Bitcoin Forum
January 23, 2019, 12:04:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 »
1641  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC Transactions - Record Volume on: December 02, 2011, 07:45:32 AM
.. or  small transfers from some really large wallets but the 'change' amount is included in the chart??


The "change" is not included in that chart. Blockchain.info has one chart WITH the change, and then also they have the one I posted without.


Quote
http://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume
Similar to the total output volume with the addition of an algorithm which attempts to remove change from the total value. This maybe a more accurate reflection of the true transaction volume.

Ok.. somehow I missed this note regarding change.  Still.. I wonder just how that works.
1642  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 07:34:11 AM


I an not fully understanding what you are saying I think.  Here's the situation which concerns me:

Say that at a certain point in time, some threat requiring activation of an 'internet kill switch' pops up.  Suddenly, for all intents and purposes, all networks are off-line.  Fairly soon critical infrastructure would be wired back in, but that would be large corporations, and there would be significant packet level filtering.  Consumer grade connectivity may be out for a long time.  Months.  And as it came back on-line it would also probably be carefully analyzed and regulated.  I could even imagine a situation where encryption was only allowed between authorized endpoints (like people and their banks.)

Obviously such a scenario would spur interest in mesh networks and the like, but the technologies are extremely immature and untested, and anyone deploying them would likely be labeled a 'terrorist' which would complicate development.

Bitcoin seems to be developed under the assumption that peer-to-peer communications are available in a wide-spread and relatively reliable manner.  I fear that Bitcoin could fail if that happens to not be the case, particularly if it were actively exploited by competent attackers during such a time of limited connectivity.

So, I would envision the 'block level blacklist' capability of Bitcoin being useful for a situation where there was a very obvious and very clear need to simply black out the entire economy for as long as needed in order to save it.  Actually, in such dire (and probably far-fetched) circumstances, it might be fairly tenable and make the most sense to simple upgrade the client software in order to get going again.


I think that's also an interesting hypothetical to evaluate - but I'm not sure it relates to the tainted-coin blacklists I'm talking about here. (perhaps I'm not understanding you either!)
Maybe another thread for this 'block level blacklist' idea?




1643  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 07:28:00 AM
Besides, there are too many jurisdictions to let you implement this globally. I'd just send them to my colleague in Nigeria and he'd send me clean ones. I guess if they take it seriously and push it long enough (decades even), this could put some pressure on owners of tainted coins. In ideal conditions, these coins would only be used in the black market. They would exchange for less than clean coins, but would still be exchanged. Bob would buy some to sell later to Alice who's looking to make an illegal purchase. They could try to destroy this market totally by making it illegal to relay black coin transactions, but I'm guessing a parallel network would be created to verify those transactions anyway.


I didn't think of them trying to stop mere relaying of tainted-coin transactions..  I don't really see how they'd know if your node just relayed.

They could however penalize the miners for including tainted transactions in a block by tainting the reward - so yes, you'd probably end up with miners specializing in those transactions and willing to accept their block reward as tainted because they charge higher fees for tx inclusion. That would make black market transactions much slower though - as you'd have to wait for a black market miner to hit a block. 
1644  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 07:19:25 AM
The government is going to tell people to freeze/take coins, it's already starting, just not particular coins yet.

mm.. yes.
Bitcoin seems like it may be far from the anonymous libertarian dream many saw it as - but I still think it levels the playing field somewhat.
1645  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 07:08:51 AM
a built in mechanism for the user to optionally choose to honor a blacklist set of their choice in a straightforward manner.


You can bet that if we had such a system implemented in bitcoin a few months ago -a fair slice of the users would have opted into a blacklist listing missing mybitcoin coins, bitomat.pl coins or allinvain coins etc.  
...

I doubt it.  Honoring such a black list would be effectively halting Bitcoin and all the transactions at a certain point in time and starting it back up again when it is safe to do so.  It would not be a practical solution to anything but a terminal attack on Bitcoin.  At least that is the way I would design and implement it.



You may be right that people wouldn't honour the list for fear that they'd already inadvertently received the taint.
Perhaps it would only work if there was only a small percentage fee on taint - which was cranked up every now and then.

Even a zero-penalty taint blacklist might be useful - the community could more easily see where the stolen coins were coming from.



1646  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 06:59:44 AM
Just technically speaking how is someone going to not accept coins going to one of their addresses? Can't someone just spew terror satoshis to every address?

Receiving such bad coins would be no big deal *if you subscribe to the blacklist*.
(hence why I referred to it as 'viral' in the stackexchange question)

Just don't give anything of value in return - and make sure you're using wallet software that is subscribed, so it won't use them as input on another transaction.
(or the software may allow you to select and spend those specific poison coins back to the sender so you can ask them to resend 'clean' coins or abort the deal)

The software might also be able to spend them over to a quarantine wallet I guess.
1647  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 06:53:43 AM
a built in mechanism for the user to optionally choose to honor a blacklist set of their choice in a straightforward manner.


You can bet that if we had such a system implemented in bitcoin a few months ago -a fair slice of the users would have opted into a blacklist listing missing mybitcoin coins, bitomat.pl coins or allinvain coins etc.  

Especially if for example a few players such as mtgox said they would freeze and donate any such tainted deposit to a predetermined charity/faucet (after submitting a request to the blacklist operator for re-marking just that portion of tainted coins 'cleaned').





1648  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 06:25:36 AM
anyway.. I know it's a difficult pill to swallow - but just like a security flaw, it's surely best to discuss the ramifications of this early on?

For example - would such a blacklist system stop an organisation such as wikileaks getting funding via bitcoin?
Not really.  They wouldn't be able to use any published address - but with a private address per transaction they could still get donations and still spend their bitcoins. They may have trouble getting an account on an Exchange in their own name - but in a world where bitcoin is more widespread that mightn't be a big deal anyway.
1649  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. on: December 02, 2011, 06:20:50 AM

In all seriousness, it's not in the best interest of a node to blacklist things. It would find itself quickly alienated from the network over more open and preferable nodes. There are more amoral men than prudes.

I agree to an extent, but perhaps only in the current environment.   (but did you really mean amoral ??)

If bitcoin was in use at supermarkets - they would have no choice but to comply with the regulators system.
I bet the majority of people would rather switch their wallet to 'clean' mode than get gradually increasing penalties at the checkout because they accept marked coins.  Sad but true.
1650  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. on: December 02, 2011, 06:10:42 AM
>blacklists

Nobody, no server is adopting this bullshit. When and if mass adoption of this garbage occurs, me and every other man with principles is out and we're going to adopt a blockchain that isn't regulated by parasites. You can keep your parasites; I will remain accountable only to myself and an objective blockchain.

Actually, go start your own StatistCoin with blacklists and sell it to the Treasury Department and the central banks: that's what should be done.

Look.. I'm bringing this up not because I want it, but because I recognize it as an inevitability *if* bitcoin gets a certain level of success.
You can jump overboard and try some other chain at that point if you want - but good luck on getting merchants using it. 

However - you may as well just only trade in bitcoins which are marked tainted with other people who agree to use tainted coins.  Dirty bitcoins will work just as well as a separate chain if you only want to do blackmarket stuff - you just won't be able to spend them with a large percentage of others on the network.

1651  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Governments/regulators may eventually actually *like* Bitcoin. - coin blacklists on: December 02, 2011, 06:01:09 AM
See my question on stackexchange regarding a viral 'tainted-coin tagging system'
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2119/is-there-any-way-the-bitcoin-network-could-resist-a-viral-tainted-coin-tagging-s

Basically the issue is that due to the public blockchain, regulators could publicize coin-address blacklists which affect the spendability of your coins with audited exchanges and merchants.

Such blacklists would eventually allow governments to instantly create and remove sanctions on businesses, other countries etc.
The sanctions could be applied gradually e.g starting out as a 1% tax - or be a complete ban and penalties for anyone accepting coins with a bad transaction in it's history.

Don't want to risk accepting pedocoins or terrorcoins in your wallet?  Better use software which subscribes to our list so that your coins are clean!

As there would be multiple regulators around the world with constantly updating databases of 'tainted' coins - the wallet software would need to be smart enough to subscribe to them and let you know where you can and can't spend certain coins, or what premium you would have to pay for someone to accept them etc.

In a world where bitcoins are somewhat mainstream - I presume 'clean' coins would be in high demand and exchange at a significant premium to coins which are tainted and thus less spendable.

I don't see any way of stopping this sort of thing happening - and although it'll give many people the horrors, I suspect that ultimately it's the possibility of this kind of regulation which might make governments see bitcoin as better to embrace and regulate than try to outlaw.


1652  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC Transactions - Record Volume on: December 02, 2011, 04:29:08 AM
.. or  small transfers from some really large wallets but the 'change' amount is included in the chart??
1653  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin exchange not the same as LD exchange ? on: December 02, 2011, 04:17:06 AM
Bitcoin exchanges can track where fraudulently obtained coins have gone via the blockchain, but they have no power to retrieve those coins

Which is why I expect regulators to eventually implement tagging of known tainted coins and require certain key merchants and exchanges to freeze any payments with those tainted coins in their history.  Initially - they may only 'tax' tainted spends.. providing a gradual financial incentive to subscribe to and obey the regulators' various 'taint' tags.

1654  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC Transactions - Record Volume on: December 02, 2011, 04:08:38 AM

My chart: shows aggregate sum of transactions in Bitcoins

Does it know which value in a transaction is the 'change' and which is the actual 'spent' amount?  Does it count both parts as BTC being transferred?
This is part of why I just don't understand what this aggregate chart is measuring.

1655  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC Transactions - Record Volume on: December 02, 2011, 04:01:49 AM


Yeah, but I don't know what it means.
I prefer the chart of transaction *count*: http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions
It strikes me as a more useful indicator of whether bitcoin interest/activity is rising or falling.


edit: I rather suspect that the transaction volume can be skewed simply by a large provider such as mtgox changing their cold-storage processes.
If they regularly shuffle some amounts in and out of cold storage - does that show up as some really large transactions? I'm guessing it might.
1656  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: So, are we shuffling forward? on: December 02, 2011, 03:44:24 AM
To me, this looks like someone with a lot of money deliberately trying to ratchet up the price of Bitcoins for reasons unknown... which means that as soon as he decides it's no longer worth his time, all of that support at $2.90 will vanish, and who knows what'll happen to the price then.

Yeah one such 'unknown reason' could be that a genuine buyer and long-term bitcoin bull is putting it there to give the opportunity for any big sellers to sell into it.
The placer of that wall may well be putting in many smaller bids in front of it all the time to pick up coins.

By having a wall just below where they are buying, they give themselves feedback that their buying is not driving the price to excessive levels, because presumably big coin-holders would have dumped into it already if that were the case.

Without the wall - their average buy price may in fact have been higher due to coin sellers merely trickling them out because the sellers don't want to risk crashing the price.
You could argue that the buyer should test the price, or try to get a lower price, by 'vanishing' the wall altogether every now and then - but it's possible that a sudden drop is not in their interests either, as they'd rather their own buying activity set up some momentum for some subsequent gains and they'd rather not contribute to bitcoin instability or another stretch of decline.
1657  Bitcoin / Press / Re: Bitcoin press hits, notable sources on: December 02, 2011, 03:26:30 AM
Matthew DeBord follows up after some bitcoin community comments on his recent Bitcoin post...

Quote
Commenting on the commenters: Bitcoin

Matthew DeBord
2011-12-02

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2011/12/01/3923/commenting-commenters-bitcoin/

What I've learned from writing about Bitcoin is that...Bitcoin has some passionate advocates! It's been debunked in the popular media. But clearly, there's a thriving subculture of Bitcoin enthusiasts. They've got my respect, even if they haven't convinced me that Bitcoin — or another type of currency not backed by a central government — will ever work


Discussion thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53566.0
1658  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: (Pls move to legal) academic legal paper re: int'l legal implications of Bitcoin on: December 01, 2011, 05:31:55 PM

3. But because of its innate qualities, “successful” attempts on the part of states and international actors at regulating Bitcoin will not result in a reduction in its anonymity to a quantum less than that of the internet.


I'd like to believe this..  but if as part of the taxation system, regulators enforce all merchants and exchanges within their jurisdiction to regularly report a list of the transaction ids for all Bitcoin revenue/expenditure

then, combined with
a) Know your customer laws for the exchanges - linking initial bitcoin purchases, and cash-outs to entities and their traditional bank accounts.

b) banning the running and use of address mixing services (with occasional seizure of mixing services and/or creation of government honeypot mixers)

c) creating a public 'tainted coin' list -  tracking and tagging coins involved in activities deemed to be illegal
(e.g by reporting of stolen coins, running honeypots, instrumenting seized/infiltrated illegal operations)

d) penalizing/taxing merchants and individuals who exchange coins with a 'tainted' history to the exchanges

e) penalizing/taxing merchants (not individuals - as they don't report) who exchange coins with a 'tainted' history to other merchants

Couldn't we end up with a situation where by cooperation with other governments, most bitcoin flows are tracked, if not always to the individual, to an extended acquaintance-set?
With a sophisticated coin address tagging and tracking overlay, couldn't the regulators automatically create a tax liability for infringement, and if so, along with the desire to maintain coin-spendability, wouldn't this create an environment where it's in most participants interests to only accept clean coins?
(e.g by running wallet software which subscribes to the government's 'clean/dirty' database)
Presumably this would also give the incentive to notify and cooperate in back-tracing transactions in order to get any dirty wallets re-marked as clean if certain addresses are belatedly added to the 'tainted' register.

(I guess this would be a break in the fungibility of bitcoin and in a way create a secondary market/network of tainted coins and underground exchanges trading them at a different value.)

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by successful regulation not bringing the anonymity level 'to a quantum less than that of the internet', and maybe I'm overestimating the practicality of such an over-arching regime.




1659  Bitcoin / Press / Re: Bitcoin press hits, notable sources on: December 01, 2011, 03:06:31 PM
Another Wired reaction piece.
John Geraci sees the potential of p2p currency - but like others, seems to have been led by that article to the premature conclusion that Bitcoin has had a permanent fall.

Quote
Did Bitcoin “Fail” or Is it Just One Step On the Road to P2P Currency?

John Geraci
2011-12-01

http://johngeraci.com/blog/2011/12/did-bitcoin-fail-or-is-it-just-one-step-on-the-road-to-p2p-currency/#comment-1273


Reading the article, I feel like the unmistakable conclusion, which the author doesn’t make, is that Bitcoin failed, but in doing so it blew a gigantic hole in the concept of money, broke a lot of new ground, and that new ground is bound to be claimed by some other player in the next few years one way or another.
1660  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [TECHDIRT] The Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin... But Is It Really Over Yet? on: December 01, 2011, 01:40:58 PM
Nice article


But scamcoin?  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Yeah.. This article was already added to the press hits thread - and normally on discovering a discussion thread here about an article I'd go back and link it in.
But I suspect this thread is just an excuse to mention scamcoin   - so I'll do it in reverse Smiley

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1958.msg633895;topicseen#msg633895
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 »
Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!