Ransoms and mixers

[Wary]

There was a topic recently: "what can kill bitcoin", and one of suggested answers was "A kid kidnapped, ransom paid in bitcoins, track lost in a mixer". Such a news would attract huge media attention and can seriously damage BTC reputation. What if, god forbid, taking BTC for ransom becomes common among kidnappers? Can we prevent it from happening, i.e. keep track of these coins?

And more generally, is there a way to keep track of "dirty" coins, while still having "honest" coins anonymous? So that real criminals won't be able to use their ill-gotten money, while honest tax-avoiders will still be safe?

Can it be done by some technical means, like coloured coins? Or by some reputation means? Something like this: there is a blacklist of "dirty" addresses (in a server or embedder in the blockchain). If the payment came from a "dirty" address, the transaction will be rejected by miners and eventually rolled back. As for mixers, to prevent from being associated with dirty money (and eventually getting blacklisted by miners), they would want to keep log of transactions, with addresses! An average mixer customer, naturally, won't come to a "tax-friendly" mixer, that reports them to authorities. But he also won't go to "dirty" mixer. First, because he (most likely) don't approve criminals. And second, because he don't want to get blacklisted himself. So, the honest folk will still enjoy their anonymity, while the Earth be burning under criminals' feet.

[1714811982]

1714811982

[1714811982]

1714811982

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

A blacklist of coins will destroy Bitcoin because it will no longer be fungible.

Who decides blacklists? You destroyed the decentralized nature of it.

If this was introduced it WILL drop BTCUSD by more than any media attention on a ransom.

[Wary]

A blacklist of coins will destroy Bitcoin because it will no longer be fungible.

Not coins, of course. Blacklist of addresses. The coins will become fungible again when they returned to original owner. (More precisely, they can be spend by original owner after "criminal" transaction won't get confirmed for long enough and get rolled back).

Who decides blacklists? You destroyed the decentralized nature of it. If this was introduced it WILL drop BTCUSD by more than any media attention on a ransom.

51% of users decide, who else? There will be a tickbox "Don't use dirty money" on your wallet. And list of blacklisting sites to choose from. When the system evolve, there will be competing blacklisting sites, competing apeal courts, even competing bitcoin legislations. Normal law inforcement infrastructure (but based on reputation, rather than on force).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Please go read more about Bitcoin and learn why this idea will never be implemented.

For one, users do not decide on anything. A 51% miner CAN refuse to relay any TXes coming from a certain address, this is known as a 51% attack and will make Bitcoin worth sub $0.01.

[QuestionAuthority]

A blacklist of coins will destroy Bitcoin because it will no longer be fungible.

Not coins, of course. Blacklist of addresses. The coins will become fungible again when they returned to original owner. (More precisely, they can be spend by original owner after "criminal" transaction won't get confirmed for long enough and get rolled back).

Who decides blacklists? You destroyed the decentralized nature of it. If this was introduced it WILL drop BTCUSD by more than any media attention on a ransom.

51% of users decide, who else? There will be a tickbox "Don't use dirty money" on your wallet. And list of blacklisting sites to choose from. When the system evolve, there will be competing blacklisting sites, competing apeal courts, even competing bitcoin legislations. Normal law inforcement infrastructure (but based on reputation, rather than on force).

Do you work for PayPal?

[moni3z]

Kidnapping for ransom where I live is all done by gangsters who target their own people who are wealthy immigrants. Back home this person will have extended family they can just pick up and hold for ransom. Immigrant here pays them in cash and doesn't bother calling the police, because cops here have no control over Vietnam/China/Phillippines/Mexican/Guatemalan or Russian corrupt police that are paid off by the gang.

Usually what happens is some gangster here will walk up to you on the street and intimidate/tell you in person so there is no phone or written record for evidence. Marks also don't cooperate with local police here since they know back home the gangsters have free reign over their family so testifying in court is not an option for them. These guy's are never caught, don't need bitcoin and basically operate with impunity though the police do follow the known/suspected one's around a lot but nothing comes of it.

tl;dr they don't need bitcoin, nor will they have any future use for it unless Vietnam magically becomes not corrupt

[edmundedgar]

Please go read more about Bitcoin and learn why this idea will never be implemented.

For one, users do not decide on anything. A 51% miner CAN refuse to relay any TXes coming from a certain address, this is known as a 51% attack and will make Bitcoin worth sub $0.01.

This is a horrible idea that would seriously degrade the usefulness of Bitcoin, but it wouldn't _necessarily_ involve 51% of miners.

In theory if everybody's client software had some code to check the blacklist of coins that passed through certain addresses, the end users could refuse to accept them as payment. Law enforcement (or the mafia, or anyone with an ability to take revenge on arbitrary people) could encourage them to cooperate with the tainting by threatening action against people who accepted those coins.

Obviously you'd need quite a lot of blacklist-enforcement to make it work, but you wouldn't even need 51% of users to _want_ to enforce the blacklist to make this at least partly effective, because if I know that the people I want to pay may not be willing to take a coin with address X in its ancestry, it's worth less to me as well, so I would rather avoid receiving it.

There's a similar effect at the miner end, where if you control a small proportion of mining power and are prepared to do things that aren't ordinarily economically rational, you can change the incentives of profit-seeking miners and get them to obey your laws instead of Satoshi's. See this post by TierNolan for an example, also discussing a small proportion of miners enforcing a taint, and profit-seeking miners going along with it because it's in their interests:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179612.msg2098123#msg2098123

[Edited for clarity]

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

, the end users could refuse to accept them as payment.

That's a hard fork.

It is important for people to know that you, as an end user, has VERY limited influence in what can happen. You want the block size to be 2 MB? You can't, you will end up in a hard fork.

[edmundedgar]

, the end users could refuse to accept them as payment.

That's a hard fork.

It is important for people to know that you, as an end user, has VERY limited influence in what can happen. You want the block size to be 2 MB? You can't, you will end up in a hard fork.

No, enforced at the user end it isn't a hard fork like the block size thing. In this case there's only one version of the blockchain which everyone agrees on, but when you try to buy your alpaca socks with a tainted coin the alpaca farmer refuses to accept your transaction as payment, so if you want your socks you'll have to use a different coin.

Here the blockchain is as it always was and miners will happily add tainted coins to the shared ledger, but the Bitcoins it records are no longer fungible: Some of the Bitcoins it shows on the ledger are worth less than others because they're harder to spend.

The countermeasure, as Tiernolan says on the post I linked, is lots and lots of mixing, so that if the alpaca farmer won't take this Bitcoin, he can't take any Bitcoin.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

It IS hard fork because you cannot choose to accept transactions or not in the current protocol.

You are going to end up with 2 versions of the blockchain: those who assumes all coins to an address are valid (current clients), and those who only assume coins to an address that has accepted it is valid. This is the very definition of a hard fork.

[edmundedgar]

It IS hard fork because you cannot choose to accept transactions or not in the current protocol.

Sure you can. I'm not talking about whether a miner would add it to a block, I'm talking about whether I'd accept it as payment for the socks you want to buy from me.  This is a private contract between you and me, and I can apply any conditions I like. For example, if I was very superstitious, I might refuse to take payment from an address with "13" in it.

You are going to end up with 2 versions of the blockchain: those who assumes all coins to an address are valid (current clients), and those who only assume coins to an address that has accepted it is valid. This is the very definition of a hard fork.

No, you just have one version of the blockchain, and the miners will include transactions in the blockchain without discriminination, but the user won't accept some transactions as payment.

[Wary]

Do you work for PayPal?

Do I sound like this? Shame on me But seriously, if you have trade, you have money disputes. Which disputes resolution scheme would you suggest? "Caveat emptor"?

[edmundedgar]

Do you work for PayPal?

Do I sound like this? Shame on me But seriously, if you have trade, you have money disputes. Which disputes resolution scheme would you suggest? "Caveat emptor"?

Caveat emptor is a good system in a lot of cases. In a lot other cases you're better with accountability systems that are separate from the payment mechanism. For example, when I bought a cup of coffee for 100 yen at MacDonalds then got it home and found it was full of coffee grounds, I took it back and they gave me a new cup. But if they hadn't I could have escalated by calling the MacDonalds consumer hotline, and if that failed the Consumer Protection Bureau. What I didn't do was ask the Bank of Japan to reverse the payment by cancelling my 100-yen coin.

If you do need to combine payment and dispute resolution, the Bitcoin way to do it would be to make an escrow transaction using multiple signatures, either the buyer and the seller (who both have to agree to release the funds) or the buyer, seller and a third-party (where two out of three can release the funds). This is better than relying on a dispute resolution service baked into the payment mechanism, because the buyer and seller get to choose the third-party.

BTW, the problem with making transactions reversible is discussed in the first paragraph of Satoshi's whitepaper. Reading that, separating out dispute resolution from payment looks like the main goal of Bitcoin:

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[Edited for clarity.]

[Wary]

tl;dr they don't need bitcoin, nor will they have any future use for it unless Vietnam magically becomes not corrupt

Now they can expand their business to US. More money. You don't need corrupted police if the ransom money is intractable. Imagine the headlines "Another bitcoin kidnapping! No American kid is safe anymore!"

[QuestionAuthority]

Do you work for PayPal?

Do I sound like this? Shame on me But seriously, if you have trade, you have money disputes. Which disputes resolution scheme would you suggest? "Caveat emptor"?

I suggest none. If I wanted safety and regulation I'd be using the US dollar. Bitcoin requires an education before use to guarantee your safety but it has benefits that are difficult to reproduce with fiat. I wouldn't give my 10 year old btc to go to the corner store to buy candy and I wouldn't want to use dollars to send money to someone in Germany in less time than it takes him to get his candy and for less money than a candy bar.

[AliceWonder]

We can't blacklist an address.
The problem with that, who is judge and jury?

Besides, if we did, you know the kidnappers wouldn't release the kidnapped until after it had been through several mixers.

[Wary]

For one, users do not decide on anything.

Things are not that bad. Just last month, BTC get new restriction on transactions. And it users that's decided to put it to force.

I'm referring to the "No dust" client version. It's users that decided to upgrade to it. If they would wanted the dust, the dust would stay. The same way we can upgrade to some "No dirty money" version.

BTW, the problem with making transactions reversible is discussed in the first paragraph of Satoshi's whitepaper.

Interesting reading. Thanks.

Which disputes resolution scheme would you suggest? "Caveat emptor"?

I suggest none.

That's exactly what "Caveat emptor" means. But I have to agree with you, edmundedgar and that Satoshi guy he mentioned

We can't blacklist an address.

Miners can. They don't have to include all transaction in the block, right? (That's why transaction fee was introduced, to give them an insentive).

The problem with that, who is judge and jury?

Ideally, the user. He decides which blacklist provider to use. Her choise should somehow be transferred to miners (say, through fees). I think, something like this can be done. Sure, this would require changes in protocol, but bitcoin is still in it's infancy and nobody knows how it would evolve in 5, 10 or 20 years. 

Besides, if we did, you know the kidnappers wouldn't release the kidnapped until after it had been through several mixers.

Won't help them if mixers keep the logs. See my original post.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

And it users that's decided to put it to force.

No, it's not. Ultimately the miners decided.

[AliceWonder]

Won't help them if mixers keep the logs. See my original post.

Mixers won't keep logs. That's the whole point of mixing.

Some may for a short period, but any criminal organization is more than capable of running their own mixers. They aren't that difficult to set up.

[Bitware]

There was a topic recently: "what can kill bitcoin", and one of suggested answers was "A kid kidnapped, ransom paid in bitcoins, track lost in a mixer". Such a news would attract huge media attention and can seriously damage BTC reputation. What if, god forbid, taking BTC for ransom becomes common among kidnappers? Can we prevent it from happening, i.e. keep track of these coins?

And more generally, is there a way to keep track of "dirty" coins, while still having "honest" coins anonymous? So that real criminals won't be able to use their ill-gotten money, while honest tax-avoiders will still be safe?

Can it be done by some technical means, like coloured coins? Or by some reputation means? Something like this: there is a blacklist of "dirty" addresses (in a server or embedder in the blockchain). If the payment came from a "dirty" address, the transaction will be rejected by miners and eventually rolled back. As for mixers, to prevent from being associated with dirty money (and eventually getting blacklisted by miners), they would want to keep log of transactions, with addresses! An average mixer customer, naturally, won't come to a "tax-friendly" mixer, that reports them to authorities. But he also won't go to "dirty" mixer. First, because he (most likely) don't approve criminals. And second, because he don't want to get blacklisted himself. So, the honest folk will still enjoy their anonymity, while the Earth be burning under criminals' feet.

Concern Tolls don't know common sense, critical thinking, nor history...

Humans have been bribing, ransoming, killing, converting stolen wealth, and every other 'evil' for thousands of years using the currency of the time... yak dung, tally sticks, fiat cash, silver, gold, etc.

[Wary]

Won't help them if mixers keep the logs. See my original post.

Mixers won't keep logs. That's the whole point of mixing.

Some may for a short period, but any criminal organization is more than capable of running their own mixers. They aren't that difficult to set up.

You still haven't read my original post. I respect your persistence   Mixers that don't keep logs, will get blacklisted, so all coins you put through them will become "untouchable" too. Provided majority of bitcoin users will really want it.

[Explodicle]

Won't help them if mixers keep the logs. See my original post.

Mixers won't keep logs. That's the whole point of mixing.

Some may for a short period, but any criminal organization is more than capable of running their own mixers. They aren't that difficult to set up.

You still haven't read my original post. I respect your persistence   Mixers that don't keep logs, will get blacklisted, so all coins you put through them will become "untouchable" too. Provided majority of bitcoin users will really want it.

How does anyone know which addresses correspond to coin mixers, and which mixers don't keep logs? There are a few we all know about, but probably some private mixers too. All it takes is one successful mix at any point in the future after the ransom has been paid.

How do you know your blacklist administrator hasn't been bribed by kidnappers or the NSA? Centralization = failure.

Why are we talking about hypotheticals? Right NOW there is a currency where the users unwillingly support the abduction and killing of innocent people. It pays for men with guns and predator drones to conquer whole countries and establish dictatorships. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Surely this bad PR would have destroyed it by now?

[giantdragon]

This may be good idea, but only if you will be happy with <0.01 BTC/USD price

[CasinoBit]

There was a topic recently: "what can kill bitcoin", and one of suggested answers was "A kid kidnapped, ransom paid in bitcoins, track lost in a mixer". Such a news would attract huge media attention and can seriously damage BTC reputation. What if, god forbid, taking BTC for ransom becomes common among kidnappers? Can we prevent it from happening, i.e. keep track of these coins?

And more generally, is there a way to keep track of "dirty" coins, while still having "honest" coins anonymous? So that real criminals won't be able to use their ill-gotten money, while honest tax-avoiders will still be safe?

Can it be done by some technical means, like coloured coins? Or by some reputation means? Something like this: there is a blacklist of "dirty" addresses (in a server or embedder in the blockchain). If the payment came from a "dirty" address, the transaction will be rejected by miners and eventually rolled back. As for mixers, to prevent from being associated with dirty money (and eventually getting blacklisted by miners), they would want to keep log of transactions, with addresses! An average mixer customer, naturally, won't come to a "tax-friendly" mixer, that reports them to authorities. But he also won't go to "dirty" mixer. First, because he (most likely) don't approve criminals. And second, because he don't want to get blacklisted himself. So, the honest folk will still enjoy their anonymity, while the Earth be burning under criminals' feet.

What if a kidnapper kidnaps a kid, demands gold as ransom and then pays someone to melt the gold into new bricks, will gold be banned forever?

As for your second question no, bitcoin will never become less efficient than what it CAN be so that dumb-ass humans will be able to behave less responsibly with their children, I just love it when people blame the bullets not the killer, blame the knife not the stabber, blame the drugs not the addict, blame alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, blame the Big Mac and not the person jamming it down his throat every day.

[BlackLilac Jordan]

Rather than blacklisting coins or anything along those lines I would prefer to see the major mixers (blockchain.info, inputs.co, etc) at some point develop a system to work with law enforcement and courts to prevent the mixing of coins that have been used in serious or violent crimes. Anonymity is a crucial aspect of Bitcoin but at some point there will have to be more co-operation between law enforcement and corporate Bitcoin services and exchanges.

Whatever the tor mixer is called (bitcoinfog?) that is used almost exclusively for the silk road will never comply, and competition will arrive that does not use any system like this. Some mixers could be created by criminals themselves fairly easily. However I believe that providing some system of regress or  tracking for coins used in crimes such as those theorized in this thread is likely, if not inevitable among Bitcoin businesses that wish to operated legally in most countries.

[firefop]

There was a topic recently: "what can kill bitcoin", and one of suggested answers was "A kid kidnapped, ransom paid in bitcoins, track lost in a mixer". Such a news would attract huge media attention and can seriously damage BTC reputation. What if, god forbid, taking BTC for ransom becomes common among kidnappers? Can we prevent it from happening, i.e. keep track of these coins?

And more generally, is there a way to keep track of "dirty" coins, while still having "honest" coins anonymous? So that real criminals won't be able to use their ill-gotten money, while honest tax-avoiders will still be safe?

Can it be done by some technical means, like coloured coins? Or by some reputation means? Something like this: there is a blacklist of "dirty" addresses (in a server or embedder in the blockchain). If the payment came from a "dirty" address, the transaction will be rejected by miners and eventually rolled back. As for mixers, to prevent from being associated with dirty money (and eventually getting blacklisted by miners), they would want to keep log of transactions, with addresses! An average mixer customer, naturally, won't come to a "tax-friendly" mixer, that reports them to authorities. But he also won't go to "dirty" mixer. First, because he (most likely) don't approve criminals. And second, because he don't want to get blacklisted himself. So, the honest folk will still enjoy their anonymity, while the Earth be burning under criminals' feet.

I will actually take the opposing stance. I believe that such an event as you've described would do wonders for bitcoin... everyone would hear about it and how it they got away with the money. Nobody who's serious about bitcoin becoming what we know it can become is interested in the direction you seem to want to take it. Honestly, I would love to have a mixing service built into the protocol so it wouldn't require any actual service at all.

[Wary]

How does anyone know which addresses correspond to coin mixers, and which mixers don't keep logs? There are a few we all know about, but probably some private mixers too. All it takes is one successful mix at any point in the future after the ransom has been paid.

Yes, we don't know who owns address. But we know the addressed. If some other coins went to the same address (that's how mix works, right?), too bad for them: they'll get dirty too (And drop in value, since dirty money will be accepted only for big premium, if at all). Therefore, an owner of clean coins won't want to mix them with dirty coins. When you sen you coins to a mixer, you'll use only a "clean" one - the one that can prove to you that it does keep logs. Criminals can open their own mixers too, but since no clean money will go there, they would just mix dirty coins with other dirty coins. It may help in court (deniability), but won't restore value to the coins.

Centralization = failure.

To a point only. There is a tradeoff, like with everything else. Why, for example, we have just one heart, rather than a dozen or a thousand of them?

Right NOW there is a currency where the users unwillingly support the abduction and killing of innocent people. It pays for men with guns and predator drones to conquer whole countries and establish dictatorships. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Surely this bad PR would have destroyed it by now?

Do you think average Joe (We are talking mainstream adoption, right?) would agree with your diatribe? Would he rather say: "Us killing them is not murder, but self-defence. Nothing to be ashamed of. While kidnappers and their tool - bitcoin can't be tolerated. We should potect our children.".

This may be good idea, but only if you will be happy with <0.01 BTC/USD price

Cheap coins! Good!

What if a kidnapper kidnaps a kid, demands gold as ransom and then pays someone to melt the gold into new bricks, will gold be banned forever?

Isnt's it already? When was the last time you've used a gold coin to pay for something? Or even a $500 bill? Gold is out, cash is next.

I just love it when people blame the bullets not the killer, blame the knife not the stabber, blame the drugs not the addict, blame alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, blame the Big Mac and not the person jamming it down his throat every day.

It's in human nature to put the blame wrongly. Are you saying that for bitcoin become mainstream, human nature have to change first?

Rather than blacklisting coins or anything along those lines I would prefer to see the major mixers (blockchain.info, inputs.co, etc) at some point develop a system to work with law enforcement and courts to prevent the mixing of coins that have been used in serious or violent crimes. Anonymity is a crucial aspect of Bitcoin but at some point there will have to be more co-operation between law enforcement and corporate Bitcoin services and exchanges.

Whatever the tor mixer is called (bitcoinfog?) that is used almost exclusively for the silk road will never comply

There is double pressure - from tax/drug autrorites, for complete transparency and from folks that want privacy, but don't want to help real criminals. Under these pressures bitcoim may eventually branch to 3 brands: whitecoin (tax-friendly), graycoin(drug-friendly), and blackcoin(thug-friendly).  

[Wary]

Nobody who's serious about bitcoin becoming what we know it can become is interested in the direction you seem to want to take it. Honestly, I would love to have a mixing service built into the protocol so it wouldn't require any actual service at all.

  I don't want to take it in one particular direction. Centralisation is evil I've suggested 3 possible paths: (tax/drug/thug)-coin. Maybe I should set a vote, to see what would people here prefer.

[FreeMoney]

Governments used to issue currency until it was used for kidnapping ransoms and other bad stuff.

[Rampion]

This same discussion is regularly brought up by some newbie who doesn't know/care about using the search function.

You simply do not ban cash because the bad guys like it. Nobody thinks about banning the USD because is the official black market currency. If the masses are so stupid to not understand that, maybe the world is not ready for monetary freedom.

[AliceWonder]

Won't help them if mixers keep the logs. See my original post.

Mixers won't keep logs. That's the whole point of mixing.

Some may for a short period, but any criminal organization is more than capable of running their own mixers. They aren't that difficult to set up.

You still haven't read my original post. I respect your persistence   Mixers that don't keep logs, will get blacklisted, so all coins you put through them will become "untouchable" too. Provided majority of bitcoin users will really want it.

How do you blacklist a mixer? Seriously?
They usually don't re-use addresses. It's not possible.

[Snail2]

Always the first tradeoff is the hardest. The second and third will be more and more easier and the twentieth will be almost natural... 
Because of these FUDers sooner or later we will see that Bitcoin source will be owned by Microsoft and the Federal Reserve will have the "mining rights"...

[AliceWonder]

Always the first tradeoff is the hardest. The second and third will be more and more easier and the twentieth will be almost natural... 
Because of these FUDers sooner or later we will see that Bitcoin source will be owned by Microsoft and the Federal Reserve will have the "mining rights"...

It's FOSS - it can't be "owned" like that.

[Snail2]

Well yes and no . Just remember what happened with OpenSolaris.

BTW try to imagine a scenario when in a future release of Windows/OSx/Commercial Linux distros (like Redhat) you will find an embedded bitcoin client. Nothing fancy just a simple client with little almost negligible modifications like a hard coded payment proxy/bridge to the bitcoin network, then after a patch the proxy will be changed to to a payment gateway (as MS-BTC has been hard forked in the background). Updates coming and going and at some point there are no more gateway as the two networks are separated. Certainly you can "bleach" your evil bitcoins to honest bitcoins for a small fee. As thanks to MS/Apple/etc the newbitcoin industry is grooving fast and people asking more more security functions... Finally we will have a secure, regulated, closed source bitcoin network with tens or hundreds of millions of users and a small "wild bitcoin" network, stuffed with nerds, gangsters and FBI agents .

[AliceWonder]

Well yes and no . Just remember what happened with OpenSolaris.

BTW try to imagine a scenario when in a future release of Windows/OSx/Commercial Linux distros (like Redhat) you will find an embedded bitcoin client. Nothing fancy just a simple client with little almost negligible modifications like a hard coded payment proxy/bridge to the bitcoin network, then after a patch the proxy will be changed to to a payment gateway (as MS-BTC has been hard forked in the background). Updates coming and going and at some point there are no more gateway as the two networks are separated. Certainly you can "bleach" your evil bitcoins to honest bitcoins for a small fee. As thanks to MS/Apple/etc the newbitcoin industry is grooving fast and people asking more more security functions... Finally we will have a secure, regulated, closed source bitcoin network with tens or hundreds of millions of users and a small "wild bitcoin" network, stuffed with nerds, gangsters and FBI agents .

I can't speak for Windows or OS X but I do not see either including a bitcoin client.

With respect to Redhat - Fedora is the distribution that most people use, not RHEL (or it's free CentOS clone).
Packages in Fedora are submitted by the user community and most of them maintained by the user community.
This is done is an open fashion with a public record of who makes what changes.

The source RPM is available and pristine upstream source is very important.
Any patches are applied at build time in the RPM spec file, and thus listed in the RPM spec file, making it easy to see and read what patches are applied.

Sneakery like changing a payment proxy in an update patch would be suicide for the fedora project.

I mean no offense but I get the impression you don't have a lot of experience with how these open source projects work. Many of the people heavily involved in Fedora and Debian are very hard line when it comes to pristince source with any patches both scrutinized and justified with attempts to get the patch upstream whenever possible.

Look what happened to Ubuntu when they tried to shove amazon adware on their users - it was quickly exposed a bunch left for Mint, and those that stayed, many of them disabled Unity and the adware crap.

The whole point of open source software is many eyes, and those many eyes are there.

I've not packaged for Fedora recently but when I did, not only did the source tarball have to match upstream checksum but even the timestamp had to match - or the package wouldn't be approved. They are very serious about keeping as pristine as possible and only using patches when absolutely necessary (security or bug fixes)

[AliceWonder]

Oh - and here's what happened with OpenSolaris:

Prior to Oracle's moving of core development "behind closed doors", a group of former OpenSolaris developers decided to "fork" the core software under the name OpenIndiana. The project, a part of the Illumos Foundation, aims to continue the development and distribution of the OpenSolaris codebase.

(wikipedia)

There's not a damn thing Oracle can do about it either.

[Explodicle]

How does anyone know which addresses correspond to coin mixers, and which mixers don't keep logs? There are a few we all know about, but probably some private mixers too. All it takes is one successful mix at any point in the future after the ransom has been paid.

Yes, we don't know who owns address. But we know the addressed. If some other coins went to the same address (that's how mix works, right?)

No, they create a new address for each customer. They will always be one step ahead of the blacklisting authorities.

Centralization = failure.

To a point only. There is a tradeoff, like with everything else. Why, for example, we have just one heart, rather than a dozen or a thousand of them?

We have billions and billions of hearts! At least as far as p2p software is concerned, 100% decentralization seems to be working well.

Right NOW there is a currency where the users unwillingly support the abduction and killing of innocent people. It pays for men with guns and predator drones to conquer whole countries and establish dictatorships. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Surely this bad PR would have destroyed it by now?

Do you think average Joe (We are talking mainstream adoption, right?) would agree with your diatribe? Would he rather say: "Us killing them is not murder, but self-defence. Nothing to be ashamed of. While kidnappers and their tool - bitcoin can't be tolerated. We should potect our children."

I'm not willing to sell out what I believe in just to get rich quick. And that's assuming a blacklist would work, would result in greater adoption, and would stop short of becoming USD 2.0. Personally I only found out about Bitcoin when I found myself unable to donate to Wikileaks because of a blacklist.