 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Everyone in the jurisdiction where they're redlisted. Which almost certainly will not be everyone in the world. So all the owner of the hot potato has to do is trade their coins for clean ones in a country which doesn't support the redlist.
If you even have to do this in some jurisdictions, then Bitcoin has lost its fungibility, which is harmful to the value of all bitcoins in all countries. |
|
|
|
On top of all that, if you do get a knock on your door, no matter how innocent you are, don't let them in if they don't have a warrant.
Whether they have a warrant or not, these days they will invariably be a SWAT team who will break down your door instead of knocking. Either you end up with your face on the floor and some asshole's knee in your back as they ransack your house, or you get machine gunned because one of them thought you might have had a gun. Either way, if you have a dog, it gets shot. |
|
|
|
Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.
If I sell something and accept redlisted coins for it, then the bread crumb trail leads to me. I sure as hell wouldn't accept coins that could lead law enforcement to my doorstep, and nobody else wants law enforcement harassing them because they're suspected of being the person who illicitly gained the coins. Therefore, everyone will refuse to accept redlisted coins as soon as law enforcement starts getting search warrants against people who end up with them. |
|
|
|
Well, Mike's a very smart guy, and an expert in security, so I may not understand his proposal with precision, but I'm pretty sure the outrage on this thread is a result of people just flying off the handle for no good reason. To be very clear, he's calling it a red list specifically because it's not the same as a blacklist. He's not proposing auto-filtering out 'tainted' coins. Here's the short summary:
"Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet."
This is basically a reputation service. There could be many of them, though it's a network on top of a network, so I'd have to imagine the network effect is pretty huge in terms of winner-takes-all.
You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude that this "redlist" won't behave exactly like a blacklist. Especially when government joins in on it by punishing people for accepting coins they "should have known" were used for illegal activity. What you'll end up with is an ecosystem where nobody accepts "red"listed coins as payment, even if the network will still let you move them around. If you are innocent, sure, you can contact the operator of the list, but the operator will have no obligation to assume you're innocent. You'll be expected to prove your innocence to the operator's satisfaction. |
|
|
|
So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.
Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye. The moral panic has long been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of authority. Let's look at a similar "serious problem" from recent history: 9/11. It was so "demonically simple" to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, that Something Had To Be Done. Similar to Mike Hearn's proposal, the US Government took the opportunity to "temporarily" severely curtail our freedom and massively expand police authority. They also used 9/11 as an excuse to get into some wars that they wanted to fight anyway, even though these wars obviously had nothing to do with 9/11. "Temporarily" has since proven to be "permanently." Bush is long gone, yet the government still hasn't rolled back its expanded powers. Mike Hearn is participating in the same sort of thing that the Bush Administration did in 2001. He is proposing that Bitcoin businesses voluntarily help the US Government seize worldwide control of Bitcoin for the mere perception that something is being done about CryptoLocker. Meanwhile, there are obvious ulterior motives in play. To achieve a critical mass that would harm all users of Bitcoin, he only needs to get BitPay and Coinbase on board. |
|
|
|
@Gavin Andresen
Several questions:
1. In the post-NSA-snowden era, are you sure it is wise to participate in creation of a centralized mechanism, which governments can easily control ? Why would we trust *any* CA ?
This is not just a hypothetical concern. It is a known fact that not only the NSA, but hacker groups have copies of CA certs, which they use to perform MITM attacks against HTTPS. The CA model is insecure. |
|
|
|
Who do you use for escrow?
We use BitMerch for our Bitcoin Payment Gateway. Soon to be Bitpay. Okay, so that's who handles the payments, but what happens if I drop $5K on 10 Blades with a backplane and you don't send anything? It doesn't say anything about that on BitMerch's website. |
|
|
|
|
Who do you use for escrow?
|
|
|
|
So I played some SatoshiDice from MtGox, as I was a newbie and their system provided no warning when I put a 1dice address in.
SatoshiDice sent me back around 700 EUR (one of the lucky bets txn is below).
Of course I never got that money, as I found out later the return addresses MtGox provides are not tied to your account, and the money appears somewhere else within MtGox-operated accounts network.
A Bitcoin exchange can't work any other way. Otherwise, every single trade would have to be accompanied by a blockchain transaction to move the funds to "your" address. |
|
|
|
I can't tell if this is a joke......but no, $200 and $300 are not happening by their respective dates.
The 9th is tomorrow, and it only has $9 more dollars to go. Looks like it's right on target from where I'm sitting. |
|
|
|
|
r4p7BvnRrCRhX4naPRPghSqPMYgei42j6n
|
|
|
|
Administrative Note: Although you can change your payment account information (to include PayPal address) this is not intended to be used to pay another person (i.e. I owe Bob $100 so I will change "my" PayPal address to bob's PayPal address and then sell some coins). PayPal payments will be checked to ensure the name on the PayPal account matches the name on the FastCash4Bitcoin account. Using the FastCash4Bitcoin service to pay third parties is expressly prohibited by our terms of service.
This apparently means that the you are now requiring users to disclose their legal name to you. Unfortunately, I don't trust you with my legal name. You're also implying here that PayPal is giving out their users' legal names to whoever asks (otherwise you wouldn't be able to know if the name on the FC4B account matches that on the PayPal account). Can anyone else confirm that PayPal gives out your legal name to whoever asks for it? |
|
|
|
What about the sudden implementation of withdrawal limits on savings accounts? Apparently, more than 6 withdrawals from savings per month is some kind of federal reporting trigger, and the bank can and will close your account for exceeding that. I don't recall any such limitation until recently, although I am not sure what law was passed to make that effective. They insist that you use a checking account for frequent transfers instead.
This limitation was there since forever. The root of it is in the costs of insuring and maintaining the account. I'm kinda thinking that "sudden" probably means "first time in my life that I read the account disclosure booklet. I used to simply throw it away." One thing that US banking system has figured out exceedingly well is the default and fraud risk on personal accounts. There are so many flags that signal imminent personal bankruptcy, one of them is lack of normal monthly or biweekly budget planning. It manifests itself by too frequent too small withdrawals. The limits are on the quantity of individual withdrawals, not on the total amount withdrawn. Railing against those limits is akin to railing against higher car insurance rates for unmarried men less than 25 years old. It leads nowhere because it has no wider social support. Combine that with the $1000 daily limit that is imposed on many savings accounts, and that means you can only withdraw $6000 a month from a savings account. With restrictions like that, you can't pay cash for that $200,000 reaper. |
|
|
|
Thank you to Maged who gave me a heads up on this issue.
Unfortunately, we will not be able to discuss details about the account "zweiblum" on a public forum. We have left some feedback in your ticket.
Could you at least give the rest of us reason to believe that our next deposit won't be simply confiscated? |
|
|
|
|
I notice a slight bug: The chart is marked in GMT, but the "console" and "Time & Sales" chart are in local time.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like those stabilizers need to hack a couple of exchanges, as nothing brings the price of BTC down like news of a major hack.
|
|
|
|
I'm building on Linux, but the source has this: #ifndef __WXMSW__
r = UPNP_AddPortMapping(urls.controlURL, data.first.servicetype,
port, port, lanaddr, strDesc.c_str(), "TCP", 0);
#else
r = UPNP_AddPortMapping(urls.controlURL, data.first.servicetype,
port, port, lanaddr, strDesc.c_str(), "TCP", 0, "0");
#endif
The code that compiles when __WXMSW__ is defined is the correct code for my system. However, adding -D__WXMSW__ to the GCC command line results in Windows-specific code being activated throughout the program, which leads to other build errors. How many arguments to pass to UPNP_AddPortMapping and other functions from that library cannot be tied to whether __WXMSW__ is defined. To get this to compile, I had to find all the improperly-called miniupnpc functions and remove the bad version. |
|
|
|
You're describing Nanaimo Gold. To stay profitable, they charge a massive spread. They're currently selling Bitcoin for $11.85, but buying it for only $6. Your exchange service would have to do the same thing. |
|
|
|
Yes please. I'm using TOR as well, found it pretty strange that as an established user I still get the restrictions.
Why not just disable signup of new accounts through TOR?
If they already have your real IP address, why bother with TOR? |
|
|
|
|
