Seizing BTC wallet holders? Governments should be afraid to do it

[Rassah]

Of course you're right, but still such a situation wouldn't be something to look forward to.

Yes, you're right, it would not be a good idea. I hope that by the time something like this happens, Bitcoin would be at, or close to, a point that any country doing something like this would essentially result in that country putting sanctions on itself, and blocking other countries from doing business with it.

[wiggi]

Likely, what you have to consider though is in the instance of pot prohibition it doesn't only affect marijuana as a drug but also it's usage as medicine, industrial hemp and using it as a food crop.
A Bitcoin prohibition would have similar deteriorating effects.

I think an outright ban is not very probable, more something like a nasty poison dart.

For example, the government could require that all *merchants* process incoming payments only
through *licensed facilities* i.e. banks with infrastructure to
recognize and block certain blacklisted coins of criminal origin.
And use undercover cops to enforce it.

Regular persons would then be told by mass media to use the same facilities for
storage of their coins and for incoming transactions. This way everyone will be "protected" from "illegal bitcoins".

[Rassah]

^^^ And this is why we need built-in mixing, anonymizing, or Zerocoin.

[Carlton Banks]

Brain wallet seeds are unencrypted information, and so are the private keys you generate from them, so your first point does not apply.

No, password to your truecrypt container is also unencrypted information, and that is what the law require you to give up.

Government doesn't need to decrypt/steal your bitcoins in order to stop you from using them.  They just take your computers and little slips of paper, now your bitcoins are "gone".

I think you two are struggling with the brainwallet concept. No truecrypt container, no computer, no paper. It's a mnemonic for seeding a valid private key that you remember using your brain

[Carlton Banks]

^^^ And this is why we need built-in mixing, anonymizing, or Zerocoin.

The Proof of Execution off-chain mixing ideas sound like the more powerful (and perhaps more resource-realistic) solution to this problem. Early days with that, of what I can understand of it.

[TheKoziTwo]

Brain wallet seeds are unencrypted information, and so are the private keys you generate from them, so your first point does not apply.

No, password to your truecrypt container is also unencrypted information, and that is what the law require you to give up.

Government doesn't need to decrypt/steal your bitcoins in order to stop you from using them.  They just take your computers and little slips of paper, now your bitcoins are "gone".

I think you two are struggling with the brainwallet concept. No truecrypt container, no computer, no paper. It's a mnemonic for seeding a valid private key that you remember using your brain

They private key is the encrypted information they want, you have the key, give it up or go to jail. Even if the law won't allow this atm, it's a small technical change and it's all the same.

[Rassah]

They private key is the encrypted information they want, you have the key, give it up or go to jail. Even if the law won't allow this atm, it's a small technical change and it's all the same.

Wouldn't they have to prove that you still have access to the keys? And wouldn't it be fairly easy to devise new techniques to keep anyone from finding out exactly how many coins you have? Plus you could do some really crazy things with multi-sig. Like lock your coins from being spent for a time, or even set it up so that even if they get your password, they can't do anything with your coins without catching or finding someone else.

[Carlton Banks]

Brain wallet seeds are unencrypted information, and so are the private keys you generate from them, so your first point does not apply.

No, password to your truecrypt container is also unencrypted information, and that is what the law require you to give up.

Government doesn't need to decrypt/steal your bitcoins in order to stop you from using them.  They just take your computers and little slips of paper, now your bitcoins are "gone".

I think you two are struggling with the brainwallet concept. No truecrypt container, no computer, no paper. It's a mnemonic for seeding a valid private key that you remember using your brain

They private key is the encrypted information they want, you have the key, give it up or go to jail. Even if the law won't allow this atm, it's a small technical change and it's all the same.

[TheKoziTwo]

Carlton Banks: Again, a technicality. The private keys are generated from your password, the law don't care if private keys are unencrypted, the password is key to protected information and that is where the law applies.

They private key is the encrypted information they want, you have the key, give it up or go to jail. Even if the law won't allow this atm, it's a small technical change and it's all the same.

Wouldn't they have to prove that you still have access to the keys? And wouldn't it be fairly easy to devise new techniques to keep anyone from finding out exactly how many coins you have? Plus you could do some really crazy things with multi-sig. Like lock your coins from being spent for a time, or even set it up so that even if they get your password, they can't do anything with your coins without catching or finding someone else.

You're guilty until you can prove otherwise. How can you prove without shadow of doubt that you don't have the keys in your brain?

http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/encryption-becomes-illegal-in-the-uk-jail-time-for-failure-to-provide-keys/

The multi-sig concept is great, but if I understand this law correctly it won't matter. If they believe you got the full key you will have to disprove them. Ofc you can't do that.

[johnyj]

http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/encryption-becomes-illegal-in-the-uk-jail-time-for-failure-to-provide-keys/

The multi-sig concept is great, but if I understand this law correctly it won't matter. If they believe you got the full key you will have to disprove them. Ofc you can't do that.

This law is funny, a police officer could essentially send anyone including president, congressman and bankers into jail using this law, suddenly all the power went to the police officer! 

[Carlton Banks]

Carlton Banks: Again, a technicality. The private keys are generated from your password, the law don't care if private keys are unencrypted, the password is key to protected information and that is where the law applies.

There is no password, there is no encryption. Sheesh.

[Rassah]

You're guilty until you can prove otherwise. How can you prove without shadow of doubt that you don't have the keys in your brain?

My point is from the other direction. Wouldn't they have to show some proof or evidence that you have anything to begin with? Otherwise they'd have to go start arresting anyone and everyone on suspicion that they might have something in their head.

[TheKoziTwo]

Carlton Banks: Again, a technicality. The private keys are generated from your password, the law don't care if private keys are unencrypted, the password is key to protected information and that is where the law applies.

There is no password, there is no encryption. Sheesh.

The private key is information that can be reconstructed by your password stored in your brain. That would classify as protected information and likely fall under this specific law that we are discussing.

[TheKoziTwo]

You're guilty until you can prove otherwise. How can you prove without shadow of doubt that you don't have the keys in your brain?

My point is from the other direction. Wouldn't they have to show some proof or evidence that you have anything to begin with?

Well if we take a look at the law in question:
For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—
(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not being a lawyer, it sounds to me like the burden of proof is on you.

Otherwise they'd have to go start arresting anyone and everyone on suspicion that they might have something in their head.

Well that is probably the idea. The government loves it that way, total power over you.

[Carlton Banks]

Carlton Banks: Again, a technicality. The private keys are generated from your password, the law don't care if private keys are unencrypted, the password is key to protected information and that is where the law applies.

There is no password, there is no encryption. Sheesh.

The private key is information that can be reconstructed by your password stored in your brain. That would classify as protected information and likely fall under this specific law that we are discussing.

So even though you understand the concept, you still use the wrong language to describe it? Strange behaviour.

[TheKoziTwo]

Yes sorry about that, should have said "hash" instead of "encryption".

[b!z]

They can extract the data from your brain.

[Carlton Banks]

They can extract the data from your brain.

If by "they" you mean the voices in your head, then very well.

[optimator]

Brain wallet holders will render it useless.

I'd suggest the opposite. It's already been demonstrated, by theft of bitcoin, that people cannot pick random passphrases, but rather rely on phrases from movies, books, etc.

Additionally, the password crackers are becoming more sophisticated, cracking up to 55 character passwords(http://www.zdnet.com/password-breaker-successfully-tackles-55-character-sequences-7000019891/) based on extensive word / phrase lists.

Truecrypt with plausible deniability. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/plausible-deniability.

[Open4lies]

They can extract the data from your brain.

If by "they" you mean the voices in your head, then very well.

Hint: torture