|
ixne
|
 |
June 19, 2011, 03:26:13 PM |
|
Exactly. It seems you agree it's pointless, because it's unworkable.
I agree that any centralized list is pointless. I don't see any obstacle to personal lists, however. Arguing against letting the client keep and update a blacklist for you is like arguing against letting the client compute hashes for you rather than getting out a pencil and paper and doing it yourself. Noone is stopping anyone from implementing this. If you do it separate from the client/network though the only thing you can do is send the coins back, which will taint your own address as well. If you include it in the client, you must make network changes which open up the network to both technical and social attacks. If anyone is truly serious about this, they can always fork the code and the chain. Good luck. All I'm concerned with is sending money to certain addresses, not receiving. I use new addresses for each transaction so I'm not too worried about tainting my main account. And it could just be a warning message that pops up before sending, e.g. Warning: Blacklisted account Original blacklisted account(s): Reasons for blacklist: Degrees removed from original blacklist sources: Proportional funds received from blacklisted sources: These warning messages could be filtered to come up only with a certain proportion of blacklisted funds or degrees removed, and a user could choose to continue or cancel. Again, this functionality could be completely separate from the existing client functionality, it would only retrieve data from the blockchain and crunch the numbers locally. The blacklisted accounts are entered entirely by the user. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlike traditional banking where clients have only a few account numbers, with Bitcoin people can create an unlimited number of accounts (addresses). This can be used to easily track payments, and it improves anonymity.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ixne
|
|
June 19, 2011, 03:39:40 PM |
|
Holy crap...I'd get hold of a forum admin ASAP and get some IP information, then contact the cops if you haven't already so they can subpoena the ISP if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
Swishercutter
|
|
June 19, 2011, 03:44:52 PM |
|
Holy crap...I'd get hold of a forum admin ASAP and get some IP information, then contact the cops if you haven't already so they can subpoena the ISP if necessary. Do you seriously believe that someone with 5 posts that joined today is really the one? I don't, my doubts that this "theft" even happened grow by the day. |
|
|
|
|
|
ixne
|
|
June 19, 2011, 03:47:18 PM |
|
Good point, although I think it's more likely AaronBarr is playing a prank by putting that address in his sig than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Wreckus
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
|
|
June 19, 2011, 03:48:29 PM |
|
The official client just needs to be updated to support an encrypted wallet.dat file, would that really be so hard?
Also, Google "AaronBarr Anonymous", I'm sure this is a prank
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swishercutter
|
|
June 19, 2011, 03:48:59 PM |
|
Good point, although I think it's more likely AaronBarr is playing a prank by putting that address in his sig than anything else.
Or allinvain trying to get more attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
Swishercutter
|
|
June 19, 2011, 03:55:22 PM |
|
The official client just needs to be updated to support an encrypted wallet.dat file, would that really be so hard?
Also, Google "AaronBarr Anonymous", I'm sure this is a prank
Probably not hard...but is it needed...most responsible people are already handling their wallet.dat file properly...adding encryption would just add more of a false sense of security (that is...the lengths people go to in order to protect their wallet far exceed some encryption in the client, plus client encryption still would not help against keyloggers...right?) |
|
|
|
|
PoulGrym
Member
Offline
Activity: 83
Merit: 10
|
|
June 19, 2011, 05:22:49 PM |
|
Just wondering not reading anything else then the last page. Is there a bounty made up if the hacker/thief is caught and bitcoin returned? It could be an incentive for Anonymous to get there bits dirty? Still sure, the person could just collect everything for himself but you never know, unless you try.
|
If you found my post helpful, use my tip jar!
BTC: 1Q4um62DJ8kBRMzQ4VQqG6W7eLoPNfx6zn
NODE: 11993447274130959091 NXT: MINT:
|
|
|
|
TheBitMan
|
|
June 20, 2011, 09:37:16 PM |
|
this was on tv..this very thread!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 21, 2011, 08:26:55 PM |
|
I'm hoping to soon have an open source script that will check for you if you've unknowingly accepted stolen funds.
If he exists, God help us all. |
|
|
|
|
dinker
Member
Offline
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
|
|
June 21, 2011, 08:41:05 PM |
|
If I received some stolen coins do I have to return to the rightful owner?
|
Help Me Help You Donations:
14kP6tNtrz3woESs9nEE5aDB81QTybGyyZ
|
|
|
allinvain (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1080
|
|
June 21, 2011, 08:43:31 PM |
|
Holy crap...I'd get hold of a forum admin ASAP and get some IP information, then contact the cops if you haven't already so they can subpoena the ISP if necessary. Hmm, yeah too bad he was posting while behind Torr. |
|
|
|
TraderTimm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1121
|
|
June 21, 2011, 08:43:47 PM |
|
I have a script for this too: IF(subject=="MtGox" || "25,000 BTC Stolen" || "allinvain"){
cout >> /dev/null;
return;
}
ELSE
{
ParseThreadComments();
}
|
fortitudinem multis - catenum regit omnia
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 21, 2011, 08:44:55 PM |
|
If I received some stolen coins do I have to return to the rightful owner?
No. You should not have to sacrifice your convenience and liberty due to some thief laundering his money. Have the thief pay. Not you. Most of the property by which we reside has been subject to theft and crime at some point but it does not obligate us to give everything we have away. We shall not allow criminals to make an endless cycle of suffering. |
|
|
|
|
allinvain (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1080
|
|
June 21, 2011, 08:46:09 PM |
|
Good point, although I think it's more likely AaronBarr is playing a prank by putting that address in his sig than anything else.
It could be or it could be someone who doesn't like him trying to frame him. |
|
|
|
allinvain (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1080
|
|
June 21, 2011, 09:03:27 PM |
|
If I received some stolen coins do I have to return to the rightful owner?
No. You should not have to sacrifice your convenience and liberty due to some thief laundering his money. Have the thief pay. Not you. Most of the property by which we reside has been subject to theft and crime at some point but it does not obligate us to give everything we have away. We shall not allow criminals to make an endless cycle of suffering. I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world what you're saying there is not how things work. Consult with a lawyer. Second stop using politically charged words to worm your way around the moral and ethical issues involved. It seems your idea of liberty is "let me do whatever the fuck I want" Your teenage grade libertarian-ism is downright revolting. If you really believe what you espouse you'd know that theft is the violation of property rights and the upholding of one's property rights and the non-violence initiation principle is the core of the libertarian political philosophy. Changing multiple hands does not launder the immorality of the original transaction. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 21, 2011, 09:06:15 PM |
|
If you really believe what you espouse you'd know that theft is the violation of property rights and the upholding of one's property rights and the non-violence initiation principle is the core of the libertarian political philosophy.
I certainly agree.
Changing multiple hands does not launder the immorality of the original transaction.
Of course not but another victim of fraud should not be subject to penalties. Only the thief and fraudsters should be liable. As far as the holder of the blood money is concerned, he was involved in a fair transaction. He exchanged his property in a fair exchange. He should not be punished for the vandalism of his labor. Again, only the fraudsters before him and the thief. |
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 21, 2011, 09:35:03 PM |
|
If you really believe what you espouse you'd know that theft is the violation of property rights and the upholding of one's property rights and the non-violence initiation principle is the core of the libertarian political philosophy.
I certainly agree.
Changing multiple hands does not launder the immorality of the original transaction.
Of course not but another victim of fraud should not be subject to penalties. Only the thief and fraudsters should be liable. As far as the holder of the blood money is concerned, he was involved in a fair transaction. He exchanged his property in a fair exchange. He should not be punished for the vandalism of his labor. Again, only the fraudsters before him and the thief. Unfortunately, "should not" and "will not" are two different phrases. Sure, he shouldn't be punished. But if he is found to have the stolen coins, he has to return them. He can then go to the person he received said coins from, and demand either more coins or a reversal of the transaction. If the person who sent him coins refuses, he could go after them with a lawsuit. At least, this is the way I currently understand the current laws of most countries. |
|
|
|
|
|
