Bitcoin Confiscation

[metonymous]

"One [could] not merely confiscate bitcoins", gloats a forum member regarding the Cypris bank crisis. Bitcoin is great, but it's not immune to 'powers that be' corruption.

Governments could legislate¹ a 'buy back'. Corporations could seize assets via heavy handed legal action. ISPs or agencies could subjugate the network via technical (ISP/Backbone) level filtering, man-in-the-middle attacks, denial of service.

What could be done to the bitcoin network to prevent - say a government, corporation - from network/developer/miner coercion? How resilient would Bitcoin be to any of these 'social engineering' scenarios?

At the technical level, consider ISP port filtering (ala Bitorrent) (I have not read the whitepaper as to how much thought was given to this). Bitcoin Network Monitor, Bitcoin address <=> IP monitor, ISP subpoena, etc. If BTC nodes end up requiring services similar to TOR to survive, what chance does legitimate BTC usage have? 

Offline, deposit only 'cold' wallets could protect against technical efforts. Pre-existing software security solutions might help when applied to BTC (i.e. randomize Bitcoin port, bundle Bitcoin-QT with TOR, one click cold wallets...)

Hoarding physical cash might prevent 'bank' level manipulation from effecting you, similar to cold bitcoin wallets. Think of physical fiat as a cold wallet, and electronic fiat as online wallets.

The benefits of 'running your own bank' might not seem significant if you can't connect to the network (i.e. you can't process transactions).

/TheEndIsNighRant

¹ 1933 Emergency Banking Act

authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to order any individual or organization in the United States to deliver any gold that they possess or have custody of to the Treasury in return for "any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States - http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1930s/EmergBank_1933.html

[1714328808]

1714328808

[Mike Christ]

As long as SOPA/CISPA stays out (and it's never going to stop coming up, it seems,) we have as much to worry about BTC being confiscated as TPB finally going offline.  But if this is just that much more incentive to lobby CISPA into existing law, get ready for a fun brawl.  The one chance we got at actual freedom, whether some realize it or not, remains in the Internet being entirely open.  Once government finds a way to censor (and they won't ever find a reliable way, just a good enough way for the typical uneducated,) we have a lot more trouble than Bitcoin being confiscated.  They could just end the system all together, along with several other certain services we currently enjoy.  I'd say civil unrest at that point will reach an all time high.

[Dabs]

Coins are anonymous if your identity and your public key address are not connected. You just transfer them to a new address and it's going to be very hard to prove that you're also that new address. Plus, there are coin washing machines, coin mixing services, and shared hosted wallets, and even gambling games that send you back money that went through them. Sooner or later, zerocoin is going to be implemented.

[MysteryMiner]

All censoring or filtering have failed this far. Technical solutions are always few steps ahead.

Sure the developers can be coerced but this is the beauty of open source software. Anonymous developers will join in, maybe even Satoshi will return. And with open source everyone could check the commits they made.

[gopher]

If one considers that exchanges hold peoples deposits (in both Bitcoin and fiat), and those exchanges already being regulated (most of them indirectly, some of them directly), what is stopping the regulators giving those deposits a "haircut", this time a double whammy - in both Bitcoin and fiat?

Nothing, methinks.

The sweet illusion of infallibility!

[foggyb]

If one considers that exchanges hold peoples deposits (in both Bitcoin and fiat), and those exchanges already being regulated (most of them indirectly, some of them directly), what is stopping the regulators giving those deposits a "haircut", this time a double whammy - in both Bitcoin and fiat?

Nothing, methinks.

The sweet illusion of infallibility!

It is entirely optional to hold bitcoins in exchanges.

[gopher]

If one considers that exchanges hold peoples deposits (in both Bitcoin and fiat), and those exchanges already being regulated (most of them indirectly, some of them directly), what is stopping the regulators giving those deposits a "haircut", this time a double whammy - in both Bitcoin and fiat?

Nothing, methinks.

The sweet illusion of infallibility!

It is entirely optional to hold bitcoins in exchanges.

sure, like it is entirely optional to hold fiat in a bank account

[yvv]

sure, like it is entirely optional to hold fiat in a bank account

In banana republics may be yes, but not in the developed world. If you have a job or business, you have to have a bank account, because you cant be paid and cant pay for many thing without a bank account. This is not necessary with bitcoins.

[jubalix]

It is not only optional to hold Bitcoin in exchanges or with any 3rd parties, it is highly recommended not to do so for any non trivial amounts of bitcoins. Why carry counter-party risk when one does not have to?

a cracking password on block chain and a back up of all your priv keys should see you through most anything

[gopher]

It is not only optional to hold Bitcoin in exchanges or with any 3rd parties, it is highly recommended not to do so for any non trivial amounts of bitcoins. Why carry counter-party risk when one does not have to?

I agree with you - one should not trust anyone with his Bitcoins and should at all time keep it in his/hers wallet.

But what I described is different - if one has his Bitcoin and/or fiat deposited at an exchange for the purpose of trading, then those funds are not protected, they are indeed exposed to any regulator to seize at will.

I am also thinking that the time is ripe for someone to conceptualise and start operating an alternative exchange, where the user's funds are never deposited but exchanged in real time - that will negate the risk of loosing deposits to the regulators quite handsomely, add dramatically to the strength of Bitcoin.

[gopher]

sure, like it is entirely optional to hold fiat in a bank account

In banana republics may be yes, but not in the developed world. If you have a job or business, you have to have a bank account, because you cant be paid and cant pay for many thing without a bank account. This is not necessary with bitcoins.

perhaps it is time to consider moving to a banana republic then - hell, what a brainwash this is - to believe that one cannot possibly live without a bank account.

[Vladimir]

Sure If you are trading, carrying counter-party risk is basically cost of doing business.

[bubblesort]

If the powers that be wanted to stop bitcoin they would just buy a lot of hardware and do a simple 51% attack and be done with it.

[deadweasel]

If the powers that be wanted to stop bitcoin they would just buy a lot of hardware and do a simple 51% attack and be done with it.

It's more complicated than that.

[coqui33]

I am reminded of FDR's executive order 6102 of 4/5/1933 which, by the stroke of a pen, made the mere possession of gold a federal crime, and offered rewards to anyone who betrayed anyone else. Sure, a handful of brave people tried to hide their gold, but the practice became as marginalized and shunned as, say, drugs or porn today.

I hate to say it, but if possession of a bitcoin privkey became a federal felony, with informant rewards, I can think of a couple of relatives who would rat me out in a heartbeat.

[myrkul]

I am reminded of FDR's executive order 6102 of 4/5/1933 which, by the stroke of a pen, made the mere possession of gold a federal crime, and offered rewards to anyone who betrayed anyone else. Sure, a handful of brave people tried to hide their gold, but the practice became as marginalized and shunned as, say, drugs or porn today.

Yeah, but you don't have to dig a hole in your back yard to hide your bitcoins.

[metonymous]

Australian gold confiscation with discussion, focus on enforceability.

[oakpacific]

I am reminded of FDR's executive order 6102 of 4/5/1933 which, by the stroke of a pen, made the mere possession of gold a federal crime, and offered rewards to anyone who betrayed anyone else. Sure, a handful of brave people tried to hide their gold, but the practice became as marginalized and shunned as, say, drugs or porn today.

I hate to say it, but if possession of a bitcoin privkey became a federal felony, with informant rewards, I can think of a couple of relatives who would rat me out in a heartbeat.

Try brainwallet.

"Yes, good sir, I do own some bitcoins, but only 3 BTCs, here is my private key. What, 500? Who told you so? Some of my relatives? You can't just rely on some hear-says as evidences right?"

Or if your prosecutor is more of a "by the book" type: "Yes sir, I did store 500 bitcoins in an address(which is too long, who the fuck will remember that?) And I use this brainwallet setup to protect my private key, but unfortunately, I have totally forgotten about my passphrase, so perhaps these bitcoins are forever lost. And I think you can't prove otherwise." or just simply: "Sorry I lost my private key."

[darkmule]

I am reminded of FDR's executive order 6102 of 4/5/1933 which, by the stroke of a pen, made the mere possession of gold a federal crime, and offered rewards to anyone who betrayed anyone else. Sure, a handful of brave people tried to hide their gold, but the practice became as marginalized and shunned as, say, drugs or porn today.

No, it didn't.  It was immediately thrown out when an attempt was made to prosecute someone under it.  People own gold certificates and gold coins purportedly outlawed by that executive order to this day and they are openly collected.

A law purporting to outlaw Bitcoin would ultimately fare no better.  A lot of noise and saber-rattling was made about PGP distribution and ITAR regulations to this day create incredible nuisance (and worse) for our businesses, and Phil Zimmerman was harassed for years for distributing it, but ultimately never prosecuted because he did nothing that was not protected by the Constitution.

I doubt you will ever see the United States declare Bitcoin itself illegal, although you might see attempts to harass it and regulate it to death in a variety of ways, likely to be as successful as attempts to stamp out strong crypto in general.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Or if your prosecutor is more of a "by the book" type: "Yes sir, I did store 500 bitcoins in an address(which is too long, who the fuck will remember that?) And I use this brainwallet setup to protect my private key, but unfortunately, I have totally forgotten about my passphrase, so perhaps these bitcoins are forever lost. And I think you can't prove otherwise." or just simply: "Sorry I lost my private key."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom

Your turn?