What will happen to blacklisted coins?

[turvarya]

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.


Like...oh say....torproject.org

I really expect better from you Elwar.
I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all.

People are mixing up so many things on here already.

I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently.

A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others.

Does not sound very decentralized.

So, how does that answer pedrog's question?
Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose?

[Elwar]

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.


Like...oh say....torproject.org

I really expect better from you Elwar.
I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all.

People are mixing up so many things on here already.

I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently.

A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others.

Does not sound very decentralized.

So, how does that answer pedrog's question?
Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose?

The question was "how could this be achieved?".

The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS.

[turvarya]

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.


Like...oh say....torproject.org

I really expect better from you Elwar.
I think, you know, that even if there would be a blacklist of IPs, that has nothing to do, with blocking coins. You just can't block transactions by blocking IPs. That doesn't make any sense at all.

People are mixing up so many things on here already.

I did not say blocking. I said treating them differently.

A central server used to treat some IPs differently than others.

Does not sound very decentralized.

So, how does that answer pedrog's question?
Or are you writing statements, that don't have a connection to the topic, on purpose?

The question was "how could this be achieved?".

The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS.

c'mon Elwar, seriously?
I think, you know, that you are writing nonsense here.

[pedrog]

The question was "how could this be achieved?".

The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS.

Not effective!

IP address is not a Person.

A transaction I make can be relayed by blockchain.info while I'm accessing it through TOR at a café...

[Lauda]

I don't understand the term "blacklisted coin".  How can be blacklisted a coin produced in the legal way? While about the bitcoin xt I have heard the opposite. The bitcoin XT is not centralized but liberalized. I'm not an expert so my word can be taken with caution but from what I have heard from a person that seems very informed is that what was happen.  

It really comes down to what one plans to do with the blacklisting (I'm talking about coins, not IPs here) feature. Essentially if we have a theft of coins, they could be blacklisted to prevent them being used anywhere. However, the system could be considered corrupt at that point, because the money is not solely controlled by us (which is one of the main/fundamental points of Bitcoin).
White-listing or blacklisting would probably mean the end of Bitcoin (as we know it today).

Note: Keep in mind that blacklisting is not implemented (yet), even though Hearn was advocating it.

[Elwar]

Blacklisting IPs (or giving them lower priority as is in the new XT code) can be used just the same as how the great Firewall of China works. And could easily be used to give lower priority to certain countries by IP range. Sure you can jump behind a VPN, travel to another country etc. but why allow it in the first place.

I was ok with the XT block size upgrade. It made sense. But seeing that 90% of the code differences have to do with this blacklist code and not the block size (and the fact that Mike Hearn has advocated for blacklists) tells me that this is likely not about block size after all.

I really don't like the idea of having a central web server used in what is supposed to be a decentralized system.

[pedrog]

Blacklisting IPs (or giving them lower priority as is in the new XT code) can be used just the same as how the great Firewall of China works. And could easily be used to give lower priority to certain countries by IP range. Sure you can jump behind a VPN, travel to another country etc. but why allow it in the first place.

I was ok with the XT block size upgrade. It made sense. But seeing that 90% of the code differences have to do with this blacklist code and not the block size (and the fact that Mike Hearn has advocated for blacklists) tells me that this is likely not about block size after all.

I really don't like the idea of having a central web server used in what is supposed to be a decentralized system.

Here's Mike's comment on that:

You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.

This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.

Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768

[Elwar]

Blacklisting IPs (or giving them lower priority as is in the new XT code) can be used just the same as how the great Firewall of China works. And could easily be used to give lower priority to certain countries by IP range. Sure you can jump behind a VPN, travel to another country etc. but why allow it in the first place.

I was ok with the XT block size upgrade. It made sense. But seeing that 90% of the code differences have to do with this blacklist code and not the block size (and the fact that Mike Hearn has advocated for blacklists) tells me that this is likely not about block size after all.

I really don't like the idea of having a central web server used in what is supposed to be a decentralized system.

Here's Mike's comment on that:

You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.

This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.

Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768

Yep, so I'm not the only one who sees that as a poor move. So instead of saying we should not centralize a decentralized currency, I should be coding a solution to some DoS attacks.

[pedrog]

Yep, so I'm not the only one who sees that as a poor move. So instead of saying we should not centralize a decentralized currency, I should be coding a solution to some DoS attacks.

Well, you should be coding a decentralized solution for DoS attacks.

[Hazir]

Developers are only pushing government vision and it is inevitable for the bitcoin industry. I keep seeing some people who believe bitcoin simply must change to bring it in line with other payment systems.
Unfortunately this means adding identity information to bitcoin transactions and making it possible to blacklist funds. It will happen sooner or later, bitcoin is too dangerous in its current state.

[PolarPoint]

There is no blacklist, there are no blacklisted coins.

OP seems to have mixed up with how XT lowers the priority of a IP connection if spam transactions are found to come from it. That is not blacklisting coins.

[meono]

There is no blacklist, there are no blacklisted coins.

OP seems to have mixed up with how XT lowers the priority of a IP connection if spam transactions are found to come from it. That is not blacklisting coins.

Most XTbashers have no clue of what they're saying anyway. It goes to show what kind of crowd that side is attracting.

[SebastianJu]

Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.

Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?

It is possible and was discussed under the name tainting. It is similar to fiat money where you note down banknote id numbers when they were used for a robbery. You can identify the flow of every coin. So when a coin came from a scam then it could be shown.

The plan was to investigate where the owner got these coins from in order to track down the scammer.

In fact scammers would be smart and exchange somehow. The one ending with such coins would have to explain who he is or would have coins that are worth less than they are.

And yes, that is one of Hearns suggestions. It is not implemented luckily. I support the 8MB though. Only not hearn.

[TibanneCat]

They can try to trace it but I don't think there was any attempt to create a blacklist.
I also believe OP is mistaking XT's proposal of IP connection priority with a wide blacklist of tainted coins

As the flow of btcs increase, ultimately any attempts to blacklist tainted coins would be similar to blacklisting all dollar bills with traces of cocaine.

[SebastianJu]

Stop spreading FUD please.

We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.

I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this).

I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B.

There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing.

How are my coins in address B still blacklisted?

Not your coins in Address X. But someone received your coins. And this person then might withdraw them through an exchange. Their tainting system shows them these coins are tainted and they request an explaination about the coins, otherwise they will block them.

It might be that the mixer owner won't give your name though. That's why this system is stupid. Real scammers would know how to avoid the trouble but poor guys would have the problems.

[SebastianJu]

Stop spreading FUD please.

We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.

I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this).

I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B.

There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing.

How are my coins in address B still blacklisted?

The coins itself are tainted. Let's say you receive 5 tainted coins to an address. Later you receive 2 more untainted coins to the same address. Then you send 7 coins to an exchange. And the first 5 coins will be known as tainted since these coins have a fixed way through the blockchain. It doesn't mean that you know who held them though. But it shows these coins are tainted and someone can block them. The current owner needs to explain where he received them from when he doesn't want to lose them then.

I did say 'taints ... to some extent'.
The anonymity set size of a single transaction is limited by the number of parties in it, obviously.
Unless chaumian blinding, zero knowledge proofs, or something dazzling has occurred, my statement is correct.

Dude, 'taints' by whom?

That's not a feature of the protocol, you can 'taint' how many coins you want, I don't care about your 'taint', and after a few transactions you'll be unable to know who has the coins...

That's why after so many thefts no one was able to come up with a system to blacklist coins, it requires centralization and absolute control over the system.

[SebastianJu]

They can try to trace it but I don't think there was any attempt to create a blacklist.
I also believe OP is mistaking XT's proposal of IP connection priority with a wide blacklist of tainted coins

As the flow of btcs increase, ultimately any attempts to blacklist tainted coins would be similar to blacklisting all dollar bills with traces of cocaine.

It's not so very different from tainting fiat money through their id. If you happen to have such a bill and the bank recognizes it then you lose that bill. It doesn't matter anymore that you received it legally in the local kiosk, you are the one who loses. No refund.

And yes, nowadays it would not be possible anymore to taint scam coins from a longer time ago, but still, it might be possible for scams happening now.

It might be OP is mixing something. Unfortunately Hearn had both these stupid ideas. Ok, deprioritizing is not banning actually, so it is not as bad. But really, Hearn is stupid. He should push his 8 MB block and collect followers. Instead he pushes things where he knows that nobody likes them. This guy is somewhat not a strategist.

[RGBKey]

No coins have been blacklisted afaik, nobody ever allowed such a system to come into existance.

[foreveryoung]

they bancrupte?or they are change to other coins develop?

[neonshium]

blacklist ?
not in the Bitcoin Network ...

Yes, the FBI seized coins may be referred as blacklisted. But that's not actually could be implemented in bitcoin eco system. We are free from those shits.