Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 05:53:51 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Decentralised crime fighting using private set intersection protocols  (Read 32979 times)
d'aniel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 07:53:33 PM
 #61

I heard Jacob Applebaum (from the Tor Project) say once that "the architecture defines the political situation", and like it or not, Bitcoin's architecture easily permits this, regardless of Mike's opinion about it.
1511330031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511330031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511330031
Reply with quote  #2

1511330031
Report to moderator
1511330031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511330031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511330031
Reply with quote  #2

1511330031
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511330031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511330031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511330031
Reply with quote  #2

1511330031
Report to moderator
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 07:54:32 PM
 #62


+1

edit; for those who dont have time to visit, the user is calling for a developer black list.

Lol!

This is the great thing about keeping the blocksize small: when you get tired of this Peter Todd guy blattering endlessly about fidelity bonded distributed hash table fraud proofs or whatever the fuck he's smoking with his art school buddies, you can put him on ignore and never deal with him and his complex payment systems again. Just tell whomever you want to pay that you're going to use some other solution. On the other hand, with the One True All Encompassing Blockchain I simply have to use the reference client with Mike's (quite good) LevelDB database patches for every payment I make.

You have a choice.

mik3
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 145



View Profile
March 24, 2013, 07:55:35 PM
 #63

Also, remember the whitelisting aspect. Once the coins pass through someone who you trust to have done something reasonable, the taint is gone.

Doesn't this make the entire idea worthless? The bad guys just have to create a bunch of new wallets, transfer money to them, then use them to buy things from "trusted" people to remove the taint... In which case the bad guys still have full use of the coins.
mughat
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37



View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:01:10 PM
 #64

Please dont regulate bitcoin and destroy it.

"REALLY worries me to see one of the core developers trying to get support for making blacklists a part of Bitcoin! If Mike wants a currency with blacklists he should go back to working on Google Wallet! I support censorship free currency, not one with authorities trying to freeze my funds!" -jedironpaul

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He's just trying to make Bitcoin better, but I'm not sure he realises just how flawed and dumb it is.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither".
Since time immemorial we have wrestled with what is good and bad, and legal and illegal. It's not fucking black and white like Mike seems to think. If it was we wouldn't need courts, every circumstance is different." -ferretinjapan

from:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1awu5j/decentralized_crime_fighting_aka_blacklists_for/
d'aniel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:02:10 PM
 #65


+1

edit; for those who dont have time to visit, the user is calling for a developer black list.

Lol!

This is the great thing about keeping the blocksize small: when you get tired of this Peter Todd guy blattering endlessly about fidelity bonded distributed hash table fraud proofs or whatever the fuck he's smoking with his art school buddies, you can put him on ignore and never deal with him and his complex payment systems again. Just tell whomever you want to pay that you're going to use some other solution. On the other hand, with the One True All Encompassing Blockchain I simply have to use the reference client with Mike's (quite good) LevelDB database patches for every payment I make.

You have a choice.
That seems disingenuous.  What do small blocks do to prevent coin blacklists from being enforced by governments?
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:03:45 PM
 #66

An outlaw currency is not even useful to outlaws. So that would be the end of Bitcoin.

Outlaw currencies are useful to outlaws all the time - you just need a currency that's only locally outlawed. Look at Argentina right now with US dollars, or the US decades ago with gold itself.

More importantly, regardless of what does or doesn't happen, Bitcoin as a technology can, with 1MB blocks, survive in the event of fairly severe oppression. I'd much rather have such a technology exist and have that option than not have it. It might not be as valuable as a BitcoinLite without those strong security guarantees, but the world is a better place when we have every option available to us.

That's why I work on Bitcoin.

Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:04:05 PM
 #67

The point is that the "trusted" people take some action when they see a blacklist hit. So the act of buying something from them results in something happening. If the blacklist is a criminal one like "money obtained by selling child porn" then the trusted nodes probably would file a police report and then continue about their day. Maybe a month later an investigator will come back and follow up that lead.

Once something has been done, there's no point in everyone further down the chain doing anything else. The money moved into the hands of an innocent party and tracking things further is pointless. Hence, whitelisting.

See the "Bob the Murderer" example I posted further up the thread for a concrete illustration of this.

The reddit comments are funny. I am not sure any of them actually read the proposal. Probably it was too long.
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:07:57 PM
 #68

[...]
When Carlton Banks or mik3 posts? Who cares. They do no work. They don't take any risks. Their posts contain no new insights. They have no credibility and might as well not have posted at all.
now you have jumped the shark

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
Peter Todd
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:09:08 PM
 #69

That seems disingenuous.  What do small blocks do to prevent coin blacklists from being enforced by governments?

With small blocks when "outlaw" transactions become difficult to get mined due to blacklists, the senders of those transactions simply need to up the fees to the point where it is profitable to setup an anonymous mining operation behind Tor or some other anti-censorship technology and start mining those transactions. Provided >50% of the hashing power is willing to build on those blocks the transactions will get into the blockchain.

With large blocks, setting up that anonymous mining operation at best requires access to large quantities of anonymous bandwidth - not a trivial thing to obtain - and at worst is impossible because getting a copy of the UTXO set can be made impossible without revealing your identity.

Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:19:02 PM
 #70

I'm not proposing any changes to mining rules. So block size limits are irrelevant (for this thread).
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
March 24, 2013, 08:24:13 PM
 #71


Ekaros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:29:09 PM
 #72

Why not just log every transaction which you know the other party? Much simpler way. The transactions are traceable mostly anyway.

Also I don't think there is any mechanism to reverse transactions. And not accepting bad transactions is unhealthy...

12pA5nZB5AoXZaaEeoxh5bNqUGXwUUp3Uv
http://firstbits.com/1qdiz
Feel free to help poor student!
eb3full
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 198


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:31:48 PM
 #73

How is the majority just switching off a blacklist different to democratically rejecting it? It's the same thing, no?

Also, remember the whitelisting aspect. Once the coins pass through someone who you trust to have done something reasonable, the taint is gone.

The majority could switch a blacklist off, but if it didn't do it simultaneously, everyone who rejects the blacklist would put their business at stake by accepting coins that might remain tainted. If we used "whitelisting" like you suggest, we are effectively trusting another party to make blacklist decisions for us. If that's the case, it's no longer voluntary. If we're willing to do that, why not just allow the blacklists themselves to blacklist other blacklists? This would remove some of the confusion anyway.

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann
buy me beer: 1HG9cBBYME4HUVhfAqQvW9Vqwh3PLioHcU
Dansker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 740


Hello world!


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:44:38 PM
 #74

Another aspect in this: Say we have 10 "tainted" bitcoins. The theif or w/e then sends them, in parts of 0.00001 to everyone and everybody, without prior warning.

Do you want thousands of people to call the police all over the world then? Who is going to pay for all these peoples time? How do we know if they actually do it? What happens if they say they do, but don't? Do they get to keep the coins?

What if the criminal sends his 10 btc to his own legitimate business as payment for a mock purchase, and then refuses to deliver to himself because he was paid in tainted coins? The coins are now no longer tainted, at no loss.

This is a disastrous idea, and you have yet to even address the issue of the fundamental loss of fungibility. This loss happens even if only say 10% of users use a blacklist, and will make sure that bitcoins are no longer equal to cash payments.

Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:49:23 PM
 #75

Quote
The majority could switch a blacklist off, but if it didn't do it simultaneously, everyone who rejects the blacklist would put their business at stake by accepting coins that might remain tainted. If we used "whitelisting" like you suggest, we are effectively trusting another party to make blacklist decisions for us. If that's the case, it's no longer voluntary. If we're willing to do that, why not just allow the blacklists themselves to blacklist other blacklists? This would remove some of the confusion anyway.

I don't think so. Maybe I should have been clearer what the penalties are for not checking any given list - zero. So it wouldn't put your business at risk to accept coins that appear on some blacklist.

The basic assumption behind this kind of system is that if it works properly, people should volunteer to be a part of it, because it will correctly fight real criminals and won't be subject to abuse. Doing business in a lawless country is really hard, and that's the incentive for people to take part.

So if someone switches off a list and accepts some coins, then re-spends them on to someone who is still checking, OK, what does the recipient do? Well, they could do nothing. Or file a report saying "Bob Smith gave me coins that appeared on a blacklist" (and now the taint is cleared for people who trust you to take action for that blacklist). Bob Smith didn't do anything wrong though. He might get a visit from the police some time later and they'll ask him where he got the coins from. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

This might seem pointless, why would anyone co-operate with the police if they didn't have to? Well, because as I said, there's a lot of value to stopping really bad crimes. Running a shop is tough if people break in and steal your inventory every week.

Existing AML systems make reporting mandatory in some cases (over a particular threshold) or when you personally deem a transaction "suspicious". The reason is that the way AML works today is, all the costs fall on banks, and the costs are really high in terms of paperwork and so on. So banks are incentivized to not do it because that way they can undercut their competitors. If you have a very efficient system and the costs are spread out across all participants in the economy, then you shouldn't need coercion anymore.

A lot of replies here and on reddit are based on the assumption that governments will force people to check blacklists and so on, so my proposal is evil. But that's arguing with a proposal I have not made. It's a description of the existing system, which I agree has a lot of problems. My proposal is for a system that shares the same overall goals (keep crime in check) but doesn't have those problems and isn't subject to government abuse in the same way.

What stops governments passing new laws that aren't in my proposal? Nothing, of course. But they're much more likely to pass bad laws if nobody proposes better laws. I mean, politicians aren't going to come up with a system that uses crypto to limit the governments power.

Quote from: Dansker
Another aspect in this: Say we have 10 "tainted" bitcoins. The theif or w/e then sends them, in parts of 0.00001 to everyone and everybody, without prior warning. Do you want thousands of people to call the police all over the world then? Who is going to pay for all these peoples time? How do we know if they actually do it? What happens if they say they do, but don't? Do they get to keep the coins?

Just don't take any action and keep the coins. Even the existing AML systems have thresholds because police time is limited. It isn't worth chasing small transactions. So configure your wallet to ignore taint on transactions of less than a given value.

In the past the AML reporting thresholds (below which nobody cares) were pretty high. When the BSA was first passed they were about $50,000 in todays money. Unfortunately they were never adjusted for inflation and today $10,000 isn't as much as it once was. Also they've tried to push the thresholds down over time, but in the system I propose there wouldn't actually be any central regulators. The right thresholds to use would be decided by the participants.
flipperfish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


Dolphie Selfie


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:54:09 PM
 #76

The proposal seems to be a good compromise as there are many arguments for and against it. What seems to be most misunderstood is the term "blacklist". As I understood it, it's not some kind of "filter", which tells you "Don't accept this coins! You won't be able to spend them!", but rather some kind of "hint" like "Hey, these coins have a shady history. Do you want to do something about that?". Nevertheless, I'm currently a bit skeptic about the list maintainance process. I think this is the weak link in the system, where some further thoughts are needed.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:56:56 PM
 #77

I stopped reading this authotorative fantasy here:

Blacklist providers maintain sets of outputs that are blacklisted or tainted in some way


Hell NO.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 08:58:41 PM
 #78

Yeah, probably I should have used the term hint list or something. People stop reading at the term blacklist and then start arguing with a proposal that wasn't made. The post from hazek just now being a good example of that ...
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966



View Profile
March 24, 2013, 09:12:36 PM
 #79

Yeah, probably I should have used the term hint list or something. People stop reading at the term blacklist and then start arguing with a proposal that wasn't made. The post from hazek just now being a good example of that ...

No matter which term you choose to sugarcoat it, it remains an incredibly dangerous idea.

Crime fighting by "following the money" is absolutely incompatible with free (as in freedom) transactions. As soon as you have a centralised way to make anonymity opt-in, it can potentially be enforced on everybody.


NO.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
d'aniel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 461


View Profile
March 24, 2013, 09:14:19 PM
 #80

Yeah, probably I should have used the term hint list or something. People stop reading at the term blacklist and then start arguing with a proposal that wasn't made. The post from hazek just now being a good example of that ...
What I find kind of ironic about all of this is that the first time I'd heard a proposal similar to yours for using a linkable digital currency for decentralized crime fighting was from a prominent anarcho-capitalist named Stefan Molyneux.  I guess they're just more receptive when these ideas are coming from one of their own. Wink  Not to mention yours is vastly superior due to the cryptographic privacy guarantees.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!