CoinValidation , will it work? The way to "sanitize" bitcoin !

[niothor]

I need to update this:

I DON'T SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO!
It's just a topic where you can debate if it viable , or if it's gonna be embraced.
Hold your carrots!


It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0

Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.

I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this  paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full “know your customer” compliance suite. "

From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.

So , Walmart is announcing:
 "We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"

Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,

1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.

2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins ,  from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"

The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"

And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

You really believe that? You really believe the idea is for it to remain truly voluntary?

Why would any business even bother requesting only white-listed addresses, if it wasn't due to coercive regulations?

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

Yes. It seems you still trust governments.

[niothor]

People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

You really believe that? You really believe the idea is for it to remain truly voluntary?

Why would any business even bother requesting only white-listed addresses, if it wasn't due to coercive regulations?

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

Yes. It seems you still trust governments.

I was ironic but that's not the point.
The thing is that they CAN'T force you to enroll.

You go and buy from people not in the program spend your bitcoin on dice or porn or drugs and they can't do anything.
And nobody said that you can't have a trusted address and an untrusted one at the same time.

Also , i live in a country in which trusting my government means you're mentally ill.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Also , i live in a country in which trusting my government means you're mentally ill.

Is there a country where it doesn't? (rhetorical question)

[niothor]

Also , i live in a country in which trusting my government means you're mentally ill.

Is there a country where it doesn't? (rhetorical question)

There are orders of magnitude , like stupid , moron , insane...
I think we have the most corrupt and plain stupid government in the whole EU. They just steal like a petty thief everything they can put their hands on.
It's come to a point when it's disgusting to read the news.

[crazy_rabbit]

I kind of see their point, and what they are trying to do. To be fair, their sales pitch will probably go a long way towards making bitcoin acceptable in the big-brothers perspective, and thus, us much more rich.

That said however, there will still be far too many addresses out there in the world. And many countries where to spend your bitcoin, and many jurisdictions. Just like Switzerland treats their finance different from the US, so will it be with Bitcoin.

I think we have to wait and see what they are really talking about to get a better idea of what they are trying to do. However you have to keep in mind, that whatever they are up to- shunning them won't make it go away. Even if they dissapear there will be others trying the same thing. Eventually it will be Experian itself. So what then?

[niothor]

I kind of see their point, and what they are trying to do. To be fair, their sales pitch will probably go a long way towards making bitcoin acceptable in the big-brothers perspective, and thus, us much more rich.

That said however, there will still be far too many addresses out there in the world. And many countries where to spend your bitcoin, and many jurisdictions. Just like Switzerland treats their finance different from the US, so will it be with Bitcoin.

I think we have to wait and see what they are really talking about to get a better idea of what they are trying to do. However you have to keep in mind, that whatever they are up to- shunning them won't make it go away. Even if they dissapear there will be others trying the same thing. Eventually it will be Experian itself. So what then?

This is also my point , they don't want to go after the coins or the paper bills. They go after the owner of the address or the bank account.
It's far more simple and more efficient.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

The thing is that they CAN'T force you to enroll.

You go and buy from people not in the program spend your bitcoin on dice or porn or drugs and they can't do anything.
And nobody said that you can't have a trusted address and an untrusted one at the same time.

Okay, I get it, you mean a black market will keep existing. That's correct. But there will be much more monitoring, and that makes it much more difficult. For example, suppose your salary is payed in BTC. They know exactly how much you have, because your salary is whitelisted. Now you want to buy something they don't approve or donate money to wikileaks, whatever. You know you can't use your whitelisted addresses because they can link them to you. You'd need to exchange your coins against "free coins". But that would leave a trace... you see the problem? By controlling your money, they control you.

[niothor]

The thing is that they CAN'T force you to enroll.

You go and buy from people not in the program spend your bitcoin on dice or porn or drugs and they can't do anything.
And nobody said that you can't have a trusted address and an untrusted one at the same time.

Okay, I get it, you mean a black market will keep existing. That's correct. But there will be much more monitoring, and that makes it much more difficult. For example, suppose your salary is payed in BTC. They know exactly how much you have, because your salary is whitelisted. Now you want to buy something they don't approve or donate money to wikileaks, whatever. You know you can't use your whitelisted addresses because they can link them to you. You'd need to exchange your coins against "free coins". But that would leave a trace... you see the problem? By controlling your money, they control you.

Yup , this is where it's going...
And the result .. people will get their salary in bitcoins and when they want to do naughty things they go online , buy litecoins and.....
I have the feeling I have seen this once ,:DDDD

[lucaspm98]

I'm sure it would immediately bring many more people into Bitcoin, but at what cost? Frankly, it would undermine most of what Bitcoin offers: relative anonymity, decentralization, and loose if any regulation.

[Feri22]

...or they just use dollars.

If businesses will accept this STUPID idea, for example McDonald etc....i am sorry, but this will be end of bitcoin because you will have not single store where you can use it as now

[Luckybit]

It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0

Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.

I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this  paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full “know your customer” compliance suite. "

From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.

So , Walmart is announcing:
 "We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"

Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,

1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.

2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins ,  from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"

The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"

And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

The main problem with this idea is the implementation. If the goal were merely to provide KYC and other regulatory solutions this may be necessary but as far as I know you don't do that for every little transaction. A transaction over $10,000 and the bank alerts that authorities as they should.

The implementation of this coinvalidation idea doesn't seem to be setting any limit on an amount of money. I've had the idea myself to provide tools for people to comply with the law but we also have to make sure the tools we build aren't the sort of tools which can be abused later by law enforcers.

Bitcoin is not inherently fungible. It never really was designed to be because the ledger always was public.
It was designed to be pseudo-anonymous and private.  The main problem with this particular implementation is that it can easily be used later to block transactions, to prevent legitimate individuals from spending their coins. It empowers authorities in the USA or in North Korea to create blacklists and whitelists where certain addresses can spend their coins and not others.

There has to be a technical solution which we can come up with which cannot be abused easily by either side of this debate. The side pushing anonymity will have bad actors who will abuse anonymity. I'm not talking about Silk road. And the side pushing for taint lists and coin validation will develop technology and then attempt to abuse that as they are doing with Facebook.

If there is a search warrant or if I'm moving large amounts of money then of course that is when my address should go on a blacklist if it's pseudo-anonymous. From here I would have to give my identity or be blocked from moving a large amount of coins. I could agree with this if it were limited to that. The problem is what if I want to donate a small amount of coins or spend in a reasonable way and there is nothing connecting me to terrorism, money laundering or anything else. Why should I be investigated?

It's not optional to say they cannot investigate at all but it's also not optional to allow them to have free reign to investigate anyone for any reason.

[niothor]

...or they just use dollars.

If businesses will accept this STUPID idea, for example McDonald etc....i am sorry, but this will be end of bitcoin because you will have not single store whereyou can use it as now

Why will it kill bitcoin?
Most people will get a bitcoin trusted address like they do now with paypal or a cc card and get over it.
All the advantages bitcoin was suppose to have (small fees , easy to use , fast trasactions) are going to be forgotten because the merchants request an id in order to buy from them?

The ones who don't want it... they don't want it and that's it. Nothing you can do about it.


If McDonalds embraces this idea i bet that in 1 month we'll have at least 20k verified addresses.

[Luckybit]

...or they just use dollars.

If businesses will accept this STUPID idea, for example McDonald etc....i am sorry, but this will be end of bitcoin because you will have not single store whereyou can use it as now

Why will it kill bitcoin?
Most people will get a bitcoin trusted address like they do now with paypal or a cc card and get over it.
All the advantages bitcoin was suppose to have (small fees , easy to use , fast trasactions) are going to be forgotten because the merchants request an id in order to buy from them?

The ones who don't want it... they don't want it and that's it. Nothing you can do about it.


If McDonalds embraces this idea i bet that in 1 month we'll have at least 20k verified addresses.

I don't have a problem if I'm required to use a Bitcoin trusted address if we are talking about more than $10,000. It's already like that with banks and anything else and I can understand and accept why they would want to check me if I'm sending $100,000 to Yemen. But if I'm sending $10 to Yemen and they want to check me then I'm going to be completely pissed. If I have to get a trusted address to transact at all then that is completely unacceptable.

When we deal with cash there is a limit that we can deal with before regulations are triggered. We need these sorts of limits to the Bitcoin space as well. We should be able to be anonymous unless we start making large transfers of Bitcoins. If Satoshi for example were to wake up and start sending his Bitcoins to unknown places then I would expect the community to investigate that. I would also expect the intelligence agencies of the world to investigate it because they probably want to know who Satoshi is sending money to if that were to happen because Satoshi has a lot of money.

The majority of the rest of us have relatively little money and there is no good reason to force us to register our coins as if we are criminals. We don't register our dollars unless it's $10,000+ right? The IRS and FBI get called if you put $12,000 in a bank. If you put $500 into a bank you shouldn't have to be trusted because that is just oppressive.

I'm sure it would immediately bring many more people into Bitcoin, but at what cost? Frankly, it would undermine most of what Bitcoin offers: relative anonymity, decentralization, and loose if any regulation.

Bitcoin was never truly anonymous. I actually think its critical to have the ability to follow the money because if you want to investigate corruption it's necessary to have that ability. I keep telling people that having the ability to investigate corruption is essential. If one address gives $5 million dollars to a political campaign then perhaps that should be investigated. Maybe an address with $5 million dollars should be validated. I can agree with that.

But the average person isn't going to have millions of dollars and shouldn't have to lose their privacy for their small amounts of money which doesn't make any real difference. If you're in a position to bribe others then its important to be able to investigate that and it has nothing to do with law enforcement and more to do with preserving the democratic process. You cannot have a good functioning society if anonymous donors are bribing everyone.

The ability to investigate the blockchain benefits the Bitcoin community as a form of sousveillance. Coinvalidation on the other hand depending on how its implemented could be a poison pill or trojan horse. It creates a database which cannot be uncreated and we don't know who is in the database or why? We don't know who will be allowed to access the information and why. The rules as for who and what triggers being put into the database must be made clear.

If you're a rich address, in the top 1000 richest then perhaps you should be in a bunch of databases. If I had 10,000 Bitcoins I would expect to be in all sorts of government databases and that is fair game. If I have 5 Bitcoins and I'm in the database then that is wrong and political in nature.

So I suggest there should be a rule in place so that only large holders (people who have coins worth beyond a certain threshold) get put in these databases. If people with 10,000 coins are in there then at least it might make some sense. You have to be a pretty big fish or big criminal to scam people out of that many coins or to get that kind of net worth.

DPR had over 100,000 Bitcoins? If it wee all in a single wallet then perhaps that could trigger the attention of the authorities and should. Who would keep that many Bitcoins in a wallet? Also if there are strange traffic patterns and it looks like its associated with dark net addresses then those addresses can go into the database.

But I shouldn't have to worry about my address going into the database if I have nothing to do with it. Worst of all if I receive some tainted coin I shouldn't have my entire address locked. And no government should have the power to stop the flow of money like that anyway. What if it were China doing that or North Korea?

[Piper67]

It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0

Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.

I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this  paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full “know your customer” compliance suite. "

From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.

So , Walmart is announcing:
 "We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"

Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,

1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.

2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins ,  from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"

The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"

And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

Here's the bit you're missing. Let's say I want to buy stuff at Walmart, like you say, and I already have bitcoins. So my only option is to go to a "trusted" exchange and get their trusted bitcoins sent to my new trusted address... but will that exchange accept my (not yet) trusted bitcoins? Will they take them at all, will they charge me a premium for taking them?

Go through the same process with dollars. Let's say governments around the world institute a policy that from now on they'll only allow "clean" dollars to be transacted (for argument's sake, let's say dollars that have never touched cocaine). You have instantly created two "classes" of dollars. To shift the argument from coins to wallets is just slightly moving the goalposts.

The good news is that it's never going to work for a number of reasons:

1) There are already almost 12 million BTC out there, chances are all or some contain at least some smidgeon of taintiness.

2) There are way too many addresses.

3) There are way too many ways of getting the coins to the addresses.

4) China doesn't give a damn... Germany doesn't either... neither does Canada... or Iceland...

5) The people who are behind this impetus to "clean" Bitcoin are arguably not precisely pristine themselves... all sorts of hilarity will follow.

[Luckybit]

There may be a way around this which preserves pseudo-anonymity.
Keyhotee for instance allows an individual to have a reputation, be trusted, and remain pseudo-anonymous.

It may be possible to tie a Keyhotee ID pseudo-identity to a real world identity for the purpose of reporting or being verified in such a way that the database owner cannot violate your privacy. If your real name isn't in the database then the information isn't centralized. Instead your public key could be checked and the government could be sent a public key allowing them to know its you when you're under your alias or code name without violating your privacy.

Would most people agree to this? Some but not all would. If I'm using a pseudo-nym but I want to allow the government to verify and check me out without allowing some commercial third party man in the middle "Coinvalidation" company to be in the picture then perhaps there should be a way for me to do that.

If for instance I have a particular Bitcoin address and a public key with contact information and lets say the government also has a public key with their contact information. They could simply put their public key up somewhere and call it the IRS public key and then anyone can encrypt their tax records or whatever directly to that public key. If it's anti-terrorism and the government is trying to deal with that then they can have a public key for the DHS. There are potentially a lot of decentralized ways of doing it without requiring that we trust Coinvalidation company not to abuse our privacy.

It's pretty simple. The government wants certain information from the Bitcoin community. If we want to report our taxes we send it directly to the IRS. If we want to fly on a plane they check us. The problem is that after the whole Facebook outcome now privacy itself is under attack. Facebook does not collect information to fight terrorism or for solving crime but instead collects it to exploit and sell it. The biggest concern I have with coinvalidator is that they might start sharing the database with other corporate entities. And of course how long does this database keep the information? What level of access control does it have? Is it role based?

That database is sensitive information and it's not the kind of information that people would want shared. If someone has a lot of Bitcoins they probably don't want the world to know it when those coins are worth $100,000.

[cr1776]

I was ironic but that's not the point.
The thing is that they CAN'T force you to enroll.

You go and buy from people not in the program spend your bitcoin on dice or porn or drugs and they can't do anything.
And nobody said that you can't have a trusted address and an untrusted one at the same time.

Also , i live in a country in which trusting my government means you're mentally ill.

Perhaps in the free world they can't force you to enroll, but in the US 'they' can.
 

I think that your comment about trusting the government is a universal concept.

[Luckybit]

It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0

Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.

I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this  paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full “know your customer” compliance suite. "

From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.

So , Walmart is announcing:
 "We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"

Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,

1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.

2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins ,  from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"

The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"

And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

Here's the bit you're missing. Let's say I want to buy stuff at Walmart, like you say, and I already have bitcoins. So my only option is to go to a "trusted" exchange and get their trusted bitcoins sent to my new trusted address... but will that exchange accept my (not yet) trusted bitcoins? Will they take them at all, will they charge me a premium for taking them?

Go through the same process with dollars. Let's say governments around the world institute a policy that from now on they'll only allow "clean" dollars to be transacted (for argument's sake, let's say dollars that have never touched cocaine). You have instantly created two "classes" of dollars. To shift the argument from coins to wallets is just slightly moving the goalposts.

The good news is that it's never going to work for a number of reasons:

1) There are already almost 12 million BTC out there, chances are all or some contain at least some smidgeon of taintiness.

2) There are way too many addresses.

3) There are way too many ways of getting the coins to the addresses.

4) China doesn't give a damn... Germany doesn't either... neither does Canada... or Iceland...

5) The people who are behind this impetus to "clean" Bitcoin are arguably not precisely pristine themselves... all sorts of hilarity will follow.

They don't want banking secrecy because that fuels corruption. So I actually understand the argument. How effective would an organization such as Wikileaks be if they could not follow the money? How could law enforcement actually investigate on the evidence given to them from Wikileaks if there were no money trail?

But you're right that the idea of trying to separate into clean and dirty Bitcoins is unacceptable. The coins should not be tainted. If there are bad actors then investigate the bad actors and not the coins.

But should we have to go through a security check to cross the street? I don't think so. But if we get on a plane of course we have to go through a security check. So there is a balance that is missing here. You need the ability to check and investigate without requiring people get a digital ID card to access their money.

The idea of having to identify yourself is as stupid as the whole force people to get ID to access the Internet. The Internet ID card is a horrible idea and this idea is horrible if it's implemented like that. If you're trying to do something legitimate and move a lot of money into it then there should be a background check and part of that would include verification in my opinion. But once you do get verified you should be able to attach that to any of your aliases with complete privacy. The company that verified you does not have to keep track of all your aliases to know that those aliases belong to a verified individual. That is my point. You can be verified but also have pseudo-anonymity where even the database owner doesn't know which aliases belong to whom.

Do it like that and you can have privacy while also allowing people to be verified. It's not all that different from age verification on websites. A particular forum does not have to know your identity, but once you are verified as being over 18 then all websites would accept your verified pseudo-nyms without having to know any detail about you other than you passed the verification check and were cleared to enter.

[niothor]

It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0

Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.

I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this  paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full “know your customer” compliance suite. "

From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.

So , Walmart is announcing:
 "We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"

Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,

1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.

2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins ,  from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"

The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"

And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

Here's the bit you're missing. Let's say I want to buy stuff at Walmart, like you say, and I already have bitcoins. So my only option is to go to a "trusted" exchange and get their trusted bitcoins sent to my new trusted address... but will that exchange accept my (not yet) trusted bitcoins? Will they take them at all, will they charge me a premium for taking them?

Go through the same process with dollars. Let's say governments around the world institute a policy that from now on they'll only allow "clean" dollars to be transacted (for argument's sake, let's say dollars that have never touched cocaine). You have instantly created two "classes" of dollars. To shift the argument from coins to wallets is just slightly moving the goalposts.

The good news is that it's never going to work for a number of reasons:

1) There are already almost 12 million BTC out there, chances are all or some contain at least some smidgeon of taintiness.

2) There are way too many addresses.

3) There are way too many ways of getting the coins to the addresses.

4) China doesn't give a damn... Germany doesn't either... neither does Canada... or Iceland...

5) The people who are behind this impetus to "clean" Bitcoin are arguably not precisely pristine themselves... all sorts of hilarity will follow.

Of course they will accept your previously non verified bitcoins form an unknown address because you'll have to provide papers when you do the exchange ... nothing new from how thing are going

1) a paper bill was used to pay a criminal , after 20 years i'm paid with that bill , it it tainted? am i going to jail?
this kind of regulation has nothing to to with the bitcoins , but with the account

2) accept from x , deny from rest , numbers don't matter to such a system (just like the .htaccess ip filter)

3) i'm not getting what you want to say

4) have you as asked them ?

5) that is for certain.

[Luckybit]

It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0

Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.

I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this  paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full “know your customer” compliance suite. "

From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.

So , Walmart is announcing:
 "We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"

Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,

1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.

2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins ,  from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"

The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"

And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are () not forced to enroll.

And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?

Here's the bit you're missing. Let's say I want to buy stuff at Walmart, like you say, and I already have bitcoins. So my only option is to go to a "trusted" exchange and get their trusted bitcoins sent to my new trusted address... but will that exchange accept my (not yet) trusted bitcoins? Will they take them at all, will they charge me a premium for taking them?

Go through the same process with dollars. Let's say governments around the world institute a policy that from now on they'll only allow "clean" dollars to be transacted (for argument's sake, let's say dollars that have never touched cocaine). You have instantly created two "classes" of dollars. To shift the argument from coins to wallets is just slightly moving the goalposts.

The good news is that it's never going to work for a number of reasons:

1) There are already almost 12 million BTC out there, chances are all or some contain at least some smidgeon of taintiness.

2) There are way too many addresses.

3) There are way too many ways of getting the coins to the addresses.

4) China doesn't give a damn... Germany doesn't either... neither does Canada... or Iceland...

5) The people who are behind this impetus to "clean" Bitcoin are arguably not precisely pristine themselves... all sorts of hilarity will follow.

Of course they will accept your previously non verified bitcoins form an unknown address because you'll have to provide papers when you do the exchange ... nothing new from how thing are going

1) a paper bill was used to pay a criminal , after 20 years i'm paid with that bill , it it tainted? am i going to jail?
this kind of regulation has nothing to to with the bitcoins , but with the account

2) accept from x , deny from rest , numbers don't matter to such a system (just like the .htaccess ip filter)

3) i'm not getting what you want to say

4) have you as asked them ?

5) that is for certain.

If the bad actor is being investigated then the people investigating the bad actor need a way to clear everyone who is not that specific bad actor. I need a way to allow them to check to see that I'm not a bad actor.

But I don't want to have to be continuously checked over and over. There should be a way for me to claim my addresses and my coins with a digital signature representing me if there is a problem. Once that digital signature is recognized as matching an identity of a person who is cleared for access then I should be left alone.

The majority of people should have no problem at all and shouldn't be flagged. The people who scammed people out of thousands of coins, honestly if they get flagged and asked to verify their identity that might be a good thing.