BOYCOTT all businesses associated to Alex Waters, Matt Mellon, and Yifu Guo!

[mikegogulski]

Privacy should exist everywhere but there should be a balance. A way to follow the money trail must exist to prevent institutional corruption. For this reason we cannot have secrecy in financial transactions. We can have privacy though.

It's gotta be fun being able to think two entirely contradictory thoughts at once.

Governments are institutional corruption. Corruption is their reason for existence, and the fuel they run on, when they're not busy chewing up and destroying human beings.

[1714300765]

1714300765

[1714300765]

1714300765

[1714300765]

1714300765

[Walter Rothbard]

Privacy should exist everywhere but there should be a balance. A way to follow the money trail must exist to prevent institutional corruption. For this reason we cannot have secrecy in financial transactions.

I don't consent, though.  If you are from the U.S., do you really believe in that document that says governments "[derive] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"?  Because I don't consent to this.

But I want to know if a politician or police officer is being bribed because democracy depends on it. A free society depends on transparency.

I have no wish to participate in your democracy.  I have no problem with you imposing whatever requirements for participation that you wish.  I have no desire to be a politician or to be ruled by one, and I have no interest in having my financial freedom infringed simply to prop up your failed idea (democracy).

[yayayo]

Nope , i'm not going to quote this.

Your last paragraph just kills your initiative.The usage of such language is just inappropriate and it will turn into a double edge sword.. There are lots of people who although might be angry at Yifu&Company , when reading that will say "Fuck You" not "Fuck Yifu"

I was quoting another guy from reddit. However I don't even think that insulting the collaborators of the CoInvalidation project would kill my initiative since they exhibit a total lack of moral standards.



Added some information on Yifu.

Feel free to point me to additional information.


ya.ya.yo!

[Zooey]

[anti-scam]

Privacy should exist everywhere but there should be a balance. A way to follow the money trail must exist to prevent institutional corruption. For this reason we cannot have secrecy in financial transactions. We can have privacy though. I don't think everyone needs to know what books everyone else is buying.

But I want to know if a politician or police officer is being bribed because democracy depends on it. A free society depends on transparency.

Get an undercover officer to attempt the bribe the police officer or politician in question. Do you really think it's impossible to solve these problems without throwing privacy under the bus?

[klee]

So is Hearn a 'bitch'?

[TheButterZone]

Privacy should exist everywhere but there should be a balance. A way to follow the money trail must exist to prevent institutional corruption. For this reason we cannot have secrecy in financial transactions. We can have privacy though. I don't think everyone needs to know what books everyone else is buying.

But I want to know if a politician or police officer is being bribed because democracy depends on it. A free society depends on transparency.

Get an undercover officer to attempt the bribe the police officer or politician in question. Do you really think it's impossible to solve these problems without throwing privacy under the bus?

Wolves practically never eat their own. Doesn't matter how private (or not) institutional corruption is.

[Sheldor333]

Yeah this is like allowing three man to create a Central Bank all over again. Are people that stupid?

[URSAY]

Yeah this is like allowing three man to create a Central Bank all over again. Are people that stupid?

The blockchain is public.  You have access to the same info they do.  They are shady because they make more use of data then you?  Confused.   

[whtchocla7e]

The ledger is available to the public. And the public may do anything they wish with this information. If they want to spend their resources on something this stupid, who cares? Let them. It's not like they're doing something illegal anyway. Transparency is one of the foundations of Bitcoin.

[Kungfucheez]

Wow that's crazy!!

I think I'm going to support their business, just because.

[aceking]

Wow that's crazy!!

I think I'm going to support their business, just because.

their business will destroy bitcoin , you don't need to be a genius to understand it.

[bee7]

Just curious, how will this idea look like when this happens: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/01/16/the-feds-are-ready-to-sell-the-silk-road-bitcoin-kind-of/
 

[NewLiberty]

I really hope that Bitcoin gore dev team stays against about privacy violations or if not I hope all miners reject all plans supporting this kind of development lines possibly planned for.

This is not a change to the Bitcoin Protocol, miners (or just people running fully-validating wallet and relay nodes) cannot affect this move. Although some kind of protocol integration will no doubt be proposed by someone or other.

People can choose which version they run / install and in the worst case Bitcoin will be forged / split in two versions. Privacy violating and altered new which sure will arise. However, it could be also end of bitcoin. I hope this craziness will be taken seriously and whole community will stand against this kind of changes. Im not sure where the biggest pools are located, they will have the power to choose.

But that's not what this is. In some ways, this is worse than a client/blockchain fork. At least the differing market price for Bitcoin and TaintCoin would help to settle the fight. Any Bitcoin based business would then have to choose which of the coins to support, and watch how much custom they receive from each if they choose both.

This CoinValidation group is the beginnings of a way to gradually force customers to disclose their identities, not via the protocol, but by good old fashioned legislation.

This would be weird.

One could own two companies, one that accepts only tainted coins and one that accepts only untainted.
The two companies could trade with each other to do inventory management, using off-block-chain settlement (such as fiat, gold, ledger entries, whatever).
The burden would be an additional company registration and some overhead, but why not address both markets?

And.

Should we expect a company to arise that automates this dual-company approach?  Might it be owned by one of these coin-tainters?

[illpoet]

never use the same public key twice.

[Carlton Banks]

I really hope that Bitcoin gore dev team stays against about privacy violations or if not I hope all miners reject all plans supporting this kind of development lines possibly planned for.

This is not a change to the Bitcoin Protocol, miners (or just people running fully-validating wallet and relay nodes) cannot affect this move. Although some kind of protocol integration will no doubt be proposed by someone or other.

People can choose which version they run / install and in the worst case Bitcoin will be forged / split in two versions. Privacy violating and altered new which sure will arise. However, it could be also end of bitcoin. I hope this craziness will be taken seriously and whole community will stand against this kind of changes. Im not sure where the biggest pools are located, they will have the power to choose.

But that's not what this is. In some ways, this is worse than a client/blockchain fork. At least the differing market price for Bitcoin and TaintCoin would help to settle the fight. Any Bitcoin based business would then have to choose which of the coins to support, and watch how much custom they receive from each if they choose both.

This CoinValidation group is the beginnings of a way to gradually force customers to disclose their identities, not via the protocol, but by good old fashioned legislation.

This would be weird.

One could own two companies, one that accepts only tainted coins and one that accepts only untainted.
The two companies could trade with each other to do inventory management, using off-block-chain settlement (such as fiat, gold, ledger entries, whatever).
The burden would be an additional company registration and some overhead, but why not address both markets?

And.

Should we expect a company to arise that automates this dual-company approach?  Might it be owned by one of these coin-tainters?

The Coin Validation concept is getting into the territory of a non-issue.

• CoinJoin designs and implementations are now here
• Stealth addresses are now on the table
• Miners will likely discourage or prevent address re-use once there is no need to for re-use (HD wallets and Stealth addresses cover all bases AFAIA)

And there's still no sign of Coin Validation. At least now we know the angle of the individuals who led the effort, and I expect most bitcoin users will be avoiding giving them their custom like the plague. Avalon's slow sales are early evidence of this (as well as stopping direct customer sales to sidestep the fallout they created, very subtle Yifu!).