Whatever they do there will be black market cryptos, but there will never be legal cryptos that don't follow the same rules that Bitcoin is made to follow.

So Litecoin has the same issue, hence if Litecoin stays 'legal' (in the US let's say)  then something else with be created.

In a sense, that's why the whole discussion is rather moot, but that never stopped the drug war and it won't stop this. It's not about being logical. The wonderfully free US seems to be anything but. (Not saying the UK is much better either - oh look, CCTV)

And then countered by how it wouldn't work. Anyone looking at implementing it has to do the same thing.

Moreover, the bitcoin devs know that it may come down to them doing something less evil vs an external doing something very evil. Even to do that would be hugely difficult for them because miners will simply say no unless there is a very compelling case.

The bank account would be/have been confiscated. That's the entire point I was making. The media, the people, the gov will want to know why it wasn't.

In the case of bitcoin, they simply can't do it. In regular banks they can.

End result, massive backlash against bitcoin. Totally inevitable. I remember people not eating french fries because the French dared to make their own decision about the war! Comical. And you couldn't criticise the war because it was anti American and not supporting the soldiers.

So you'll get the same thing, but about bitcoin. And people will stop accepting it or using it on principle. And draconian laws will come in.

That is the real world and it sucks, but people like to run with the pack rather than engage their brain. You can see that all over this thread and reddit, it's not actually any different.

To you as well, go and read properly and think for yourself rather than just replying to a topic title. The foundation have not asked for this.

Aye, so how do you do that? You have a discussion on how it would be achieved technically so you can then know how to design systems to protect. You can also have a legit discussion about if there is a way to deal with clear criminality within the protocol (I don't think you can because it's all in the eye of the beholder).

However, apparently they aren't allowed to discuss it... Sarcasm!

Yes it will and that's why it would be terrible to leave it to crazy money hungry coin verification companies to have discussions with those in power as that's exactly what would happen.

The foundation are not the bitcoin developers though. The protocol and resilience is down to them.

The foundation aren't there to bend to anyone's will, they are there to inform and protect. If they go to the gov and say we need to implement green addresses etc then I'd be all over it. I have seen no sign of that, only of recognition and discussion of the legal issues at hand.

I just don't understand what on earth it has to do with anything? Corrupt bankers? Inept regulators? Gov letting this go on under their noses?

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? Seriously, I don't understand your point.

Yes, where have I said any different? My point wasn't that it's wrong about bin laden's account in my example, my point was about how it would play out. I thought that was obvious but sorry if it wasn't.

If you read the foundation threads, someone made exactly the same point as your first line. Banks have had all this too - they don't want all this KYC but they were forced to give in. Hopefully bitcoin won't.

I don't understand that this has to do with anything?

You've misunderstood my point. I was showing how the media and the gov and the public will react.

How the gov actually behave themselves has nothing to do with it. All the media, but perhaps the US particular, have to take a lot of the blame for not raising merry hell about what's gone on. However, it's nothing to do with my point and I don't trust any gov to anything related to blacklisting. It'd be a disaster of epic proportions and cannot be allowed.

However... That does not mean something can be done to prevent the gov doing a major hatchet job such as a third party verification service mandated for all crypto currencies. I don't want anything done but that's wishful thinking. Too much is at stake.

How many times - read read read. Stop just reading a headline and throwing out a random statement based on fiction. No wonder Fox News has such a huge effect - people don't want to think for themselves, they just want to be outraged.

Virtually no one wants tainting. Based on the forum posts the op put up, the foundation members don't either.

CoinValidation was literally only just announced and is not even what's under discussion! You're conflating issues.

The foundation themselves are nothing to do with it. I hope I'm not being out of turn but I contacted Mike Hearn and he said he doesn't know about their plans. They need to be looked at and an approach formulated because you can bet govs will love CoinValidation - it could give them more than they ever dreamed. Imagine the US or your knowing every single thing you spend, when, maybe even where. It turns bitcoin into our worst nightmare.

However, if the bitcoin crowd refuse to budge, we'll see a gov supported crypto or a layer on top of bitcoin and it'll all get unnecessarily messy and no one will win. Man in the street doesn't know or care about is, and they don't trust bitcoin anyway. Don't trust govs or banks much either but money wise I guarantee they will trust the dollar or a Visa card many times more than this currency that looks like a ponzi to them and is used by criminals apparently (just putting across a common pov).

So you may not want anyone speaking to regulators or the gov, but you're not thinking it through and whether you agree or not, it isn't on to start making personal attacks and throwing around inaccurate information as we've seen (I'm not saying you are yourself!).

Can I just clarify that no no no I'm not in favour of any of it. I have said that several times

However, some form of regulation is going to happen. It doesn't matter what you say, what I say, what the foundation say, it is going to happen. Just like with KYC with exchanges. Refusing to discuss it internally, let alone externally, is folly in the extreme. You'll then have people like yifu having the regulator's ear instead. That would be an utter nightmare - there would be no balance.

They haven't raised Bitcoin's visibility in this respect - this is being discussing heavily at regulators world wide and multiple companies are working on how they can make money by getting in bed with the gov at our expense (some may even believe it's the right thing to do). I've known this was under discussion in the UK and US since July. It only takes a few contacts to know what's going on, plus enough has been said in public, and many other people here know this too. The only people with their knickers in a twist over a simple discussion are people here.

Let me make clear the difference between something being discussed to as to know how to deal with questioning, which is absolutely essential, and coming out and saying at we should do x.  It's important to recognise the difference. In order to counter arguments for black green grey etc listing, you need to have discussed it, including technical approaches. Not doing so means being caught with your pants down.

Regulators are not necessarily your enemy, but governments and law enforcement certainly can be. Regulators are the guys in the middle. It's all rather more complex than you seem to realise.

Btw This issue goes way beyond the US.

For the nth time there are no changes of this type, the foundation hasn't said they wanted anything, and the foundation members who posted on those threads made their views very clear that it ain't gonna work. Will people please just read the actual thread.

As someone else posted, mike has discussed this in public but in this forum it ends up full of people who just troll or react or don't read properly - as this thread is perfect evidence of.

I've had it confirmed that any one here can go join the other one for $20 or so and take part in adult discussions with rather less pitchforks and trash posts.

Bitcoin is so important to all of us yet some of you can't be bothered to try to properly read about this topic, which I think says an awful lot about you rather than mike or anyone else. If you want to react to what mike actually said and the actual discussions (ie go and read them) then fair enough but barely anyone who is shouting and screaming is doing that.

The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread.

The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things.

I very much do, and about bittorrent. However, there is a difference between what a smallish group of users will use and the masses. Whatever regulators do there will be ways around it using black market crytpocurrencies or new tech or straight forward criminality. However, mainstream users and legit businesses can have a lot forced on them with no protocol changes or fork.

We'll then end up in a ridiculous game of cat and mouse that no one can win. Drug wars -> Money wars. Who wants that?!

Remember I think the same as everyone else here, I'm just very aware of what may happen in the real world.

You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid.

The US is not everywhere but you can be sure other countries will follow. Have you seen what they're trying to do behind closed doors regarding IP? The EFF have several good posts on the lack of democratic and completely hidden process going on.

You ruined a good post by saying that the chair discussing it is grounds for a violation. That's the whole problem here. It's absolutely required for him to discuss it in order to know all the argument for an against, and the likely ways it could be implemented technically and their implications.

That has nothing to do with being completely against it in principle.

You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat.

Also, this:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/


And yeah, they need to do a better job of communication and members need to be more careful about their behaviour (top and bottom). I'm sure they realise this now.

Note: I went to look at signing up for the foundation but it appeared that forum access was $1000. Is that true? Can regular members not access the forum? It's a little hard to tell. EDIT: I'm told all members can, so it's hardly private if that's the case. $20 if so.

Absolutely, I've been intrigued about this in various forms. Lots of potential and nothing do with the firestorm.

Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence.