* http://www.bitcoinstore.com/privacy-policy-cookie-restriction-mode

By the way, general question, but don't want to go OT here, so https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131745.0

What would you guys think of a policy that states "We will not release personal information to third parties, but if they are investigating fraud and ask us questions, we may answer very specific questions with simple yes/no answers, such as "Is this specific bitcoin address registered to this specific e-mail address." (I.e. this is something Roger could have asked Piuk, and if nethead's e-mail was not in fact linked to the same btc address he received money to, his privacy would have been safe)

That seems like it may be breaking too much privacy, but at the same time is quite restricted, so... opinions? Suggesting for improvements?

I think that was Bruce Wagner, to MyBitcoin, and he supposedly got 50% to 100% of that back.

FTFY

1. The only difference between me and the government is the ID badge someone else gives me. Here's the kicker- I actually am government, and own such an ID. I can't take your money, but I do have some discretion in how it's used after someone else takes it from you. You consent to paying taxes, but what about those that do not? What if someone lives in an area of US where they are not using any government services? What if someone consents to only some taxes on things they wish to pay for, but not for others, because they are extremely against those other things?

2. What if the selfish person who wants to be selective about where their taxes go wants to pay taxes for things like social security and medicare (which I still support), and doesn't want to pay for things like the drug war and private prisons? Why should that person still consent to having his things taken if his desires are obviously not selfish?

3. "My position is that AnCap is not a form of progression of government but a regression of it." No, it's not a regression, it's a total abolition of it. I don't know why you are afraid of things being 100% voluntary, and almost everything outside of government is 100% voluntary already. Where you shop, what you buy, what products are available, how you interact with others, where you work, how you use technology, whom you buy your tech services, etc. All 100% voluntary, and working just fine. No government is just that one extra small step, really. Unless, of course, you are relying heavily on the government forces to do something in your favor. I can't even say "unless you are relying on unemployment checks or some government handout," since most of those services are easily privatized as well.

ab8989, the issue was that Bitcoinstore tried to resolve this problem in private, and were willing to cooperate, while nethead was not. If nethead wasn't sitting up on his high horse, and continued to discuss this with Roger, as opposed to ignoring and hanging up on him, the whole thing would have likely been resolved in private. If he still refused after their private discussions had conclusively shown that nethead stole the money, then Roger would have been in his right to ask that nethead be labeled a scammer. I am not advocating that stores immediately publicly humiliate anyone they think may have scammed them, but that they advertise the threat of being exposed to convince customers to actually discuss and negotiate,, instead of brushing it off with "What are you going  to do about it?" knowing the answer is likely nothing. It is also rather unfair that a business is typically public with a public reputation, and when it comes out that it does anything bad, it is immediately known about and acted on appropriately, while people who have any interactions with the business are expected to always have privacy, even if they are actively scamming that business. It's just way too one-sided.
I'm also a supporter of a reputation-based system. In a global environment that's the only way to do any business, and the only way to enforce punishment. If someone is untrustworthy, that should be known, and they should be denied any further business until the issue they had is settled. Lack of access to necessities works a hell of a lot better than cops and laws.

I find that some elected politicians being able to just come by, take away my stuff, and use it for their own personal reasons, like wars of choice, earmarks, or payoffs to their business buddies, to be very selfish, anti-social, and greedy too.

And, just FYI, I'm very much an AnCap supporter, but I still donate to charities in times of need, don't hesitate to give cash to someone stranded asking for bus fare home, and help run Bitcoin100, to which I have donated as well. If you think AnCaps are greedy, you are likely misplacing your opinion of the population as a whole on the AnCap group specifically:
AnCaps simply believe that people should be left alone, and be allowed to do what they choose with their wealth. You believe that people in general are evil greedy bastards, and reject that idea as terrible. AnCaps believe people are generally decent and considerate, and believe their system will work. Maybe the biggest difference between us is just that we are more optimistic than you?

And you would be correct, as you could voluntarily enter into an agreement that a part of your labour will be owned by someone else in exchange for goods/services or repayment of debt. The issue here is when someone lays claim to a part of your labour without your consent, and enforces it against your will. What makes it OK for a government employee to come by and take something of yours, but not OK for me to do it?



Is it  a portion of a determinable size?  A portion that you pay in exchange for the services you wanted to buy and use? Or some indeterminate amount equal to a portion of the rest of your life? Do we own land and the things we make and buy, or do we just rent property and equipment from the government that technically owns everything?

Roger said that the email address used on nethead's Bitcoinstore account matched the email address of the wallet containing the address the coins were sent to, tying nethead directly to it. Nethead claimed that the address in question was a one-time anonymizing address, but that would very likely be a lie, since Blockchain's anonymizer doesn't work like that. Anonymizing addresses receive coins, send them to the mixer, and the coins come out of the mixer into the rest of your wallet. These addresses are not "disposable," or meant to be used only once. It's your address. Maybe nethead deleted it, but I don't know what would happen in that case (coins lost forever? Address output still in database, so nethead still received the coins?) Maybe puik can explain the technical part of it. Also, on the page that lets you create an anonymous address, it specifically states, "Transactions received to anonymous addresses cannot be linked to your regular wallet." If that's true, Roger would not have been able to do an address lookup to get nethead's email. So, either nethead lied, or puik has some 'splaining to do.

I worked at a business where theft was common, and I never understood this. Why? Why should businesses accept the losses and allow the thieves to continue? Is privately, and if needed publicly, shaming them so horrible? Are they supposed to be concerned about hurting the sensibilities or feelings of the person who is stealing from them? Is this some sort of a culturally agreed on thing, where the reputation of a thief or scammer is too precious compared to the well being of the victim? Why don't businesses just stop putting up with it and stop enabling it?

Any lessons learned are worth the damage, if only just because they wont likely be repeated again. I doubt much damage was done from this. Sure, Roger got hot headed, but I doubt people will care, and he did provide very conclusive proof that the guy accused was the scammer.


Maybe they should? They probably don't, because they have no way of linking a customer to the scam, since it's easy to steal credit cards, but that turned out to be easier in this case. Also, there's a store nearby with  a large section of the wall labeled Wall of Shame. It has photos of people the store caught shoplifting, whom the store banned, up there for everyone to see in public.

Was already answered (you must have missed it)
Guy claimed the address was not his. Roger searched for that address in blockchain.info's database, found a wallet it belonged to, and saw that the wallet was registered to the same email address as the guy's customer account. In other words, he found conclusive and irrefutable proof that the guy did indeed receive the money to the account he owns, and lied about it. The link was established with the email. No logging of IP numbers was required.

I think you have greatly misunderstood AnCap. Property and community are the most fundamental parts of nature. When a wolf catches a rabbit, that rabbit is now the wolf's property. When that wolf chooses to take that rabbit back to his pack, he is sharing it with his community. AnCap can't deny property or community any more than nature can.


Why is this an issue with AnCap? An AnCap society will likely have very many communities. They'll just be voluntary.

---

As I said, I'm agreeing with you that we come into this world with some claims on us. We have a debt to society by the virtue of us being safely born in that society which provided for us. But how much is that debt actually worth? $100,000? $1,000,000? If it is a debt, there should be some determined amount that we can pay off. If it is just some nebulous, infinite debt, then that's no longer a debt or a claim. It's indentured servitude for the entirety of one's life. Even indentured servants had a specific amount they owed which they could pay off and be free. And regarding taxes, why should they be required? What is it that we MUST be forced to buy and pay for? Why can't someone simply choose not to use any government services or protections, and not have to pay for anything? (Of if they have a debt to society, why can't they pay it off?)


Not all land has been claimed. Not all seas have been claimed (look up seasteading). And weak governments fall apart all the time, opening up access to previously public or contested lands. The most realistic path, though, is also the most probable and inevitable: technology is making governments get weaker and slowly lose power to collect taxes and enforce regulations (Bitcoin is an obvious example), and globalization is eroding arbitrarily established national borders, with their own dispersed and wildly irregular legal structures, and is replacing them with economic zones and privately agreed-on global laws. This has been happening for over a decade already, so the discussion about AnCap is really more about how to speed it up and be ready for it - i.e. what will the world be like, hypothetically - rather than just wishing about fantasies.

It could also depend on verbal agreements. You keep this land, because you know how to use it best, I'll keep this land because I know how to use it best, and we'll both agree to be good neighbors, just because life will be easier for both of us.

Seriously, it's like you think the only thing stopping people from turning into marauding bands of murderous thieves is laws on some books. People can be decent and courteous human beings just because. This whole thing reminds me of how perplexed and stupified some christians are when you try to explain to them that atheists can still be moral even without some book telling them what to do.