2013-11-13 Forbes: Sanitizing Bitcoin: Company Wants To Track 'Clean' Bitcoins

[notthematrix]

Why couldn't this be a simple opt in or opt out?

What's going to happen is that every Bitcoin-accepting business in US jurisdiction is going to be told that they participate and enforce this database, or else they'll be prosecuted for violating money transmitter laws.

Yep, no doubt about it - clear as daylight. It's either this, or preventing this vile scheme from ever getting off the ground with a massive shout down and boycott. The choice is yours, Bitcoin community.

E-mail your favorite Bitcoin business(es) if you must. Let them know that if they as much as think about participating, your business goes elsewhere.

And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC. You know you can afford it. It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet

Move buisness outside the US , who needs the Us.....
But Darkwallet ,coinjoin , will kill this database , dont fear it....

[1714002882]

1714002882

[1714002882]

1714002882

[1714002882]

1714002882

[BCB]

All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.

Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party?

Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act (31 CFR 103.110) addresses this...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title31-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title31-vol1-sec103-110.xml

 a financial institution or an association of financial institutions may, under the protection of the safe harbor from liability described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, transmit, receive, or otherwise share information with any other financial institution or association of financial institutions regarding individuals, entities, organizations, and countries for purposes of identifying and, where appropriate, reporting activities that the financial institution or association suspects may involve possible terrorist activity or money laundering

[BCB]

All businesses using this spynet will not reveal it publicly if they don’t want to be boycotted.

Not a lawyer or anything, but wouldn't the business have to disclose that they are sharing your information to a third party?

Not if they are located in the USSA.

Actually to FinCEN:

A financial institution or association of financial institutions that intends to share information...shall submit to FinCEN a notice described in Appendix A and shall be effective for the one year.

But not to the users

[justusranvier]

Actually to FinCEN:

A financial institution or association of financial institutions that intends to share information...shall submit to FinCEN a notice described in Appendix A and shall be effective for the one year.

But not to the users

Which is why this tracking is going to happen, one way or another.

Public outcry is merely going to cause them to do it with no public announcement.

[User705]

The solution is counterintuitive.  It means less business with centralized entities like exchanges and big businesses but that of course means a lower valuation which the holders both large and small don't want.  At least these "solutions" are less idiotic then just an outright ban which gives bitcoin more time to grow to hopefully a point of no return when it's too big to control.

[BCB]

And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC.  It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet

Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.

circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com

[Arvicco]

Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.

circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com

Does it really matter if creeping regulation entraps "legitimate business", forces them to spy and snitch on their customers, and everyone loses their financial freedom?

[giszmo]

I like this discussion and the general concent of the community. It is important and it is important that it happens now.

People will do taint analysis. They always did. This awareness helps to get ideas like ZeroCoin and other anonymity features into the protocol.

I have much hope to see off-chain-transactions make transaction analysis way more inefficient but lets see what solutions we can come up with. Glad we agree there is a problem.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I like this discussion and the general concent of the community. It is important and it is important that it happens now.

People will do taint analysis. They always did. This awareness helps to get ideas like ZeroCoin and other anonymity features into the protocol.

I have much hope to see off-chain-transactions make transaction analysis way more inefficient but lets see what solutions we can come up with. Glad we agree there is a problem.

We are close ... just wait and see.

[xDan]

And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC.  It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet

Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.

circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com

DarkWallet really isn't struggling though.... over half of their goal with still 30 days to go? That's spectacular!

[LiteCoinGuy]

And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC.  It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet

Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.

circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com

this guy who started the campaign has thousands of bitcoins. he can make this with his own cash.

[Carlton Banks]

Somehting else that has occurred to me.

This is inviting issues with security of funds stored at all green addresses. Fundamental problem.

The more frequently an address is used, the easier it is for an attacker to compute valid signatures to sign transactions made from that address (knowing the private key is not required). This is one of the reasons it is discouraged to re-use addresses. The more valid signatures in the blockchain that exist made from a single address, the more information the attacker has to work with.

This scheme needs to be drowned at birth. Hopefully we can arrange for Yifu's mother to conduct a post-natal abortion, too.

[PrintMule]

And seriously, go to DarkWallet campaign and send them 0.1 BTC.  It's a damn shame the project that intends to preserve financial liberties of Bitcoin community is struggling to raise 50K USD to fund the development: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet

Interesting point Arvicco yet the legitimate business raise millions of dollars.

circle.com
coinbase.com
bitpay.com
itbit.com

this guy who started the campaign has thousands of bitcoins. he can make this with his own cash.

Why not earn something in the process. If you are rich, does it mean you should work for free further on?

On topic - this general notion of controlling and sanitizing bitcoin can actually work as a side thing. Let's say we have a separate government controlled system, where they issue flagged wallets. You can transfer money in and out of these wallets, and you can pay your taxes or bills (things you actually want to be seen by goverment, so you can later be subjected to tax redux, etc). Less fiat going around is a good thing in the end. Also less converting money into fiat and vice versa.

If you are employed by state or a reputable firm - it's a way to enable those bodies to pay you without fiat (again less converting).

[Carlton Banks]

On topic - this general notion of controlling and sanitizing bitcoin can actually work as a side thing. Let's say we have a separate government controlled system, where they issue flagged wallets. You can transfer money in and out of these wallets, and you can pay your taxes or bills (things you actually want to be seen by goverment, so you can later be subjected to tax redux, etc). Less fiat going around is a good thing in the end. Also less converting money into fiat and vice versa.

If you are employed by state or a reputable firm - it's a way to enable those bodies to pay you without fiat (again less converting).

And what if that doesn't happen? Then where will we all be, having accepted this great advice of yours? Stuck with a form of money that WILL drop in exchange rate. Because fiat cash will be the far superior privacy and fungibility combination.

[TraderTimm]

The fundamental fact is if you treat a SINGLE coin differently on the network, you're interfering with the underlying tenet of freedom that Bitcoin provides.

All bitcoins must be treated EQUALLY or they are no longer fungible. Of course, an empty-suit MBA has backstabbed us, what a surprise.

[freedomno1]

Cross extension
Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.msg3581480#msg3581480