Yifu now working with "famed banking family" to help government track addresses

[phillipsjk]

A black-list Black-list still hurts fungibility, which will destroy the currency. A black list may do more damage than a successful 51% attack.

Miners can play a role in this as Bitcoin users, but also by supporting mining pools and methods that promote privacy.  They want to force people to use identified addresses so they can blacklist?  What happens when miners start deprioritizing transactions that use addresses that have been previously seen?

I like this idea. Would require a lot of user education so they can understand why their transactions are not confirming. Would make asking for donations harder, but maybe that is a good thing.

Edit: "Why is funding my brain-wallet taking so long?"
"Because your passphrase is not as unique as you think it is."

[1715654439]

1715654439

[1715654439]

1715654439

[Carlton Banks]

A black-list Black-list still hurts fungibility, which will destroy the currency. A black list may do more damage than a successful 51% attack.

Not if miners value their security, privacy and fungibility too. The idea is to discourage people from using "green" or "white" lists, as they won't be able to spend the money from their supposedly clean address. Make clean dirty.

Miners can play a role in this as Bitcoin users, but also by supporting mining pools and methods that promote privacy.  They want to force people to use identified addresses so they can blacklist?  What happens when miners start deprioritizing transactions that use addresses that have been previously seen?

I like this idea. Would require a lot of user education so they can understand why their transactions are not confirming. Would make asking for donations harder, but maybe that is a good thing.

Well, this is just a form of psuedo-blacklisting; making it difficult for the green/white addresses that get used to process their transactions, instead of outright impossible.

[phillipsjk]

Deprioritizing transactions attached to "seen" addresses is easy to work-around though: simply don't re-use addresses.

With rainbow lists, moving the coins does not remove taint. That means that somebody accepting coins has to worry about if they are on a competing list or not. This makes the coins harder to trade, and hurts Bitcoin's value.

[Carlton Banks]

Deprioritizing transactions attached to "seen" addresses is easy to work-around though: simply don't re-use addresses.

With rainbow lists, moving the coins does not remove taint. That means that somebody accepting coins has to worry about if they are on a competing list or not. This makes the coins harder to trade, and hurts Bitcoin's value.

Yep. But we need to discourage people from registering clean addresses to begin with, by making any inputs from clean addresses unspendable. Clean becomes dirty.

[phillipsjk]

You have been repeating this all day. Please stop and think about it.

[Carlton Banks]

You have been repeating this all day. Please stop and think about it.

It's the only actual way to stop it. If you know a reason why it wouldn't work, then share it.

[phillipsjk]

I don't know how to put it any more simply: A black-list is bad; no matter the intention.

[Carlton Banks]

I can think of reasons against if you don't want to discuss it.

People can petition miners (or bribe them) to blacklist someone they plain dislike. It becomes a political tool, basically, which makes it pretty powerful. However, I would argue that using transaction exclusion blacklisting against this proposed transcation acceptance whitelist is the lesser of the two evils; more people will lose out more if the CoinValidation scheme is allowed to operate as it is intended.

Anyone else interested in open debate?

[Flying Hellfish]

Y I F U already fucked a good percentage of the mining community, he might as well fuck everyone now too I guess...  JFC what a stupid idea.

[gmaxwell]

Blacklist the greenlist. I cannot repeat this enough. Do not accept money from them, or send money to them. Do not process their transactions if you mine directly.

How about more meta than that:  Whitelisting schemes require you to constantly use whitelisted addresses.  Blacklisting schemes are more powerful when the blacklisted parties use constant addresses.

So there is a behavioral difference in transactions which are compatible with a white/black listing broken fungiblity universe: They constantly reuse addresses.  Reuse is already a long term known-bad for privacy thing— so why not depriortize transactions which reuse addresses?

You want the fastest confirmations? Transact in a way which is not compatible with white/black listing.

And its already a reality: Eligius (15% network hashpower) is now experimentally limiting reuse to once per block.

[cdog]

Yifu you are such a douchebag for doing this its almost inconceivable

How do we let such people come to such a level of influence in the Bitcoin world? We can sadly only blame ourselves...

[Carlton Banks]

why not depriortize transactions which reuse addresses?

You want the fastest confirmations? Transact in a way which is not compatible with white/black listing.

And its already a reality: Eligius (15% network hashpower) is now experimentally limiting reuse to once per block.

I'm assuming Luke is using a hand-made mining client, but if not, how can we all institute these sorts of changes to mining nodes? I would add de-prioritising of re-used addressed to my p2pool node in an instant if it were just a few config parameters. If not, could LukeJr release or merge his mining client tweak?

[mgio]

Wow, what an asshole.

Of course, I had already figured that out when I received my Avalon miner 2 months late and noticed it still had the settings for the pools that Yifu was using to mine with it while it was "delayed".

What a sleazy business. I think a lot of people will never buy from Avalon or him again. He's lost a lot of respect in the Bitcoin community and I don't see how anyone will go for his crazy ideas.

In the meantime, we should start using zero coin.

[shackleford]

Bounty for a Bill Gates style pie to the face?

[Cephas]

Wow, what an asshole.

Of course, I had already figured that out when I received my Avalon miner 2 months late and noticed it still had the settings for the pools that Yifu was using to mine with it while it was "delayed".

What a sleazy business. I think a lot of people will never buy from Avalon or him again. He's lost a lot of respect in the Bitcoin community and I don't see how anyone will go for his crazy ideas.

In the meantime, we should start using zero coin.

My thoughts exactly. I feel like he stole money from my children.

[iCEBREAKER]

We're not going to be able to prevent well funded business people from attempting to promote horrific architectures against the long term interest of Bitcoin and the public
... if we could, the same stupidity would have been prevented in the wider world and there would be less need for Bitcoin.

It's hard to count the number of times newbies have made proposals which would have centralized Bitcoin completely in the name of some fool result or another. Powerful businesses interests are now reliving the same history of bad ideas, but this time the bad ideas will be funded and they don't care if luminaries tell them that they're horrible ideas, they don't necessarily care about any of the principles that make Bitcoin a worthwhile contribution to the world.

It's not, of course, a question or "anonymity": thats silly. If you have "good" and "bad" coins, that destroys fungibility, rapidly everyone must screen coins they accept or risk being left holding the bag. Fungiblity is an essential property of a money like good and without it the money cannot remove transactional friction.  Privacy is also essential for fair markets: Without privacy your counter-parties and competition can see into your finances— get a raise and get a rent hike, and as long as there are power imbalances between people privacy is essential for human dignity.

To stop this nonsense we have to make it impractical to pull off by changing the default behavior in the Bitcoin ecosystem:
We consider the lack of a central authority to be an essential virtue, which means that we can't be protected by one either. We must protect ourselves. This means things like avoiding address reuse, avoiding centralized infrastructure, adopting— and funding!— privacy enhancing technology.

Miners can play a role in this as Bitcoin users, but also by supporting mining pools and methods that promote privacy.  They want to force people to use identified addresses so they can blacklist?  What happens when miners start deprioritizing transactions that use addresses that have been previously seen?

But what if some people really, really want to make everyone else also believe their preferred horrific architecture of the month is truly Bitcoin, even though they can't explain why?