In what way is it being discouraged? Is it anything beyond informing people that it's bad practice? I'd like to see some anti-address-reuse measure become baseline, maybe even in the protocol itself if possible. Does CoinJoin have anything to do with address reuse then?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0This might be a premature decision, and only is effective per block, but hopefully the side-effect is faster adoption of BIP32 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0032 |
|
|
|
I really, really wish I had read this thread before trying to get my USD out of Mt. Gox this morning. Crap. Had no problems last month so didn't even hesitate.
cancel your transfer (via support) and withdraw coins to another exchange to get usd. |
|
|
|
This does sound great. But I'm not sure I understand how this helps the Blacklist/Whitelist issue. If TPTB still make some kind of Whitelist where merchants are only allowed to accept coins from certain "white" addresses, what does something like CoinJoin offer against that?
Address re-use is being actively discouraged now. Once this becomes the norm then whitelists will be irrelevant. |
|
|
|
There is no atmosphere on the moon, this image must be a fake. The flag is aluminium, and it's dynamic warping from the temperature difference between the two sides.  30-min chart in the 3 main markets looks very bullish indeed. Another launch pad built for take-off. |
|
|
|
Nothing. You will just send all your MSC to a new address each time. All MSC features, including Saving Addresses, can adapt to this model. Both inputs and outputs are counted and since we need to reference Exodus it will still be throttled. Address reusing is sending from the same address. I don't think that sending to an address multiple times can or will be throttled. Well miners can blacklist Exodus specifically ... but that's a bit extreme and we are working on a migration plan if that happens. Presumably the exodus address was from a deterministic wallet. Could the subsequent addresses be generated and used instead? |
|
|
|
Money stuck in exchanges keeps the Bitcoin price artificially high. If Mt.Gox ever processes all withdrawals, more people will convert to fiat to get their money out. So prepare for a price drop when they do.
It might also increase trust in bitcoin and the ecosystem, which could lead to another run-up. Mt. Gox is almost irrelevant to Bitcoin at this point. Since they're not paying out USD (at all) or EUR (much), and only an idiot would deposit there, most of the "volume" there has to be the same money sloshing back and forth within Mt. Gox. Your illustration made me laugh. It's sad, but true. Last night I was chatting with a friend about this. And it dawned on me that it's like people are all excited about trading, but they can't get out. It's just like a bunch of rats racing around in circles inside an empty cage or something. It was so ridiculous, it made me laugh then too. An empty cage which keeps getting smaller and smaller, as the btc leaks out and the price ratchets up... |
|
|
|
|
theymos, gmaxwell, everyone - excellent project! My donation on the way too...
|
|
|
|
Stay focused, please.
Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and especially CyptoLock copycats.
Redlisting does not help fight crime. Criminals already have databases and probably have lists which they are exploiting as we speak. If they have lists we should be discussing how to make their lists less effective by improving the privacy functionality so that they cannot track our money. We should also be discussing what we can do to protect users from being targeted in general. There are a lot of potential attacks and coin taint lists are just one. You've either not read or not understood what Mike wrote. 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. That would be fine if that is where it stopped. But it becomes a slippery slope. The next logical step is enforcement in the protocol that such coins can't be spent. The other problem is that it is an avenue of attack. What is to stop someone getting their enemies coins redlisted? The BF should not be dreaming up law-enforcement applications. Let LE do that. I don't like hearing that people are being forced to buy btc because of ransomware, but this situation is not unlike the invention of email which resulted in hundreds of people falling for Nigerian scams. It was not the fault of smtp. The correct course of action would be for the BF to set up a charity. Hardship cases can be given compensation from funds donated for the purpose of helping people harmed during the growth phase of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Even this uncertainty has made one decision for me.
I've been thinking over getting new mining equipment. This confirms to me that it's definitely, definitely too much risk. Until we have a clear way forward, I cannot commit to something that could be a dead loss in 6-12 months.
If a movement amongst miners started to use mining to ban clean addresses from the blockchain, I would step up and even swallow a loss, but only if it had a good chance to break the usability of the clean list.
Don't get depressed by events such as coin validation / redlist censorship proposals. This is all part of the Gandhi ignore/laugh/fight/you-win paradigm. The solution is a formal community funded bounty for CoinJoin and Zerocoin enhancements to the btc protocol. Most bitcoiners are against address censorship. Software solutions are the defense and need to be built. |
|
|
|
Back in April this year BB loaded Bitcoin under XBT and was testing an fx rate feed from MtGox and Tradehill. As of August, this screen was still available only for IT use, not general subscriber use:  Can someone with a subscription check whether this is still a restricted page? |
|
|
|
anarchy, well done! Could you re-post Adam's brilliant explanation onto the BF legal forum (if it is not already there)? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.0He rebuts coin validation, but his argument also applies to the redlist clone-concept. |
|
|
|
It is also a ridiculous approach. If they want to certify users, they should do that as optional KYC, AML certificates that regulated merchants in respective jurisdictions can request, which could be attached to wallets/identities, not to fully fungible coins. The certificates should be non-transitive they attest to the identity of the user, not the coins. They should be optionally sent - if the recipient does not request it, it is privacy destructive and a security risk to send identifying information to unregulated businesses and individuals.
Their technical representatives of Coin Validation should be ashamed. How can someone who doesnt understand a concept as basic as fungibility and its relation to transaction costs, and the difference between identity and coins hope to exist in this ecosystem.
What they are proposing so far at least as explained by the Forbes article is stupid, dangerous and just wrong.
Oh man, I'm sooooooo supporting you. 100% agree. This is the right approach. |
|
|
|
I do not understand why Mike Hearn hasn't come on any of these threads to say anything at all about this project.
If this is a temporary ploy to make Bitcoin look more benign to the US Senate - then it is a stupid, counter-productive move. It is total insanity to "redlist", blacklist or mark any coins as tainted. This is centralized censorship. What if coins are redlisted because they are owned by someone with political views that the government does not like? Any redlisting is a cancer on Bitcoin. Mike, please retract this proposal, and focus on scalability - which is your forte! here's the thing.
you/we can't afford to have ANY coins taken out of circulation due to redlisting. that mere act alone will destroy your remaining coin's value.
Correct. |
|
|
|
The article is worthless because it assumes absurd velocity figures. The velocities of most national currencies are in the 1.5 to 2.5 range. The authors lower bound value of ~ 2 dollars assumes a velocity of 24x365 which is Weimar-esque. If you treat BTC as a currency and assume a velocity of 2 then its theoretical max value is simply one half of the total value of annual transactions it supports (ie the size of the BTC economy). For a PayPal sized economy of say 40 billion USD (fairly modest in the context of the global economy) that would give a value per coin of about $ 1600. If bitcoin transactions were to become a significant fraction of GDP then you can multiply that figure by 10-50.
Edit: if I use paypal's turnover of 70 billion, assume 10 mill BTC and a velocity of 2 then the value of each BTC is 35 billion divided by 10 million = USD 3,500
Excellent analysis. Interestingly, I see on blockchain.info that daily turniver of BTC equivalent in USD is about $200m which is $73bn annualized. Impressive indeed. |
|
|
|
Right, but they can peg the dollar to Bitcoin. Just show them of a graph of how the dollar has been extremely volatile against Bitcoin and suggest that pegging the dollar to Bitcoin would eliminate that.
Are you being sarcastic? Or are you no longer the Milly from 6 months ago who actually knew a lot of stuff? I choose to interpret that comment, not as something that would be successful, but rather as a suggestion for something that would be hilarious to watch them attempt. Indeed. But I can't see that being HELPful, which is the point of this thread. |
|
|
|
That' can't happen,read the replies. Right, but they can peg the dollar to Bitcoin. Just show them of a graph of how the dollar has been extremely volatile against Bitcoin and suggest that pegging the dollar to Bitcoin would eliminate that. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you no longer the Milly from 6 months ago who actually knew a lot of stuff? |
|
|
|
“This needs to exist for regulators to approve of use of Bitcoin in the U.S.,” says Waters. “We don’t want to be the sheriff of the Bitcoin community. We just want to create an ecosystem of clean addresses.”
In the short term, they talk about a limited database that keeps track only of registered identities and their activities with participating companies, but it’s obvious that their ambitions are grander and that a longer term prospect is to take advantage of the transparency of the Bitcoin system to keep track of which Bitcoin is tainted by associations with black markets. Waters says that the development of that aspect will depend on “community feedback.” can we stop this? It was inevitable that organizations would try to build databases of names & coin addresses. For every one that is announced publicly there will be 10 that are done secretly. The only way to ensure anonymity is the development of technical solutions. Many people won't bother using them, yet some people will consider anonymizing tools essential. It will be a personal choice, similar to the choice facing users of the WWW. We can stop this by making sure that its not viable, by tweaking our practices and the ecosystem to be an environment that things like this just can't work in. This means: Anonymous mining, Discouraging address reuse, coinjoin, etc. Importantly, people need to step up and fund the development of privacy tools. Today there is no business model for decenteralized privacy tools that people can use casually and thus pervasively. Fully agree. |
|
|
|
I guess this turns CoinJoin into a top priority feature. Fuck the fee mechanism and the block size limit, we really need CJ. And the DarkWallet. Hope this gets done soon. |
|
|
|
Good article, although it doesn't mention the network bandwidth issue that would occur with more frequent transactions.
It isn't mentioned because it's easy to change the protocol so that transactions are not repeated in blocks, yielding much smaller block messages and correspondingly lower propagation delays. Remember that by the time a block has arrived, a "warmed up" node has already done the hard work of verifying all the signatures and cached their validity. So all that is required is to commit the block state to disk and relay. The process can be highly optimised. Well done getting so much quoted info out! Another point which the mainstream is oblivious about is that Bitcoin transactions are so much more efficient. VISA payments are always one-to-one but, of course, Bitcoin allows for one-to-many and many-to-one. The potential of this is unexplored territory for commerce. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
