MIT ChainAnchor - Bribing Miners to Regulate Bitcoin

[Amph]

and how they can do it for all those that are using bitcoin? it's not even possible

they basically need to force the first stage of the opt-in..

[Bitcoinpro]

IP addresses are already regulated

Scam written all over it

[chek2fire]

this is and an answer for everyone that talk about a problem with chinese miners. I think bitcoin mining in usa is far more dangerous than any other part of the world. We all know that USA especially their agents act in the shadows and manipulate everything that cant control.

[chek2fire]

and i think this is a ridiculous attemp with no luck atm.

[BruceSwanson]

Didn't anyone follow the link (https://petertodd.org/assets/2016-04-21/MIT-ChainAnchor-DRAFT.pdf) to the MIT paper that Todd himself supplied? Suffice it to say, MIT does not propose a method of "bribing" bitcoin miners. The project is exactly about what it says it is about in the paper's title: "Anonymous Identities for Permissioned Blockchains". I'm a true-blue Bitcoin believer and user since 2011 and think the idea contained in the paper is a very interesting and potentially useful one. There is nothing in it to be afraid of.

An MIT rep involved in the project has posted a badly needed (if far too polite) corrective, at:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4foatp/mit_chainanchor_bribing_miners_to_regulate_bitcoin/d2bs0tj

I must say that reading the comments here and on Reddit has been a disheartening experience. I'm no techie but I knew immediately that Todd was at worst a liar and provocateur and at best an ignorant and panic-stricken simpleton.  In either case, he set off a herd-panic because everyone simply took him at his word, like the townsfolk in the James Thurber story who ran screaming because the dam had broken. Only later did they remember that there was no dam. The next day, nobody talked about it.

As for Todd, April 1 is over. He should be banned permanently from Reddit. There is no excuse for what he wrote.

So like a cop at the scene of an accident, I will say: Move along, folks. It's all over. There's nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks.

[pedrog]

Thanks for pointing it out BruceSwanson.

Quoting answer here for the lazy.

Hi guys,

Dave here from MIT.

ChainAnchor isn't for bitcoin. With all due respect to Peter, ChainAnchor is for permissioned blockchains like what R3 and others are working on.

It also wasn't a "leak", we posted this months ago on our public website. He never asked us about it, etc. First we heard from him was his blog post.

We are in the middle of migrating sites but by Monday you can find it at trust.mit.edu (for now it is at www.mit-trust.org). We would welcome your feedback, after you read the actual current documents, at chainanchor@mit.edu.

Sorry, guys, this one is off base. MIT fully supports the bitcoin community. ChainAnchor was never intended for bitcoin.

[gmaxwell]

Here ChainAnchor is deployed as an overlay above the current public and permissionless Blockchain. The goal of the overlay approach is not to create a separate chain, but rather use the current permissionless Blockchain (in Bitcoin) to carry permissioned-transactions relating to Users in ChainAnchor in such a way that non-ChainAnchor nodes are oblivious to the transactions belonging to a permissioned-group. We use the example of the current Bitcoin blockchain as the underlying blockchain due to the fact that today it is the only operational blockchain that has achieved scale.

[Yakamoto]

IP addresses are already regulated

Scam written all over it

It is a scam, it's a bunch of techies from MIT thinking they can make a bunch of money by bribing people to work for them.

I would give them two moments of though if I was a miner, and I would ignore their attempts at bribery.

[road to morocco]

Here ChainAnchor is deployed as an overlay above the current public and permissionless Blockchain. The goal of the overlay approach is not to create a separate chain, but rather use the current permissionless Blockchain (in Bitcoin) to carry permissioned-transactions relating to Users in ChainAnchor in such a way that non-ChainAnchor nodes are oblivious to the transactions belonging to a permissioned-group. We use the example of the current Bitcoin blockchain as the underlying blockchain due to the fact that today it is the only operational blockchain that has achieved scale.

From a paper titled: "Anonymous Identities for Permissioned Blockchains."
P.S. And stop peeking through the blinds, that orange tabby isn't a government spy.

[Labumi]

I think it is their right to do so, so if anyone still want to use their services then the person must accept the risk that would be incurred in the future. Because of all the things that would make the company famous/not is its users. If you want all people not using their services then you can tell it to those users who already participated.