Mike Hearn, Foundation's Law & Policy Chair, is pushing blacklists right now

[jdillon]

reddit discussion

Hearn posted the following message to the legal section of the members-only foundation forum: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/505-coin-tracking/ If you're not a member, you don't have access. I obtained this with the help of a foundation member who asked to remain private.

He's promoted blacklists before, but Hearn is now a Bitcoin Foundation insider and as Chair of the Foundations Law & Policy committee he is pushing the Foundation to adopt policies approving the idea of blacklisting coins. I also find it darkly amusing that he's now decided to call the idea "redlists", perhaps he has learned a thing or two about PR in the past few months.

All Bitcoin investors need to make it loud and clear that attacking the decentralization and fungibility of our coins is unacceptable. We need to demand that Hearn disclose any and all involvement with the Coin Validation startup. We need to demand that the Foundation make a clear statement that they do not and will not support blacklists. We need to demand that the Foundation support and will continue to support technologies such as CoinJoin and CoinSwap to ensure all Bitcoin owners can transact without revealing private financial information.

Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.

I would like to start a discussion and brainstorming session on the topic of coin tracking/tainting or as I will call it here, "redlisting". Specifically, what I mean is something like this:

Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet.

I have previously elaborated on such a scheme in more detail here, along with a description of how you can avoid the redlist operator learning anything about the list's users, like who is looking up an output or who found a match.

Lately I was thinking about this in the context of CryptoLocker, which seems like it has the potential to seriously damage Bitcoin's reputation. The drug war is one thing - the politics of that are very complex. Extortion is something else entirely. At the moment apparently most people are paying the ransom with Green Dot MoneyPak, but it seems likely that future iterations will only accept Bitcoin.

Specifically, threads like this one concern me a lot. Summary: a little old lady was trying to buy bitcoins via the Canada ATM because she got a CryptoLocker infection. She has no clue what Bitcoin is beyond the fact that she needed some and didn't know what to do.

The risk/reward ratio for this kind of ransomware seems wildly out of proportion - Tor+Bitcoin together mean it takes huge effort to find the perpetrators and the difficulty of creating such a virus is very low. Also, the amount of money being made can be estimated from the block chain, and it's quite large. So it seems likely that even if law enforcement is able to take down the current CryptoLocker operation, more will appear in its place.

I don't have any particular opinion on what we should talk about. I'm aware of the arguments for and against such a scheme. I'm interested in new insights or thoughts. You can review the bitcointalk thread on decentralised crime fighting to get a feel for what has already been said.

I think this is a topic on which the Foundation should eventually arrive at a coherent policy for. Of course I know that won't be easy.

-Mike Hearn

[1714248453]

1714248453

[jdillon]

Gregory Maxwell made an excellent post on this subject, emphasis mine:

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 of "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?

[oakpacific]

I have some clues about what his idea maybe like, but I will refrain from saying anything specific for the moment, I want to see how things evolve.

[mccorvic]

Mike really should be ashamed of himself.  Not like, "Oh, whooops! How embarassing for me" sort of ashamed.  Like, "Where did I go wrong in life?" sort

[cypherdoc]

blacklisting/redlisting will destroy Bitcoin.

the real question is, can it even been done?

[adamstgBit]

blacklisting/redlisting will destroy Bitcoin.

the real question is, can it even been done?

yes it can, but it will 100% of the time NOT be affective, the criminals will know that their coins are red-listed , and they will find ways of dumping these coins on innocent poeple fast, very fast....

[BitchicksHusband]

How stupid are these people?  Don't they know that every dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it?  They've ALL been used for illegal activity, and yet we trade them around every day.

Still, the more "bad" coins that are taken out of circulation, the more my (hopefully clean) coins will be worth.

[Patel]

The Bitcoin Foundation members starting to show their true colors..

I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote government agenda.

[Peter Todd]

People need to understand that blacklists fundamentally damage privacy, and decentralization. The only way to achieve even moderate financial privacy in Bitcoin is to mix and swap your coins with others with protocols like CoinJoin and CoinSwap. Those protocols can't work if blacklists are common and people can't risk accidentally mixing their coins with tainted and blacklisted coins; remember that a coin can and will be blacklisted after the fact and you may be the one left holding the bag.

Blacklists and whitelists are inherently sources of centralization: some of them will get the official approval of regulators in your jurisdiction, and the way laws are written guarantees that you will be forced to use those approved lists.

We as a community need to ensure that privacy technologies like CoinJoin are deployed ASAP to ensure that the basic Bitcoin infrastructure and the fundemental way wallets work makes blacklists useless. If we don't do this before people like Yifu Guo and Mike Hearn get their way, we risk losing our chance to deploy this technology, and losing the privacy and fungibility of our Bitcoins.

[adamstgBit]

The Bitcoin Foundation starting to show its true colors..

I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote their own agenda.

is the entire Foundation onboard with this idea???

[Patel]

The Bitcoin Foundation starting to show its true colors..

I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote their own agenda.

is the entire Foundation onboard with this idea???

Probably not, but there are more influential members than others there. Example, Mike Hearn

Even though Bitcoin is open source, this whole idea of blacklisting goes against everything Bitcoin stands for
You won't be able to send the coins to whoever you want (illicit or non-illicit)
Your coins can be frozen (blacklisted)

[Tirapon]

I want to make my voice heard here.

After reading the post, I've come to the conclusion that Mike has good intentions with this. Unfortunately, I have to say that it is still a terrible idea. The idea of marking coins will completely ruin their fungibility, and will end up destroying Bitcoin.

Mike, if you're reading this, please please reconsider. There must be another way of solving the problems that you have brought up. Problems caused by implementing this idea will be worse than those you are trying to solve.

[corebob]

The first thing that comes to mind is to make sure all coins get red listed asap.

But this whole thing is really just stupid. What we really need is a currency that is technically impossible to twart into a new fiat system

[Raoul Duke]

The Bitcoin Foundation starting to show its true colors..

The Bitcoin Foundation members, you mean.
Truth is, you can not trust anyone who voluntarily involve themelves in the corrupt and dirty political games of our current times. The Bitcoin Foundation is politics, wether you want to recognize it or not. That was my motive not to join any Foundation and every day that goes by I'm proven right on my choice. Lobbyism must die.

[kellrobinson]

Let Mike just keep quiet about this in public.
We haven't heard anything from law enforcement yet.  Wait until we hear from the panel in the upcoming Senate hearings.  If they suggest controls, then it will be time to consider options.  Otherwise, we have no need to implement a blacklist, redlist, or any other restriction.

[drawingthesun]

And Bitcoin starts to rip itself to pieces just as it goes mainstream...

How predictable, the human element always destroys everything.

Will Mike post here and answer to us?

[Patel]

The Bitcoin Foundation starting to show its true colors..

The Bitcoin Foundation members, you mean.
Truth is, you can not trust anyone who voluntarily involve themelves in the corrupt and dirty political games of our current times. The Bitcoin Foundation is politics, wether you want to recognize it or not. That was my motive not to join any Foundation and every day that goes by I'm proven right on my choice. Lobbyism must die.

fixed for the mod

[Skinnkavaj]

If this is true then I have lost all respect for Mike Hearn.

[Moebius327]

The Bitcoin Foundation members starting to show their true colors..

I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote their own agenda.

You mean promote the Government's agenda?

[cypherdoc]

How stupid are these people?  Don't they know that every dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it?  They've ALL been used for illegal activity, and yet we trade them around every day.

Still, the more "bad" coins that are taken out of circulation, the more my (hopefully clean) coins will be worth.

here's the thing.

you/we can't afford to have ANY coins taken out of circulation due to redlisting.  that mere act alone will destroy your remaining coin's value.

[cypherdoc]

The Bitcoin Foundation starting to show its true colors..

I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote their own agenda.

is the entire Foundation onboard with this idea???

Probably not, but there are more influential members than others there. Example, Mike Hearn

Even though Bitcoin is open source, this whole idea of blacklisting goes against everything Bitcoin stands for
You won't be able to send the coins to whoever you want (illicit or non-illicit)
Your coins can be frozen (blacklisted)

Matonis is on record stating he does NOT support blacklisting coins.  he'd better put a stop to this.

[dewdeded]

I suggest we red-list Mike Hearn for his position in the foundation.

Let Mike just keep quiet about this in public.
We haven't heard anything from law enforcement yet.  Wait until we hear from the panel in the upcoming Senate hearings.  If they suggest controls, then it will be time to consider options.  Otherwise, we have no need to implement a blacklist, redlist, or any other restriction.

Wtf is wrong with you? No one cares about your mofo US senate.

Nothing has to be changed.

Fuck USA!

[drawingthesun]

Mike is being naive thinking it will only be used to stop bad guys. We have all seen this before, the filters and restrictions eventually move outwards and infect all areas of a system.

This "redlist" will eventually only allow approved coins that are matched name and address to a government database. In one fell swoop Mike destroys all the positives Satoshi installed in the Bitcoin system.

If the government is not satisfied with your credentials, you will not be allowed to buy things with your coins, the coins will start to have two different values, one value for the government approved coins that can be used to buy things, and another for those dark coins that are no longer useful.

Also no one will have any incentive to accept dark coins because they run the risk of having their business shut down because their wallet got added to the dark coin list by their government.

This will allow the government to trace everyones money, decided what businesses are allowed to do business and quickly destroy the wealth of dissidents and opposition.

My question: Is Mike really this naive?

[corebob]

I suggest we red-list Mike Hearn for his position in the foundation.

Let Mike just keep quiet about this in public.
We haven't heard anything from law enforcement yet.  Wait until we hear from the panel in the upcoming Senate hearings.  If they suggest controls, then it will be time to consider options.  Otherwise, we have no need to implement a blacklist, redlist, or any other restriction.

Wtf is wrong with you? No one cares about your mofo US senate.

Nothing has to be changed.

Fuck USA!

Take it easy, man.
It might be a misunderstanding going on here

[adamstgBit]

I suggest we red-list Mike Hearn for his position in the foundation.

Let Mike just keep quiet about this in public.
We haven't heard anything from law enforcement yet.  Wait until we hear from the panel in the upcoming Senate hearings.  If they suggest controls, then it will be time to consider options.  Otherwise, we have no need to implement a blacklist, redlist, or any other restriction.

Wtf is wrong with you? No one cares about your mofo US senate.

Nothing has to be changed.

Fuck USA!

Take it easy, man.
It might be a misunderstanding going on here

their is no misunderstanding

a project has been proposed and NO ONE wants it.

nothing else matters.

[Severian]

Truth is, you can not trust anyone who voluntarily involve themelves in the corrupt and dirty political games of our current times. The Bitcoin Foundation is politics, wether you want to recognize it or not. That was my motive not to join any Foundation and every day that goes by I'm proven right on my choice. Lobbyism must die.

You are 100% correct. I regret my decision to join the foundation. Even worse, I regret sending them 25 btc way back when if Hearn's idea is the kind of crap it supports. I should have cashed them in and just sent the money directly to a three letter agency instead.

[bitbitcoincoin]

Can we get an at least symbolic vote of "no confidence" in the bitcoin foundation to show the community does not agree with this horrible suggestion?

[Severian]

My question: Is Mike really this naive?

No. He's playing the political game of "Let's Make Some Window Dressing To Look Good For The Regulators".

He's trying to get in good with DC by using Bitcoin as the vehicle.

[millsdmb]

Let Mike just keep quiet about this in public.
We haven't heard anything from law enforcement yet.  Wait until we hear from the panel in the upcoming Senate hearings.  If they suggest controls, then it will be time to consider options.  Otherwise, we have no need to implement a blacklist, redlist, or any other restriction.

There is NO SCENARIO in which Mike Hearn's suggestion make one iota of sense for Bitcoin.

I can't believe what I'm reading him say honestly.

[DeeSome]

From the Mike Hearn quote

" When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards"

What an utter load of bollocks.

Nick Nasty has 500 btc in anonymous wallet xyz****** which he earned by spreading the CryptoLocker virus, he sends these to a newly created wallet which are flagged as dirty coins (redlisted) during the confirmation process.

"Hello is that Mike at the Foundation, hi my name is Nick Nulty and I just got some redlisted coins when I sold some junk from my attic to a guy I don't know who came to my house."

"hello Nick, yes this is Mike at the Foundation, ok we've cleared that redlisting for those coins now. They're now whiter than white and you can use them as you like, have a great day. Oh by the way would you like to make a donation and join the Foundation?"

"No thanks Mike, but you have a great day"

Why are clever people so stupid?

[adamstgBit]

I do not understand why  Mike Hearn hasn't come on any of these threads to say anything at all about this project.

[Gabi]

Great, the mighty "foundation" (aka a group of people who think they are important and have a "chair" somewhere) now want to taint coins.  And maybe they and the government decide how to taint them? Ye well answer is NO

[DeeSome]

Mike is being naive thinking it will only be used to stop bad guys. We have all seen this before, the filters and restrictions eventually move outwards and infect all areas of a system.

This "redlist" will eventually only allow approved coins that are matched name and address to a government database. In one fell swoop Mike destroys all the positives Satoshi installed in the Bitcoin system.

If the government is not satisfied with your credentials, you will not be allowed to buy things with your coins, the coins will start to have two different values, one value for the government approved coins that can be used to buy things, and another for those dark coins that are no longer useful.

Also no one will have any incentive to accept dark coins because they run the risk of having their business shut down because their wallet got added to the dark coin list by their government.

This will allow the government to trace everyones money, decided what businesses are allowed to do business and quickly destroy the wealth of dissidents and opposition.

My question: Is Mike really this naive?

+100

[Kokomoka]

I vaguely remember a concept called "economic majority" by which the network can only undergo a huge upheavel like this is a majority of the users agree with it. Who gave the right to the bitcoin foundation to dictate these changes anyway?

I am passionate about the free market. It is my hope that in the event this change is implemented, a fork of the bitcoin project will occur and a huge majority of users will switch to it.

[millsdmb]

I vaguely remember a concept called "economic majority" by which the network can only undergo a huge upheavel like this is a majority of the users agree with it. Who gave the right to the bitcoin foundation to dictate these changes anyway?

I am passionate about the free market. It is my hope that in the event this change is implemented, a fork of the bitcoin project will occur and a huge majority of users will switch to it.

he, and the foundation, still have to answer to the miners.

[Gabi]

Who gave the right to the bitcoin foundation to dictate these changes anyway?

No one.

This is the self-entitling party. They have a "foundation", a "board", they have "chairs", they "elect" people and so on.

[RodeoX]

Mike does not decide, lawmakers will. Have you contacted your congressman, senator, any regulator? No?, then I guess his opinion trumps yours.
You will get nothing complaining here. Like it or not, bitcoin regulation IS coming to the USA. If you want to be heard then write. Not here, write your representatives. If you want no regulation then write your own code and fork the chain. Maybe someone will use your alt-coin.

[adamstgBit]

Mike does not decide, lawmakers will. Have you contacted your congressman, senator, any regulator? No?, then I guess his opinion trumps yours.
You will get nothing complaining here. Like it or not, bitcoin regulation IS coming to the USA. If you want to be heard then write. Not here, write your representatives. If you want no regulation then write your own code and fork the chain. Maybe someone will use your alt-coin.

its the Foundation's job to fight for us on things like this, not bendover!

[Gabi]

If you want to be heard then write. Not here, write your representatives. If you want no regulation then write your own code and fork the chain. Maybe someone will use your alt-coin.

I disagree. Bitcoin exists exactly to stop with this useless "write your representatives" and to finally MAKE something good and useful. Writing=losing time and paper. Using bitcoin=changing the world, in better.

[Severian]

Like it or not, bitcoin regulation IS coming to the USA.

Then a lot of us will be rich in gold, silver or whatever currency isn't Federal Reserve Notes. The US is now just another market and Bitcoin will do fine without it.

[solex]

I do not understand why  Mike Hearn hasn't come on any of these threads to say anything at all about this project.

If this is a temporary ploy to make Bitcoin look more benign to the US Senate - then it is a stupid, counter-productive move.

It is total insanity to "redlist", blacklist or mark any coins as tainted. This is centralized censorship. What if coins are redlisted because they are owned by someone with political views that the government does not like? Any redlisting is a cancer on Bitcoin.

Mike, please retract this proposal, and focus on scalability - which is your forte!

here's the thing.
you/we can't afford to have ANY coins taken out of circulation due to redlisting.  that mere act alone will destroy your remaining coin's value.

Correct.

[millsdmb]

Like it or not, bitcoin regulation IS coming to the USA. If you want to be heard then write. Not here, write your representatives. If you want no regulation then write your own code and fork the chain. Maybe someone will use your alt-coin.

Bitcoin will be the shittiest alt-coin if what you say is true.

It's not happening.

[FreeMoney]

If people making lists and refusing to honor valid transactions can kill Bitcoin then Bitcoin sucks. To be clear, Bitcoin doesn't suck.

[Rygon]

There is already a proven solution to the problem they are trying to solve by blacklisting. It's called regular old school law enforcement of crimes. DPR made money illegally using bitcoin, but was tracked down outside of the blockchain and the FBI got those coins. That other Pirate guy was also brought to trial for the Ponzi scheme, and all of that happened outside the blockchain. They will probably track down criminals profiting from Cryptolocker too, and without having to rely on some process for blacklisting coins.

[westkybitcoins]

reddit discussion

Hearn posted the following message to the legal section of the members-only foundation forum: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/505-coin-tracking/ If you're not a member, you don't have access. I obtained this with the help of a foundation member who asked to remain private.

He's promoted blacklists before, but Hearn is now a Bitcoin Foundation insider and as Chair of the Foundations Law & Policy committee he is pushing the Foundation to adopt policies approving the idea of blacklisting coins. I also find it darkly amusing that he's now decided to call the idea "redlists", perhaps he has learned a thing or two about PR in the past few months.

All Bitcoin investors need to make it loud and clear that attacking the decentralization and fungibility of our coins is unacceptable. We need to demand that Hearn disclose any and all involvement with the Coin Validation startup. We need to demand that the Foundation make a clear statement that they do not and will not support blacklists. We need to demand that the Foundation support and will continue to support technologies such as CoinJoin and CoinSwap to ensure all Bitcoin owners can transact without revealing private financial information.

Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.

+1

Blacklisting IS unacceptable. Totally.

What will Hearn do when such actions either (1) cause the implementation of routines that effectively make ALL bitcoins totally anonymous, or (2) result in a hard fork of the system?

[westkybitcoins]

The Bitcoin Foundation members starting to show their true colors..

I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote government agenda.

This seemed the most likely scenario right from the start.

[dewdeded]

Mike does not decide, lawmakers will. Have you contacted your congressman, senator, any regulator? No?, then I guess his opinion trumps yours.
You will get nothing complaining here. Like it or not, bitcoin regulation IS coming to the USA. If you want to be heard then write. Not here, write your representatives. If you want no regulation then write your own code and fork the chain. Maybe someone will use your alt-coin.

Better you fork your US-version of Bitcoin.

Because you fork the project with your US bullshit. Not the people that want no regulation.

Regulation is the end of bitcoin.

[Cubic Earth]

The idea of 'redlisting' is unstoppable.  I don't like it, but you certainly don't need the foundation or the US government to do it.  Any one, anywhere, is free to analyze the blockchain and issue statements and reports based on what they find.  In fact, there will by many different 'redlists'.  It will be a free market unto itself, and people can choose what list, if any, they want to pay attention to.

If 'redlisting' can kill bitcoin, than it is already dead.

[12648430]

The idea of 'redlisting' is unstoppable.  I don't like it, but you certainly don't need the foundation or the US government to do it.  Any one, anywhere, is free to analyze the blockchain and issue statements and reports based on what they find.  In fact, there will by many different 'redlists'.  It will be a free market unto itself, and people can choose what list, if any, they want to pay attention to.

A redlist accomplishes nothing as long as there is a significant proportion of people who don't recognize it, that people with redlisted coins can use to "wash" them (with or without their knowledge). So as long as at least one major client doesn't enable a particular redlist by default, that redlist is ineffective.

[bg002h]

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

[Cubic Earth]

The idea of 'redlisting' is unstoppable.  I don't like it, but you certainly don't need the foundation or the US government to do it.  Any one, anywhere, is free to analyze the blockchain and issue statements and reports based on what they find.  In fact, there will by many different 'redlists'.  It will be a free market unto itself, and people can choose what list, if any, they want to pay attention to.

A redlist accomplishes nothing as long as there is a significant proportion of people who don't recognize it, that people with redlisted coins can use to "wash" them (with or without their knowledge). So as long as at least one major client doesn't enable a particular redlist by default, that redlist is ineffective.

I didn't say a particular 'redlist' would be effective, I just said many would exist.  I agree with what you said.  People need not fear a redlist, but they should fear an effective redlist.

[acoindr]

Hmm, my understanding is Mike Hearn works with Google account security, so I can understand him having a heightened crime fighting mentality. At the same time I hope he really thinks through the slippery slope blacklists can be. It's the same sort of problem as the Bitcoin Foundation itself, which I actually think is a good idea but vehemently objected to initially for not having checks on influence/power (see here for what changed my mind). It's not the original implementation of such things people have a problem with, but rather what they open the door to.

As I mentioned in arguing against the Foundation a great example is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve we have today acts very different than the one lawmakers brought into existence in 1913, and which I'm sure a few long forgotten voices objected to. So it seems Mike is interested in exploring the idea. I don't know that that in itself is alarming. I would caution, however, that broaching this subject requires the care of handling an atomic reactor.

[bluemeanie1]

Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.

good points.  I think a lot of what is happening right now is that the empowered insiders are exploiting the general public's perceptions about Bitcoin(p2p, decentralized, etc.).

[Melbustus]

A few points:

1) This is obviously a terrible idea. Anything that reduces fungibility inherently reduces bitcoin's properties as an ideal money, and to me, that makes this whole experiment much less interesting.

2) I believe Mike's motivations are pure, in that he wants to prevent the situations he alludes to (the old lady getting taken by CryptoLocker). Unfortunately it's an ugly slippery slope littered with good intentions. The treatment eventually becomes far worse than the disease.

3) Unfortunately if black/red lists *can* happen, they will. This has been a known issue for a while, and it's not surprising that people are starting to implement such ideas. The counter-measures MUST BE TECHNICAL. If Mike flipped his opinion, it'd still happen. If CoinValidation disappeared, it'd still happen. Boycotting people, business, the foundation, etc, is not an effective response. Either tech like CoinJoin or ZeroCoin becomes production-ready, or we end up with a sea of "these-coins-are-special" lists.


For the record, if these list services develop and gain marketplace traction without any technical means to make them irrelevant, I'm done with bitcoin (that's a tough statement for me to make). And, no, I don't have any interest in doing anything illegal with bitcoin... It's just clear that a robust redlist ecosystem will create a gradient of coins, which will make things ugly, difficult to understand/manage, and ultimately a couple orders of magnitude less useful and interesting than bitcoin currently is.

[corebob]

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

By all means put it in the protocol, because if you succeed we all need to go back to the drawing boards

[2weiX]

I have some time now been of the opinion that the path of that salad-tossing, self-empowering, self-interest-serving "Foundation" towards Washington (and selfproclaimed rulership of bitcoin associatens) was what might be able to bring a slow, regulation-choked death to bitcoin.

Boy was I wrong!

The Foundation, if they support this in any which way, is actually bringing a quick, traiterous, back-stabbing death to all ideals, hopes and high goals that millions, billions (!) of people could have lived up and through bitcoin.

Thanks for nothing, ass-wads.

The "Foundation" needs to make it crystal clear that such measures of censorship are DIRECTLY contradictory to freedom of transaction, which is one of the main properties of the bitcoin network.

Should I be able to maintain any respect for any of the boards' members, they would have to leave the foundation TODAY and renounce the implementation of these principles.



edited to remove the impression that the Berlin crew was of the same opinion - I would assume some are, but this is just me WTFing.

[Raoul Duke]

If people making lists and refusing to honor valid transactions can kill Bitcoin then Bitcoin sucks. To be clear, Bitcoin doesn't suck.

Bitcoin doesn't suck, but some of the persons pretending to represent Bitcoin do suck.

[Kouye]

I don't understand how redlisting coins that are sent to CryptoLocker would help fight threats like CryptoLocker at all.

1 - CryptoLocker coins are redlisted.
2 - CryptoLocker buys something using those coins from a legit merchant.
3 - Legit merchant sees the warning on his client, and clicks the "I'm honest" button.
4 - Coins get unlisted and are now clean.

Ok, that looks like a lot of fun, but what's the point?
Can anyone enlighten me, please?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

If any kind of blacklist or redlist ever happens i will definately create a fork of Bitcoin without the blacklist.

I already created and maintain one, so no problem with that there.

[gweedo]

I just want to say I am very disappointed in this...

First Yifu...
Now Mike...
Who next?

[moderate]

Dear lord, another Google employee having fun on his 20% spare time.

[bluemeanie1]

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

By all means put it in the protocol, because if you succeed we all need to go back to the drawing boards

I already went back to the drawing board. 

[bg002h]

Others are working on whitelists:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

We need to fully think this stuff through. It's happening. We should be clear to separate what is part of Bitcoin the protocol and what is a possible feature/crippleware in a wallet program.

There is no do discussion of making any such listing part of Bitcoin the protocol (which is silly anyway).

[DeeSome]

Adam Back sums the situation up nicely.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.0

[rtt]

The Foundation, if they support this in any which way, is actually bringing a quick, traiterous, back-stabbing death to all ideals, hopes and high goals that millions, billions (!) of people could have lived up and through bitcoin.

Thanks for nothing, ass-wads.

The "Foundation" needs to make it crystal clear that such measures of censorship are DIRECTLY contradictory to freedom of transaction, which is one of the main properties of the bitcoin network.

Should I be able to maintain any respect for any of the boards' members, they would have to leave the foundation TODAY and renounce the implementation of these principles.

^^^ this

This Mike dude is so brain-fucking-dead on so many levels it's not even funny!

1. He wants to destroy bitcoin's fungibility as pointed above.
2. He wants to put a central governmental body in place to mark certain coins "criminal".
3. He's telling Microsoft & Oracle: "DO NOT fix your shitty bug-ridden code that malware authors exploit so nicely. Instead we'll put totalitarian financial & currency controls on the WHOLE WORLD'S POPULATION to stop virus-writers harming a little old lady (TM)".
4. He wants to insert this blacklisting & tracking mechanism into every client (?)
5. He wants to be in charge of deciding "what crime is", naturally.
6. or at least delegate deciding "what crime is" to the Power-Hungry-Blood-Thirsty-Control-Freaks, who have turned 200 million living human beings into corpses just last century (government for short).
7. He has no idea of morality.
8. He has no clue of economics & human action.
9. He is seriously damaged goods.
10. He believes in Tooth Fairy (or that 'Law ENFORCEMENT' is there to protect you, despite their name).
11. He needs to go play in traffic, Real Fast!

... now, do not ask me how I really feel about this whole mind-fuck ...

[freedomno1]

Will not work the Fungibility aspect is important.
That said a solution like controlled outputs seems in-viable
Mastercoin and building on the protocol might be able to create restrictions on coin spending
But pretty stuck on the solution
Guess were back to tainted coins
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7966/what-are-tainted-coins-exactly

[Carlton Banks]

Mike's an idiot. This attacks not 1, but 3 principles of what makes Bitcoin useful as money. He needs to shut up, or abdicate his seat.


Redlisting/blacklisting/greenlisting/ IS stoppable

The mining software must allow miners to choose whether a transaction to or from a certain list can be processed.

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

[Raoul Duke]

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

That will be the day I cash out till the last satoshi.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Mike's an idiot. This attacks not 1, but 3 principles of what makes Bitcoin useful as money. He needs to shut up, or abdicate his seat.


Redlisting/blacklisting/greenlisting/ IS stoppable

The mining software must allow miners to choose whether a transaction to or from a certain list can be processed.

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

This is definately a direct attack on the bare basic fundamentals of Bitcoin.

We need to stop it. NOW.

[Realpra]

Mike's an idiot. This attacks not 1, but 3 principles of what makes Bitcoin useful as money. He needs to shut up, or abdicate his seat.


Redlisting/blacklisting/greenlisting/ IS stoppable

The mining software must allow miners to choose whether a transaction to or from a certain list can be processed.

If miners start enforcing the blacklists like good little boys, we will have to move to another coin. Because the value (and hence, the exchange price) of Bitcoin will be eroded.

This is definately a direct attack on the bare basic fundamentals of Bitcoin.

We need to stop it. NOW.

I agree, it also makes me further question the BIP70 proposal as it came from the same guy:

I could see BIP70 POTENTIALLY leading to SSL key signatures being used to transfer Bitcoin instead of ECDSA. Since SSL is corrupted deeply this would hand control of Bitcoin to the government.

At any rate:
As a board member of the Danish Bitcoin Foundation I can say we will work against this.

[phillipsjk]

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

The answer is "no." If Bitcoin conflicts with AML/KYC laws, then those laws have to go. They are dragging down the non-bitcoin financial system for the same reasons they are not acceptable to Bitcoin users.

Money tainting hurts fungibility. Without fungibility, you don't have money. "Know your customer" means that you lose a lot a privacy even in the traditional banking system. With Bitcoin, the transaction record is public. "knowing your customer" means killing pseudonymity (and privacy).

[westkybitcoins]

Mike is being naive thinking it will only be used to stop bad guys. We have all seen this before, the filters and restrictions eventually move outwards and infect all areas of a system.

This "redlist" will eventually only allow approved coins that are matched name and address to a government database. In one fell swoop Mike destroys all the positives Satoshi installed in the Bitcoin system.

If the government is not satisfied with your credentials, you will not be allowed to buy things with your coins, the coins will start to have two different values, one value for the government approved coins that can be used to buy things, and another for those dark coins that are no longer useful.

Also no one will have any incentive to accept dark coins because they run the risk of having their business shut down because their wallet got added to the dark coin list by their government.

This will allow the government to trace everyones money, decided what businesses are allowed to do business and quickly destroy the wealth of dissidents and opposition.

My question: Is Mike really this naive?

It strains credulity to imagine he is. Which really leaves us with only a few, more sinister options.

(Including that he's simply an authoritarian at heart, whether he would admit it to himself or not.)

[Carlton Banks]

I agree, it also makes me further question the BIP70 proposal as it came from the same guy:

I could see BIP70 POTENTIALLY leading to SSL key signatures being used to transfer Bitcoin instead of ECDSA. Since SSL is corrupted deeply this would hand control of Bitcoin to the government.

I made somewhat of a nuisance of myself finding out exactly what BIP70 will mean in practice, and I am content that it's no more unsafe a way to pay than what you might be doing already.

Mike's a good guy on balance, but he's got this authoritative leaning streak that's sooooo inappropriate. The correct approach is something that he already advocates for; using secure hardware wallets to prevent thefts.

[crazy_rabbit]

If any kind of blacklist or redlist ever happens i will definately create a fork of Bitcoin without the blacklist.

I already created and maintain one, so no problem with that there.

Bitcoin testnet. Everyone with the client already has it. We can use it to evaluate a different type of system. Coinjoin, zero coin, etcetera and find what works. We already have another bblockchain. All of us with bitcoin already have it. No need to fork, no need to get some dodgy Altoona.

[westkybitcoins]

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

HELL NO

is the only rational response. The manifestation of it being vocal complaints, technical workarounds, public outing and shaming of anyone with such poor judgment as to implement this, and if all else fails, the nuclear option (hard fork into a currency where such tracing is impossible.)

Here's a hint to those who don't get this yet: If you think the concept behind the U.S.'s monetary control laws is a decent one, and that with the right tweaking those laws could be made perfect, then you really have no business being involved with bitcoin. And if you think this while being an influential developer of the software, you fit about as well as the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

No, it doesn't. But that's not the issue. The issue is that an influential bitcoin developer is openly supporting it--proposing it, even (and obviously, that means support for implementing it into the main client.)

That's just pathetic beyond words.

[anarchy]

I just replied on the bitcoin foundation forum and joined as a Platinum member:

If I had a way to communicate how bad an idea this is, I'd be willing to fly to the moon to do so.  Since I can't do that, I'm going to join the board as a platinum member today, and put my life savings in doing so.  Just to prevent this idea.  If you'd make me choose with a gun to my head, between A) extending the 21 million limit, B) give control to the banking cartel or C) coin taint - I'd rather have A + B together over C.  (not that anything of the currency would remain under either circumstances).  To be honest, I have had your idea 2 years ago.  At that time I thought it was great, and very innocent.  Until after a while I came to the realisation that it was disastrous.  If you want this currency to be controlled by the government, you need to install coin taint, and promote it at the next government hearing.  I could only say in return (and I'm being extremely polite here), that you would pull down your pants and bend over - while the government just wanted to talk to you.  Obviously they will take the fact that you're already bending over and totally abuse it.  Did you ever see a government say NO to handing them over more control?  What will happen is very predictable.  First, the government will adore you.  Oh, we can get even more control over people's money and behaviour with this?  Great!  This is so much better than cash!  We know cash is being abused all the time, and 99% of cash has coke on it!  So with this, if you'd ever get coins that were involved in something we do not condone (like, passing through countries we don't approve of, poltical dissidents or whatever nonsensical reason), we will make those coins blacklisted in the United States!  (You think the voter will have anything to say about it?), Welcome to Bitcoin total monetary control!  The government and banks will be overjoyed with tears.  Compared to giving the government a master key to all global encryption software, this one is 100 times worse. The foundation has to make a clear stand, that they will fight coin taint until the very end.  If they do not do so, not only will this currency perish in no time, but you will have destroyed the greatest opportunity for mankind to take control back into their own hands.  It's THAT serious.  DONT DO IT, DONT PROMOTE IT, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.  IT'S THE WORST IDEA EVER.  Bitcoin will make humanity free.  Bitcoin will put money back in control of the people.  With that, it will prevent government from going to war without full consent of the governed.  If you look at history, you see why the US does not need to try to get people's gold impounded anymore to fund wars.  They just press a button and create 1 trillion dollars out of thin air.  Install coin taint, and you will have given them the power over the people's money (and in return, the people itself).  Welcome to Big Brother 2.0, bitcoin is your friend.

[2weiX]

I just replied on the bitcoin foundation forum and joined as a Platinum member:

If I had a way to communicate how bad an idea this is, I'd be willing to fly to the moon to do so.  Since I can't do that, I'm going to join the board as a platinum member today, and put my life savings in doing so.  Just to prevent this idea.  If you'd make me choose with a gun to my head, between A) extending the 21 million limit, B) give control to the banking cartel or C) coin taint - I'd rather have A + B together over C.  (not that anything of the currency would remain under either circumstances).  To be honest, I have had your idea 2 years ago.  At that time I thought it was great, and very innocent.  Until after a while I came to the realisation that it was disastrous.  If you want this currency to be controlled by the government, you need to install coin taint, and promote it at the next government hearing.  I could only say in return (and I'm being extremely polite here), that you would pull down your pants and bend over - while the government just wanted to talk to you.  Obviously they will take the fact that you're already bending over and totally abuse it.  Did you ever see a government say NO to handing them over more control?  What will happen is very predictable.  First, the government will adore you.  Oh, we can get even more control over people's money and behaviour with this?  Great!  This is so much better than cash!  We know cash is being abused all the time, and 99% of cash has coke on it!  So with this, if you'd ever get coins that were involved in something we do not condone (like, passing through countries we don't approve of, poltical dissidents or whatever nonsensical reason), we will make those coins blacklisted in the United States!  (You think the voter will have anything to say about it?), Welcome to Bitcoin total monetary control!  The government and banks will be overjoyed with tears.  Compared to giving the government a master key to all global encryption software, this one is 100 times worse. The foundation has to make a clear stand, that they will fight coin taint until the very end.  If they do not do so, not only will this currency perish in no time, but you will have destroyed the greatest opportunity for mankind to take control back into their own hands.  It's THAT serious.  DONT DO IT, DONT PROMOTE IT, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.  IT'S THE WORST IDEA EVER.  Bitcoin will make humanity free.  Bitcoin will put money back in control of the people.  With that, it will prevent government from going to war without full consent of the governed.  If you look at history, you see why the US does not need to try to get people's gold impounded anymore to fund wars.  They just press a button and create 1 trillion dollars out of thin air.  Install coin taint, and you will have given them the power over the people's money (and in return, the people itself).  Welcome to Big Brother 2.0, bitcoin is your friend.

donation address pl0x
oh, and also: PARAGRAPHS :-D

[acoindr]

Let's simplify:

1. Can any such scheme produce significant defense against using Bitcoin illicitly? (if so who decides what is illicit?)
2. Is there any way to insulate the value in using Bitcoin from such mechanisms being abused by the state?

Thinking through only those 2 questions I can't see much point to these lists.

[Kouye]

1. Can any such scheme produce significant defense against using Bitcoin illicitly? (if so who decides what is illicit?)

Not sure. Still waiting for Mike or anyone to help me with that:

I don't understand how redlisting coins that are sent to CryptoLocker would help fight threats like CryptoLocker at all.

1 - CryptoLocker coins are redlisted.
2 - CryptoLocker buys something using those coins from a legit merchant.
3 - Legit merchant sees the warning on his client, and clicks the "I'm honest" button.
4 - Coins get unlisted and are now clean.

Ok, that looks like a lot of fun, but what's the point?
Can anyone enlighten me, please?

[solex]

anarchy, well done!

Could you re-post Adam's brilliant explanation onto the BF legal forum (if it is not already there)?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.0

He rebuts coin validation, but his argument also applies to the redlist clone-concept.

[jojkaart]

Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. No changes in Bitcoin are needed to start redlisting coins. Anyone can do it. All that is needed is a server (or a p2p network) that stores a list of transactions that are redlisted and allows people to make queries to the database.

This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it. If this fails, the worst case scenario is that this is done in a way that makes use of bitcoin in the country involved very impractical.

If you don't like this scenario. Here's what to do:

• Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario
• If you see any, do what you can to oppose them
• Think up technical ways to combat usefulness of redlisting
• Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

[Cubic Earth]

Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. No changes in Bitcoin are needed to start redlisting coins. Anyone can do it. All that is needed is a server (or a p2p network) that stores a list of transactions that are redlisted and allows people to make queries to the database.

This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it. If this fails, the worst case scenario is that this is done in a way that makes use of bitcoin in the country involved very impractical.

If you don't like this scenario. Here's what to do:

• Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario
• If you see any, do what you can to oppose them
• Think up technical ways to combat usefulness of redlisting
• Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

+1 This is exactly right.

[anarchy]

anarchy, well done!

Could you re-post Adam's brilliant explanation onto the BF legal forum (if it is not already there)?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.0

He rebuts coin validation, but his argument also applies to the redlist clone-concept.

Done

[justusranvier]

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it. If this fails, the worst case scenario is that this is done in a way that makes use of bitcoin in the country involved very impractical.

If you don't like this scenario. Here's what to do:

• Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario
• If you see any, do what you can to oppose them
• Think up technical ways to combat usefulness of redlisting
• Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

Getting involved with politics or lobbying in any way is a pure waste of resources at best, or grossly counterproductive at worse.

The current proposals that are being floated are a direct result of "opening a dialogue" with regulators.

If you want to do something effective focus entirely on technological solutions which make politics and regulation moot.

[gmaxwell]

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it

No, the only way we can prevent this from happening is adjusting the ecosystem— the software and the common behaviors of users— to make it non-viable. The challenge is that people who want it to happen will argue against those adjustments.

Uncertainty around Bitcoin's regulatory environment already drives many Bitcoin businesses to extreme reputability theater ... things like exchanges in outer Mongolia enforcing a sad parody of mtgox's sad parody of the US AML compliance. This stuff doesn't actually accomplish anything but they hope it will be a totem to ward away disruptive regulators by virtue of it seeming like they were trying really hard. In may ways fear of regulation is much worse than regulation itself. When there is regulation it has boundaries, but fear has no boundaries. These bad ideas don't need government support or authority support, and they reoccur often enough that negotiating with everyone who promotes them will not scale.

We don't have all the answers but there are immediate short term measures that can be taken to drastically complicate life for anyone trying something like this.

[anarchy]

You can see the whole thread here:

https://jumpshare.com/v/FCGnW40vMhG8ETE8i57h?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR
https://jumpshare.com/v/vhfhpMIGKpxnbREHf3kS?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR

In my opinion, if Mike keeps pushing this, he should not be in the board anymore.  I've also seen him make some remarks that give me the shivers.

[Aristoteles]

This is just the beginning.

Let's hope that the foundation intends "the government charged 2% per transaction" but the advantage is that bitcoin would be legal! let's foundation! Satoshi would be ashamed.

[corebob]

... A) extending the 21 million limit, ...

This is all I need to know. The current protocol is flawed.
Each client must enforce the rules, not just the miners. That way the protocol gets written in stone.
We need an altcoin that does this in addition to improve the anonymity of users

[acoindr]

This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins.

It's the second sentence that's key, not the first. The nature of money itself inherently means its value rests with how many will accept it. It's the fact an influential player like the Foundation might champion such a scheme. Imagine BitPay then adopting the measures, for example. As regards Bitcoin that would mean large swaths of businesses automatically participate.

As I think about this it seems very similar to 2nd Amendment arguments. People try to keep some power away from bad guys but unintentionally weaken the good guys along the way.

It's like a balancing act where you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have enough control to be effective against certain actors, but not so much control it hurts the good guys.

The dollar system we have now is that balancing act. There are stringent money transfer regulations, and at the same time it's quite easy for dollar payments to Wikileaks or Edward Snowden for example to be blocked and/or traced, as that favors government.

When it comes to crime the real bad guys will find a way to get guns. They will also find a way to sell (lots of) drugs with dollars etc. The regulations hamper the little voices/actors more than real bad guys I'd say, the people who won't bother circumventing them. Anyone sufficiently intent on getting dollars to Wikileaks or Snowden could probably do it. It's the fact that it's not easy for anyone to do it that's key. Same with access to acquiring/keeping guns. The feasibility of an action is what's politically important.

[dasein]

Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. No changes in Bitcoin are needed to start redlisting coins. Anyone can do it. All that is needed is a server (or a p2p network) that stores a list of transactions that are redlisted and allows people to make queries to the database.

This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it. If this fails, the worst case scenario is that this is done in a way that makes use of bitcoin in the country involved very impractical.

If you don't like this scenario. Here's what to do:

• Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario
• If you see any, do what you can to oppose them
• Think up technical ways to combat usefulness of redlisting
• Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

+ 1

Why are those who claim to be protecting free markets so passionate about shutting down the experimentation of other parties? What is the problem with private companies compiling publicly available information and voluntary contracts? Again, this doesn't involve any change to the bitcoin code whatosever. The witch-hunt mentality seems more consistent with totalitarian tendencies than free markets.

[LightRider]

I'm disappointed that Mike Hearn would advocate for the use of blacklists, tainting and reduced fungibility of bitcoin . As one of the significant members of the The Bitcoin Foundation, he has the ability to make this kind of scheme a reality. For someone who just went on a rant against the NSA for violating Google's privacy, this kind of betrayal of the bitcoin user's privacy is really heinous. Who will dictate what constitutes a crime? Who will dictate when a bitcoin will no longer be listed? I doubt that he's given much thought to such questions beyond "whatever the police say", which, in this current political climate, is a very ignorant stance. I suggest those who want to keep bitcoin a viable and fungible currency let Mr. Hearn and all of the The Bitcoin Foundation members know that this idea should not be implemented and produce policy positions rejecting it.

[impulse]

... A) extending the 21 million limit, ...

This is all I need to know. The current protocol is flawed.
Each client must enforce the rules, not just the miners. That way the protocol gets written in stone.
We need an altcoin that does this in addition to improve the anonymity of users

Every client DOES enforce the rules.

[damnek]

This is just the beginning.

Let's hope that the foundation intends "the government charged 2% per transaction" but the advantage is that bitcoin would be legal! let's foundation! Satoshi would be ashamed.

The funny part is that that is actually enforceable too, by redlisting people who don't pay "tax" to the government wallet on their business transactions.

[Feri22]

I just replied on the bitcoin foundation forum and joined as a Platinum member:

If I had a way to communicate how bad an idea this is, I'd be willing to fly to the moon to do so.  Since I can't do that, I'm going to join the board as a platinum member today, and put my life savings in doing so.  Just to prevent this idea.  If you'd make me choose with a gun to my head, between A) extending the 21 million limit, B) give control to the banking cartel or C) coin taint - I'd rather have A + B together over C.  (not that anything of the currency would remain under either circumstances).  To be honest, I have had your idea 2 years ago.  At that time I thought it was great, and very innocent.  Until after a while I came to the realisation that it was disastrous.  If you want this currency to be controlled by the government, you need to install coin taint, and promote it at the next government hearing.  I could only say in return (and I'm being extremely polite here), that you would pull down your pants and bend over - while the government just wanted to talk to you.  Obviously they will take the fact that you're already bending over and totally abuse it.  Did you ever see a government say NO to handing them over more control?  What will happen is very predictable.  First, the government will adore you.  Oh, we can get even more control over people's money and behaviour with this?  Great!  This is so much better than cash!  We know cash is being abused all the time, and 99% of cash has coke on it!  So with this, if you'd ever get coins that were involved in something we do not condone (like, passing through countries we don't approve of, poltical dissidents or whatever nonsensical reason), we will make those coins blacklisted in the United States!  (You think the voter will have anything to say about it?), Welcome to Bitcoin total monetary control!  The government and banks will be overjoyed with tears.  Compared to giving the government a master key to all global encryption software, this one is 100 times worse. The foundation has to make a clear stand, that they will fight coin taint until the very end.  If they do not do so, not only will this currency perish in no time, but you will have destroyed the greatest opportunity for mankind to take control back into their own hands.  It's THAT serious.  DONT DO IT, DONT PROMOTE IT, DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.  IT'S THE WORST IDEA EVER.  Bitcoin will make humanity free.  Bitcoin will put money back in control of the people.  With that, it will prevent government from going to war without full consent of the governed.  If you look at history, you see why the US does not need to try to get people's gold impounded anymore to fund wars.  They just press a button and create 1 trillion dollars out of thin air.  Install coin taint, and you will have given them the power over the people's money (and in return, the people itself).  Welcome to Big Brother 2.0, bitcoin is your friend.

+1

[kjj]

Just FYI, this isn't a proposal to make any protocol changes.

This is an external system and a UI change.  The goal is to provide a point of contact as close as possible to an event that may require investigation.  If someone pays a ransom, for example, they can provide details to the service.  The service tracks those coins, and hopes that they end up in the wallet of someone that subscribes to the service and cares.  Now if law enforcement is investigating the ransom event, they can go talk to that person and ask them where they came from, possibly tracking back to the criminal.

Doesn't seem quite as sinister in those terms, does it?

Now consider the reality of today.  The NSA sees all and hears all.  Some major incident has a bitcoin connection, and they track the coins moving around from key to key.  Eventually they land in a wallet that the NSA knows is owned by a US company.  A national security letter shows up, ordering the company to divulge the info on that transaction.  The FBI starts watching the customer involved, and eventually raids their home and/or arrests them, and the interrogation reveals basically the same information that could have been provided by a volunteer in the other scenario, just in a much less civilized way.

The notion of coins becoming tainted by their history is silly, just as silly as dollars becoming tainted by the drug deals they've been through.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that there won't be a lot of time and effort put into tracking important coins just the same.  How long do you think it will take for judges to come around to bitcoin?  How many silly warrants are going to be signed until then?  How many innocent people are going to meet the SWAT team along the way?

[corebob]

... A) extending the 21 million limit, ...

This is all I need to know. The current protocol is flawed.
Each client must enforce the rules, not just the miners. That way the protocol gets written in stone.
We need an altcoin that does this in addition to improve the anonymity of users

Every client DOES enforce the rules.

Thanks.
I guess I have to take a closer look at how this really ticks

[Carlton Banks]

Just FYI, this isn't a proposal to make any protocol changes.

This is an external system and a UI change.  The goal is to provide a point of contact as close as possible to an event that may require investigation.  If someone pays a ransom, for example, they can provide details to the service.  The service tracks those coins, and hopes that they end up in the wallet of someone that subscribes to the service and cares.  Now if law enforcement is investigating the ransom event, they can go talk to that person and ask them where they came from, possibly tracking back to the criminal.

Doesn't seem quite as sinister in those terms, does it?

Now consider the reality of today.  The NSA sees all and hears all.  Some major incident has a bitcoin connection, and they track the coins moving around from key to key.  Eventually they land in a wallet that the NSA knows is owned by a US company.  A national security letter shows up, ordering the company to divulge the info on that transaction.  The FBI starts watching the customer involved, and eventually raids their home and/or arrests them, and the interrogation reveals basically the same information that could have been provided by a volunteer in the other scenario, just in a much less civilized way.

The notion of coins becoming tainted by their history is silly, just as silly as dollars becoming tainted by the drug deals they've been through.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that there won't be a lot of time and effort put into tracking important coins just the same.  How long do you think it will take for judges to come around to bitcoin?  How many silly warrants are going to be signed until then?  How many innocent people are going to meet the SWAT team along the way?

How draconian can taxation enforcement policy get when listing is accepted by the Bitcoin community? Imagine refusing to pay the door-opening tax, and getting your life savings blacklisted?

[freedomno1]

Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. No changes in Bitcoin are needed to start redlisting coins. Anyone can do it. All that is needed is a server (or a p2p network) that stores a list of transactions that are redlisted and allows people to make queries to the database.

This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it. If this fails, the worst case scenario is that this is done in a way that makes use of bitcoin in the country involved very impractical.

If you don't like this scenario. Here's what to do:

• Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario
• If you see any, do what you can to oppose them
• Think up technical ways to combat usefulness of redlisting
• Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

+1 This is exactly right.

Between two evils I would rather have our dev team working on a system than some shady government agencies who might put in a backdoor
Make the code do what it does and nothing else

[acoindr]

Adopting what measures, exactly?

Any measure that involves treating some coins differently than others.

How much taint is too much taint?

Any amount. Imagine our dollar system now. Bills are already able to be marked/tracked by serial number. If I hand you a bunch of fivers and one of them has a red "government" line drawn across it you will say, politely, uh no thanks please exchange this one. That's human nature, self interest.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Mike is calling for a discussion about the issue. He's not suggesting it be implemented in Bitcoin.

yes, he does. Burn him at the stake!

The fact is, Bitcoin's design fundamentally makes redlisting possible. ...
This can be done right now. The biggest obstacle for redlisting currently is the difficulty in convincing people to care about the fact that you're redlisting coins. A government has a way to make people care about it. It's almost guaranteed that some government will try it.

Many, if not the most, are into BTC just to be out of the governments' ways. But yes, "they" could track "evil" coins and catch you when you spend them on an exchange or a shop under their control. So ppl will possibly resort to black market transactions only. Or to more anonymous cryptocoins. Whatever it will be, it will be good. The genie is out of the bottle.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to get involved in politics and convince the decision makers to not do it.

NO. Let them do what they want. Like the war on drugs. That worked marvels.
It's time that "the decision makers" are us.

• Keep an eye on the political scene in your country to make sure you don't miss movements towards this scenario

The political scene is a crime scene. Allow me to opt out of it.

• If you see any, do what you can to oppose them

if you "oppose" them, you reckon them, implying to legitimate their pwning of you. Can't you see it? Just ignore them and opt out of their control.

• Stop trying to silence people calling for discussion. That will make the problem worse.

everyone is entitled to discuss whatever he wants with everyone until he does not try to represent anyone else without a written mandate.

Between two evils

choose freedom

[dewdeded]

I just replied on the bitcoin foundation forum and joined as a Platinum member:

If I had a way to communicate how bad an idea this is, I'd be willing to fly to the moon to do so.  Since I can't do that, I'm going to join the board as a platinum member today, and put my life savings in doing so.  Just to prevent this idea.

Respect!

[Carlton Banks]

+21 million at everything conspirosphere.tk said

[maz]

Wait,

This whole gig was supposed to be decentralized and free so boardroom bastards couldn't apply stupid idea's like this. Did I miss the email that said we changed all that?

[acoindr]

That's not specific enough, ...

Okay, let me rephrase it. Any measure that causes a person to view some coins as more or less legal/suspect than others.

Bitcoins are different from dollars in that they can be combined and split apart, though. (*) It is pretty much inevitable that any taint is going to quickly spread all over the place. ...

Whatever the end unit it will have a discounted market price. There is high probability some people will value it less or reject it entirely, which inhibits its ability to function as money. People will start demanding wallets that filter/reject such coins; the more people do this the less value any of those units have, regardless to whether the spender/holder is a crook or not. It's the acceptance spiral of value Bitcoin is now experiencing done backwards. That's how money works.

[theecoinomist]

Dear lord, another Google employee having fun on his 20% spare time.

[dasein]

That's not specific enough, ...

Okay, let me rephrase it. Any measure that causes a person to view some coins as more or less legal/suspect than others.

Bitcoins are different from dollars in that they can be combined and split apart, though. (*) It is pretty much inevitable that any taint is going to quickly spread all over the place. ...

Whatever the end unit it will have a discounted market price. There is high probability some people will value it less or reject it entirely, which inhibits its ability to function as money. People will start demanding wallets that filter/reject such coins; the more people do this the less value any of those units have, regardless to whether the spender/holder is a crook or not.

Yes but others may value non-ID'd bitcoins more than ID'd ones, and reject the ones that have been ID'd. It cuts both ways. It's just another market dynamic, consistent with bitcoin's freedom and decentralization.

[acoindr]

Yes but others may value non-ID'd bitcoins more than ID'd ones, and reject the ones that have been ID'd. It cuts both ways. It's just another market dynamic, consistent with bitcoin's freedom and decentralization.

You mean value the tainted ones more? I suppose that's possible, but I have little confidence that would happen. You'd need a majority/large group of people but most will want to be "clean".

[phillipsjk]

Yes but others may value non-ID'd bitcoins more than ID'd ones, and reject the ones that have been ID'd. It cuts both ways. It's just another market dynamic, consistent with bitcoin's freedom and decentralization.

That still hurts fungibility;

A good or asset's interchangeability with other individual goods/assets of the same type. Assets possessing this property simplify the exchange/trade process, as interchangeability assumes that everyone values all goods of that class as the same.

- http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp

[thezerg]

10+ years ago I went to Peru to go kite surfing with a friend.  We got searched on the way home.  Nothing was found of course.  For this travel I got "redlisted".   At that point, I had traveled internationally exactly twice in 20 years.  This "redlisting" meant I was unable to use curbside checkin.  And a manager had to be called during every normal checkin -- he would show up eventually and clickety-click for another 5 minutes sometimes talking on the phone before letting me through.  My bags would be searched EVERY TIME.  This went on for YEARS.  Even when I traveled with my wife and 2 young children.



FOR YEARS



Finally, when Congress forced the TSA to clean up the list due to searches of 12 year old girls, etc this treatment magically disappeared.  I am an American citizen, and not recently arrived.  One of my ancestors founded a town in eastern Massachusetts.


There is no possible way Bitcoin will survive redlisting.  Redlisted coins will RARELY be cleared.  Its easy to redlist someone/something, but its a career ending move to clear the wrong person.

A hidden, secret NSA redlist is not good and we should use technologies to promote fungibility... the Snowden revelations have shown that our constitutional rights need to be enforced via technology because they are not being enforced by due process.

But a notice appearing in your wallet is death to Bitcoin.  (Judge asks: surely you SAW the notice why did you ignore it).  It is ILLEGAL to knowingly spend stolen money, buy stolen goods, etc.  If the wallet says the money is stolen and you spend it you are an accessory (IANAL).  And a notice is a very small step away from automatic enforcement.

Of course Bitcoin will instantly fork.  But the existence the "blessed" version will encourage lawmakers to make the other one illegal (or exchanges illegal anyway).


P.S.  I think Mike Hearn must have sold :-) he's looking for a good entry point

[bassclef]

Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

[Adrian-x]

Gregory Maxwell made an excellent post on this subject, emphasis mine:

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 of "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?

Gregory Maxwell gets it the Foundation should be nothing more than a privately funded public lobby and leave development to the community.

[Carlton Banks]

Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.

[maz]

Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.

What's his game plan then? He hoping to be the admin of this central redlisting service with a nice little 'coin cleaning' service fee directly payable to his wallet?

[Kouye]

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.

His urge to react to Dark Wallet thread(-d+t?) compared to his urge to defend his ideas here sure looks dubious.
I sure hope silence can be explained because he's preparing a sensitive plea.

And not because he's trying to find who, in holy BF, leaked this...

[Carlton Banks]

Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.

What's his game plan then? He hoping to be the admin of this central redlisting service with a nice little 'coin cleaning' service fee directly payable to his wallet?

No, he's posing as the moralistic, dad type figure. Wants to protect impressionable kids and vulnerable old ladies from Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it undermines Bitcoin, and he's full of puffed up arguments about how it's all about pragmatism.

Memo to Mike Hearn, we're here to redefine what pragmatism means in the 21st century, not to bend to the version that's existed for a few hundred years at most. Human history is 200 million years old, I don't think it's too much of a strain to change the culture of a fraction of a percentage point of that long history.

[moderate]

Oh silly Mike Hearn, what a terrible, terrible idea.

By even floating this in a serious way, you have instantly lost all respect from the community and singlehandedly damaged the Foundation's reputation, probably beyond repair.

Suffice it to say I will not be entertaining any future suggestions from Mr. Hearn, nor will I be supporting the Foundation in any way, shape or form.

Not the first time Mike Hearn has broached this topic.

What's his game plan then? He hoping to be the admin of this central redlisting service with a nice little 'coin cleaning' service fee directly payable to his wallet?

No, he's posing as the moralistic, dad type figure. Wants to protect impressionable kids and vulnerable old ladies from Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it undermines Bitcoin, and he's full of puffed up arguments about how it's all about pragmatism.

Memo to Mike Hearn, we're here to redefine what pragmatism means in the 21st century, not to bend to the version that's existed for a few hundred years at most. Human history is 200 million years old, I don't think it's too much of a strain to change the culture of a fraction of a percentage point of that long history.

I don't blame all on Mike, the company he works for has flushed his brain and adjusted it to follow the proper guidelines applied there.

[Luckybit]

There has to be a balance between privacy and transparency.

We should want the ability to follow the money trail if necessary while also having the ability to remain pseudo-anonymous.

I think the size of transactions and the amount of money should matter. I think the implementation is everything with a system like this. When Mike Hearn says contact an operator there are a lot of unknowns.

Can it be pseudo-anonymous? I believe it must be.

Why can't I simply tag my transactions as belonging to me using my public key. Basically it should say "these addresses and transactions belong to me and are not associated with your investigation".

And then "my public key has been verified by these businesses".

I should not have to give the operator my identity. I should be able to remain pseudo anonymous with the operator. People who I bought coins from should know my identity and my public key. That public key should allow me to claim which businesses or organizations have my identity without giving my identity to that operator.

The main concern here is access control. The operator should not be able to access any information about the user other than a public key. That public key should be verified as being on the whitelist or not. For instance if that user purchased his coins from Coinbase and then marked his own purchases with his identity using his public key then merely by sharing that public key the operator could verify that the coins were indeed bought by a verified user of Coinbase.

The operator does not have to know Bob's address or personal identity information. The operator does not have any purpose other than to check to see that the public key is verified. Coinbase already has the identity on file and all the public key would do is show the operator that Coinbase has the identity. I think this would be voluntary, decentralized, and have some privacy benefits because it could preserve pseudo-anonymity.

The user could at any time change their public key as well. It is necessary to be able to follow the money trail because without that you cannot have democracy or investigate institutional corruption. We do not have to reduce privacy in order to preserve democracy. Privacy and democracy are ideals we should fight for. Democracy requires transparency.

[Kouye]

There has to be a balance between privacy and transparency.
We should want the ability to follow the money trail if necessary while also having the ability to remain pseudo-anonymous.

Stopped reading here because what you wish is what we already have today.

[jojkaart]

His urge to react to Dark Wallet thread(-d+t?) compared to his urge to defend his ideas here sure looks dubious.
I sure hope silence can be explained because he's preparing a sensitive plea.

And not because he's trying to find who, in holy BF, leaked this...

Why on earth would he reply here? There's no way to have anything resembling an intelligent discussion in this thread. Well over half of the commenters have no idea what they're talking about.

Any reply from him would be like pouring oil in to the fire. It'd only spur more clueless people into writing more useless comments.

[minorman]

Cool it guys!!

Yes, I agree that lists (if anyone with guns make companies enforce them) will be the end of bitcoin.

BUT

Lay of the ad hominum attacks on Mike.

From all I have read heard and seen of him he is a *really* smart guy - and he is deeply worried about draconian legislation such as the coming "FATCA" catastrophe that the US is trying to impose on every country in the world.
Bitcoin itself ows *a lot* to Mike's contributions. Not just code, but also ideas and advocacy so lay of the "Mike is an idiot"-crap and stick to a sober discussion of this highly important topic.

Peace.

[acoindr]

Why on earth would he reply here? There's no way to have anything resembling an intelligent discussion in this thread. Well over half of the commenters have no idea what they're talking about.

Any reply from him would be like pouring oil in to the fire. It'd only spur more clueless people into writing more useless comments.

Clueless and useless comments... I suppose that's as opposed to your own?

Welcome to Ignore.

[Cryddit]

As others have said, this is a bad idea and an attack on the fungibility of Bitcoin.  

However, it brings up what I think is an even more important issue that ought to be addressed.

The Bitcoin foundation, which pays for and to some extent directs the development of the client and protocol, is manifestly failing to represent the interests and needs of Bitcoin's users.

The Bitcoin foundation consists of people who have paid money into a fund that pays for things, and is now paying for things that the users of Bitcoin would rather not have.  As individuals they have the right to spend their own money as they choose; the fact that their decisions are impacting the broader community is a side effect of what they're choosing to spend their money on and the fact that the Bitcoin Community is "accepting" their donations to the maintenance and development of the software.  

The word "accepting" is quotated here because the community of bitcoin users is at this time voiceless in all ways that matter; if we don't choose to pay for and direct the maintenance and development of the software, then those who maintain and develop the software do not have any motive to obey our wishes and we are not represented.
In a functioning democracy, people direct by voting and pay for the implementation of their collective directions by paying taxes.  In the absence of taxation and voting of any kind, the Bitcoin Community as such has abdicated the direction and implementation of its own future.  We are voiceless and if someone like the foundation chooses to "speak for us" we have no means that matters of contradicting them.  We may choose a different path for the future of the software, but the fact remains that the foundation is paying Gavin to develop its vision, not ours.

This is the systemic problem which results in proposals like this one, which are clearly foolish and against the interests of the Bitcoin Community even though they may be in the interests of the members of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Therefore I believe that we *as a community* need a mechanism for directing the future of bitcoin, which includes paying for exactly those agenda items that the community votes for.  This being the age of electronic communications, we can implement a direct decentralized argentocracy (a one-coin-one-vote system, as opposed to democracy which would be a one-person-one-vote system) with no persons holding any political office.  

Cryddit

[Luckybit]

There has to be a balance between privacy and transparency.
We should want the ability to follow the money trail if necessary while also having the ability to remain pseudo-anonymous.

Stopped reading here because what you wish is what we already have today.

To a certain extent you're right we do have that today and I'm not pushing for big changes to what we have.

My opinion is that we should try our best to preserve the privacy and pseudo-anonymity that we have. We should also be trying to improve transparency and the ability to track the movement of money. The technical problem is how to adopt a balanced approach which can preserve or improve privacy while also giving investigators the tools they need to investigate and expose institutional corruption. I do not think its acceptable if we are asked to sacrifice one for the other. Our solutions should try to improve both privacy and transparency at the same time and I think it is possible.

If you move away from user registrations with passwords, names and addresses in account information and move toward digital signatures for example then there is no central database to hack. If you rely on a public key infrastructure then anyone who has your public key can ask you whatever they need to ask you in order to clear you from the investigation. If Coinbase has your public key and already knows your real name and bank information then you should be cleared. All you should have to do is give your public key to the operator and now the operator verifies that key is associated with Coinbase. If the Operator wants to communicate with you then it's encrypted by that public key and the communications can take place in a decentralized manner.

The operators should be limited in what they can access and in their power. The privacy of the user should be considered as important as transparency and the ability to investigate crime. I don't want to prevent authorities from investigating extortion or any of these crimes which could happen to any of us or people we care about. I just would like the ability to clear myself instantly without having to give out any personal identity information.

A digital signature can be pseudo-anonymous but be recognized as being owned by a verified user of Coinbase.
So I think that approach is the way to go. As far as trying to track every coin, these ideas need more thought and debate. There are pros and cons to everything and we must make sure that we don't lose anything essential in terms of privacy.

[Carlton Banks]

Mike is a smart guy, and has contributed numerous useful innovations to Bitcoin.

But he's still an idiot for advocating taintlists. These two facts are not mutually exclusive.

It hurts the value of Bitcoin, which is a currency with a free-floating value in relation to all other currencies, in case you didn't know. That relative value is impacted negatively by taintlists. That means your Bitcoins, along with everyone elses, cannot achieve as high a price. That means the purchasing power is hurt. We're not here for that.

Mike, being a smart guy, knows that there are technical solutions to theft, ransomware and user identity issues. He advocates each and every one of them. This makes his pursuit of eroding the monetary properties of Bitcoin all the more contradictory; what is the point in supporting the hardware wallet concept when everyone can rely on his redlists to scoop up stolen or ransom coins and return them to the victim? What is the point in paying for a hardware wallet in a world of redlists?

[Luckybit]

As others have said, this is a bad idea and an attack on the fungibility of Bitcoin.  

This isn't just about politics. Bitcoin never was inherently fungible on a technical level. That much has always been true. I'm not sure it was designed to be fungible either but that is up for debate. The fact is that it was always possible to trace transactions and these ideas being presented would make it more possible.

The debate should be about the pros and cons of different solutions to a real problem. Extortion, scams, and corruption are real problems that we all have to deal with as a community. We can disagree on crime because not everyone agrees that Silk road should be illegal but there are some things that the community does agree on and has no tolerance for.

Scams for example which rob people of millions of dollars worth of Bitcoins. Trojans which hack peoples coins from their wallets. All these sorts of attacks hurt the Bitcoin economy and Bitcoin community as a whole.

So if you do not like Mike Hearns solution then you should offer a better solution which does a better job preserving privacy. Just trying to remove Mike Hearn from power isn't going to solve the real problems which he highlighted. If tainting coins isn't the solution to the problem then we need to come up with a more creative and free solution. A solution has to be presented by both sides of the debate though.

You cannot have one side which is pro extortion, pro hacking, pro corruption and expect that side to be taken seriously. So if both sides are actually against all that then both sides have to come up with solutions to protect the community from that. Mike Hearn has a point with Cryptolocker and no one is presenting solutions to dealing with it. If Bitcoins are worth $1,000,000 a coin then every single computer will be hacked for even a small amount of Bitcoins.

Mike is a smart guy, and has contributed numerous useful innovations to Bitcoin.

But he's still an idiot for advocating taintlists. These two facts are not mutually exclusive.

It hurts the value of Bitcoin, which is a currency with a free-floating value in relation to all other currencies, in case you didn't know. That relative value is impacted negatively by taintlists. That means your Bitcoins, along with everyone elses, cannot achieve as high a price. That means the purchasing power is hurt. We're not here for that.

Mike, being a smart guy, knows that there are technical solutions to theft, ransomware and user identity issues. He advocates each and every one of them. This makes his pursuit of eroding the monetary properties of Bitcoin all the more contradictory; what is the point in supporting the hardware wallet concept when everyone can rely on his redlists to scoop up stolen or ransom coins and return them to the victim? What is the point in paying for a hardware wallet in a world of redlists?

Is there an alternative solution to dealing with these problems which do not involve a taint list?

[maz]

Just curious, but why is the foundations forum closed to non-paying public? I mean they could make their discussions read but not write for public surely? What are they discussing that requires an expensive fee to participate in?

[Technomage]

Redlist is a horribly bad idea. It only requires a small portion of Bitcoin users to start disliking redlisted coins and the fungibility we now enjoy is GONE. Redlisted coins will be less valuable than other coins, even if just slightly (depending on the amount of users/services that build blacklists based on that).

I would boycott each and every Bitcoin client that tries to add a feature such as this. If it's the reference client, the whole core dev team needs to quit. If this were to go through I would also be afraid if I was part of the core dev team. Afraid for my life. I'm not kidding here, this would be a game changer and would essentially kill Bitcoin as it is now. A lot of people would be quite unhappy.

I hope the Bitcoin community is smart and reacts to these propositions with never before seen hostility. Redlist is a pre-requirement for a blacklist and it's 100% sure that with a redlist feature some users would use it as a blacklist, thus destroying fungibility.

I know this was only a discussion starter from Mike Hearn but even proposing this deserves a very strong reaction.

[adamstgBit]

Redlist is a horribly bad idea. It only requires a small portion of Bitcoin users to start disliking redlisted coins and the fungibility we now enjoy is GONE. Redlisted coins will be less valuable than other coins, even if just slightly (depending on the amount of users/services that build blacklists based on that).

I would boycott each and every Bitcoin client that tries to add a feature such as this. If it's the reference client, the whole core dev team needs to quit. If this were to go through I would also be afraid if I was part of the core dev team. Afraid for my life. I'm not kidding here, this would be a game changer and would essentially kill Bitcoin as it is now. A lot of people would be quite unhappy.

I hope the Bitcoin community is smart and reacts to these propositions with never before seen hostility. Redlist is a pre-requirement for a blacklist and it's 100% sure that with a redlist feature some users would use it as a blacklist, thus destroying fungibility.

I know this was only a discussion starter from Mike Hearn but even proposing this deserves a very strong reaction.

+1
I could not agree more.

[jedunnigan]

You can see the whole thread here:

https://jumpshare.com/v/FCGnW40vMhG8ETE8i57h?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR
https://jumpshare.com/v/vhfhpMIGKpxnbREHf3kS?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR

In my opinion, if Mike keeps pushing this, he should not be in the board anymore.  I've also seen him make some remarks that give me the shivers.

Thanks so much. What a scary thread, there are a suprising number of foundation members in support of this idea. They are clearly out of touch with reality; it seems the power is getting to their heads. Like somehow it is up to them to decide.

It's moments like these when I remember that it only takes one bad decision to make the value of Bitcoin plummet forever. People thought Bitcoin was THE cryptocurrency... looks like that won't be the case. We need something with absolute fungibility, blind sigs and homomorphic encryption really is the only way forward now....

[Carlton Banks]

Is there an alternative solution to dealing with these problems which do not involve a taint list?

Well, education in good practices using computers and the internet is the best solution to ransomware. It's never happened to me.

Stolen funds can be very effectively dealt with by encouraging a culture of well designed hardware wallets. This increases the required sophistication of an effective attack enormously, a talented hacker would have to work hard, and any successful efforts would only be useful against a single hardware wallet firmware (which should be update capable to fix any exploitable bugs).

Merchants that choose to insist on linking purchases to an identity can use the future Bitcoin Identity Protocol to do so. These ID's could be the most powerful identity information tool conceived, and when I say that, I mean powerful to the user, not to those that want to track your identity. Whole other topic, but I am impressed by the proposed scheme.

Mike Hearn knows and explicitly advocates for all these approaches, apart possibly from the solution to ransomware, but who could honestly say don't endorse that.

[millsdmb]

Have we heard from Mr. Hearn today?

[Technomage]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

[molecular]

I can't believe what I am reading. All respect that I had for Mike Hearn has just been lost...

I just discovered this crap. I feel the same way. Is he being threatened?

I had trouble before, but I think I can now feel Amirs, Codys and the other guys anger.

[Carlton Banks]

I would boycott each and every Bitcoin client that tries to add a feature such as this. If it's the reference client, the whole core dev team needs to quit. If this were to go through I would also be afraid if I was part of the core dev team.

NOT proposed as an addition to the client/wallet software and to the protocol.

That's what makes this very backdoor and insidious in it's approach, the idea is to start a third party database of various coloured lists, and not to add this information to the blockchain, or make it interact with the client through an API.

If you send dirty money to someone who checks the lists, they can notify the listing agency, and legitimately refuse to furnish whatever good, service or debt absolution you were seeking from them.

[molecular]

How stupid are these people?  Don't they know that every dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it?  They've ALL been used for illegal activity, and yet we trade them around every day.

Didn't you read what he proposed: you can wash your bills clean by registering your identity.

[gmaxwell]

Gregory Maxwell gets it the Foundation should be nothing more than a privately funded public lobby and leave development to the community.

I don't see any problem with the "privately funded public lobby" kicking some funding to development. ... even if, because various political pressures, they can only fund work which is "boring" in certain respects. There is a lot of boring work to get done. All that means that the question of supporting development is not answered by just the foundation.

I think Bitcoin is and must be a big tent that calls to people of all sorts of motivations and politics. We should welcome the confused people who think that privacy is bad to also use our money, but at the same time we should take care of our own values and make sure that their use of Bitcoin doesn't take away the freedom of others who do not share their politics.

The essence of crypto-anarchism is that one does not generally need to fight oppressive systems of social organization directly, instead we use technology to make those modes of organization obsolete. Regulation serves a useful purpose, but it often comes with very high (often indirect) costs: The crypto-anarchist says: One does not need to regulate a bank which cannot steal, and in that statement we side-step a bunch of political mess... we don't need to debate the harms proposed regulation creates when we can use technology to provide the benefits without it.  If too much of the Bitcoin ecosystem continues to rely on trusted systems we will be unable to resist being reshaped in the mold of the centralized systems which came before.

We need something with absolute fungibility, blind sigs and homomorphic encryption really is the only way forward now....

I'm not sure I agree, in two respects:

First, systems with absolute fungiblilty have significant technical costs— including the risk that the bleeding edge crypto behind them is inescure— which probably remove their viability for the time being. Heck. Until two weeks ago we were down to under 4000 reliably reachable bitcoin full nodes (we're up to maybe 5500 now), from over 40k at the peak people have moved to web-wallets and thin clients: It's not clear that _Bitcoin_ is technically viable in the long run, some system with substantially higher operating costs probably isn't.

Second, I don't think we need absolute fungibility to thoroughly break efforts to destroy Bitcoin's fungiblity. We just need enough of it embedded in the common practices to make efforts to break the fungibility swimming up stream every step of the way.  Some regulation paranoid bitcoin business will willingly lose 10% of their customers to some stupid blacklisting, but they won't tolerate 95% loss. From things like coinjoin and miners depriortizing address reuse we can make things substantially more private and harder to blacklist/whitelist without scraping the system and replacing it with a much more operationally expensive one.

[Kouye]

Well, education in good practices using computers and the internet is the best solution to ransomware.

I'm sorry to insist, but could anyone explain to dumb Kouye how redlisting coins, as Mike presented it, could help against ransomwares?

[molecular]

My question: Is Mike really this naive?

He can't be. He's a smart guy. I think maybe...

[klee]

I don't have the background so I ask - what if we use a Mastercoin Exodus like concept so we can migrate in another coin with desirable features? Anyone who wants can send his coins so he will not lose anything and we start from ground zero.

Not sure about the mining issue here (maybe use PoW?) and if the pseudonymous/tainted coins send to the 'Exodus' address will continue to haunt you.

[westkybitcoins]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

Why wait? That fact that this is being advocated, whether for the protocol, for wallets, or for third-party "validation" companies (talk about doublespeak) is proof enough that the very possibility of this needs to die, right now. I'll certainly direct whatever I can, including my coins, toward any development that ends this talk of "redlisting."

This actually has me willing to donate to Dark Wallet.

[klee]

BF must be terminated asap.

[molecular]

The essence of crypto-anarchism is that one does not generally need to fight oppressive systems of social organization directly, instead we use technology to make those modes of organization obsolete. Regulation serves a useful purpose, but it often comes with very high (often indirect) costs: The crypto-anarchist says: One does not need to regulate a bank which cannot steal, and in that statement we side-step a bunch of political mess... we don't need to debate the harms proposed regulation creates when we can use technology to provide the benefits without it.  If too much of the Bitcoin ecosystem continues to rely on trusted systems we will be unable to resist being reshaped in the mold of the centralized systems which came before.

Hearns suggestion for discussion is to use those redlists against cryptolocker. What to we do to make redlisting against cryptolocker ransomware criminals obsolete, then? Improve Windows security?!?

[jratcliff63367]

Schindler had a list.

[molecular]

Schindler had a list.

nail .. head .. ....

[Technomage]

This actually has me willing to donate to Dark Wallet.

Me too. In fact I just did.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Nice troll Mike ... now cut it out and get back to your real job, these high bitcoin prices must have given you too much time on your hands?

[BitDreams]

It's all just a bluff. Hearn is just going there testifying that he can serve bitcoin up on a platter for the sitting mob to control and manipulate... and they will believe it... and they'll finally feast on some of the lies they've been serving up forever... consider it a vision.

[Technomage]

Remember that there are shades of gray for this issue as well. A redlist for highly tainted hot coins is not the same as expanding the redlist to include tainted coins in general. Hot coins have already been blacklisted by exchange before - for a while at least. I don't like the idea of a redlist but it's not like I would love to receive really hot coins from someone.

[crazy_rabbit]

How stupid are these people?  Don't they know that every dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it?  They've ALL been used for illegal activity, and yet we trade them around every day.

Didn't you read what he proposed: you can wash your bills clean by registering your identity.

I need to find the London video where I told him exactly this would happen and he was like ,
"Nooooooo that won't happen!"

[LiteCoinGuy]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

[Kouye]

molecular said:

Didn't you read what he proposed: you can wash your bills clean by registering your identity.

Mike said :

For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet.

If the quotes are correct, and if molecular is correct, what does it mean?
That we'd have to upload ID and bills to errr... The Foundation ? for verification, before we can even use a wallet?

[Carlton Banks]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

It's not a protocol change, not a client change, not a wallet change etc etc

If you must look at it this way, then this is happening because the software is remaining exactly as it is, not because of any change. Public transactions in the blockchain are being used as a tool against us.

[acoindr]

Hearns suggestion for discussion is to use those redlists against cryptolocker. What to we do to make redlisting against cryptolocker ransomware criminals obsolete, then? Improve Windows security?!?

Your premise is flawed. You imagine you can stop crime by regulating a tool. You can't.

Money is a tool. Guns are a tool. Neither of them commit crimes. People do.

Criminals intent on some action will find a way to carry it out, whether or not guns are banned, or whether or not there is KYC/AML in place. You can't completely protect yourself from terrorists and criminals unless you give away all your freedom to those that will protect you. Then it becomes pretty easy for protectors to fight terrorists (any real or made up). The problem is it also becomes easy for them to fight and limit you to keep/increase their power.

If you want to stop/limit crime look at the economic conditions, psychological conditions etc. that lead to it and work from there, while also taking steps to protect yourself. Same for terrorism. Look at which political ideologies aggravate it. You don't go after the tools and freedom and crack down on everyone with one gigantic suffocating dragnet. It's a bit like killing a flea with a sledge hammer. You'll get collateral damage.

[justusranvier]

Why are those who claim to be protecting free markets so passionate about shutting down the experimentation of other parties? What is the problem with private companies compiling publicly available information and voluntary contracts? Again, this doesn't involve any change to the bitcoin code whatosever. The witch-hunt mentality seems more consistent with totalitarian tendencies than free markets.

Nice try.

[anarchy]

I'm disappointed that Mike Hearn would advocate for the use of blacklists, tainting and reduced fungibility of bitcoin . As one of the significant members of the The Bitcoin Foundation, he has the ability to make this kind of scheme a reality. For someone who just went on a rant against the NSA for violating Google's privacy, this kind of betrayal of the bitcoin user's privacy is really heinous. Who will dictate what constitutes a crime? Who will dictate when a bitcoin will no longer be listed? I doubt that he's given much thought to such questions beyond "whatever the police say", which, in this current political climate, is a very ignorant stance. I suggest those who want to keep bitcoin a viable and fungible currency let Mr. Hearn and all of the The Bitcoin Foundation members know that this idea should not be implemented and produce policy positions rejecting it.

I opened a new topic on the Bitcoin Foundation's forum:

Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint

Me, and many others in the bitcoin community are deeply concerned about Mike Hearn pushing for coin taint.  We feel that if the Bitcoin Foundation is even going to consider mentioning this in the upcoming government meeting, that we can no longer stand behind them.  This is serious.  Coin taint is even worse than increasing the 21 million limit.  Since the chairman of Law and Policy is involved here, I would like to call for a vote against this, and a clear stance from the Bitcoin Foundation.  I know many of the board members are supporters of mixing coins even more, so something like this can never happen again.  It would be a good message to the bitcoin community to confirm that the foundation supports keeping coins anonymous, instead of going in the opposite direction.

[jedunnigan]

I'm disappointed that Mike Hearn would advocate for the use of blacklists, tainting and reduced fungibility of bitcoin . As one of the significant members of the The Bitcoin Foundation, he has the ability to make this kind of scheme a reality. For someone who just went on a rant against the NSA for violating Google's privacy, this kind of betrayal of the bitcoin user's privacy is really heinous. Who will dictate what constitutes a crime? Who will dictate when a bitcoin will no longer be listed? I doubt that he's given much thought to such questions beyond "whatever the police say", which, in this current political climate, is a very ignorant stance. I suggest those who want to keep bitcoin a viable and fungible currency let Mr. Hearn and all of the The Bitcoin Foundation members know that this idea should not be implemented and produce policy positions rejecting it.

I opened a new topic on the Bitcoin Foundation's forum:

Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint

Me, and many others in the bitcoin community are deeply concerned about Mike Hearn pushing for coin taint.  We feel that if the Bitcoin Foundation is even going to consider mentioning this in the upcoming government meeting, that we can no longer stand behind them.  This is serious.  Coin taint is even worse than increasing the 21 million limit.  Since the chairman of Law and Policy is involved here, I would like to call for a vote against this, and a clear stance from the Bitcoin Foundation.  I know many of the board members are supporters of mixing coins even more, so something like this can never happen again.  It would be a good message to the bitcoin community to confirm that the foundation supports keeping coins anonymous, instead of going in the opposite direction.

Thank you, please keep us posted.

[SebastianJu]

It's all just a bluff. Hearn is just going there testifying that he can serve bitcoin up on a platter for the sitting mob to control and manipulate... and they will believe it... and they'll finally feast on some of the lies they've been serving up forever... consider it a vision.

Believe this and... at some point its reality because you didnt stand up against and let everything move on in the believe its a bluff.

[Ipsum]

If you guys want to have a productive conversation that has a chance of influencing Bitcoin Foundation policy, why not join the Foundation and help vote in who -you- think should be running it? Or start a rival organization founded on principles you approve of and use that organization to lobby for your collective point of view.

I'm a lifetime member, but I don't agree with everything the Foundation does, or everything every other member of the Foundation believes, nor do I support all of its leadership.

The Foundation is, however, like it or not, currently the premiere organization in the bitcoin space, with virtually every major Western player (and some eastern) as part of it. The members and sponsors of it are, in a very real way, the ones building the future of bitcoin, from all angles - development, lobbying the government for regulations that are less insane, building out the infrastructure necessary for any kind of mainstream adoption to even begin with, working to proactively educate a range of people from bankers to the general public about what bitcoin is, and what opportunities it represents, and so on.

[proudhon]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

What can they do?  There's not much anyone can do about things like this.  As Carlton has already pointed out, this isn't a protocol change.  Tracking coins and creating whitelists/blacklists/redlists/bluelists is possible and open for anyone to do due to bitcoin's (and all other cryptocoins) design.

[BitDreams]

Countries A,B,C,D are adversaries. A steady stream of tainted coins flows from adversaries to neutral countries who then spend them back to adversaries who have little choice but to consider them whitelisted just through the nature of separation. Run simulations through your mind.

That steady global stream should be plenty enough to keep the bloodhounds occupied for a long, long while.

Pot is legal in how many countries? Well guess where the green coins are flowing? Those countries deal with neighbors. Those neighbors, willing to whitelist

For something truly despicable? Maybe some international cooperation that would be just as transparent to individuals as it is to government, no hiding for the hiders with bitcoin.

Have there not been many debates since bitcoin has been traded about individuals following the chain? It is inevitable as has been mentioned above. Throw government a bone, you know they are going to take it anyway.

Global government because of bitcoin? BRING IT. The entire world would be the audience every single step of the way with cooperation, survival and sustainability regulated transparently and malintent identified and crushed.

Or am I hallucinating?

my amature opinion - everything is a buying opportunity even if the price just flattens out...

[SebastianJu]

This is the wet dream of every government being able to mark the money in a persons pocket useless. Claiming that the dollar note he has was used 10 trades before by a drug dealer. So you have a dollar note but its worth nothing.

In fact its even worse. Its the hostile take-over of bitcoin. Bitcoin wont be free anymore. It would be ruled by the ones that decide what coins are worth something and what coins arent. And this authority of course let themself pay for the allowance to use your money. And you identity on top.

I knew it was a stupid move to start a centralized bitcoin organisation that have the power to change bitcoin at the same time because of the power they have about the official wallet. They didnt implement the possibility to fork bitcoin yet. Which should be doable in case bitcoin foundation draws a stupid move. Only with the ability to fork the wallet the real bitcoin network could move on. Though it wouldnt help much with tainting in this case.

Of course anyone can create such a server but it only matters if someone believes in it and think coins are less worth then. The bitcoin foundation and the official wallet development should be divided. It shouldnt be possible to implement a change that is automatically auto-updated for a big part of the bitcoin network. Thats simply way too dangerous. When i read how many members of the foundation seems to like the idea i wonder if its best to close bitcoin foundation. Its an attack point against bitcoin and with the might about the official wallet its an effective attack point.

The following is a good explaination of the problem in another thread:

But isn't the purpose of CoinValidation to label adresses and not coins?

I don't get why the fungibility of coins is destroyed if only adresses are impacted?

All previous addresses that received the coin are listed on the public blockchain ledger.  From what was said I believe Coin Validation plans to look at the history of the addresses associated with coins.  If your coin was used 10 transactions ago by a silk road user, (eg seen entering the silk road address) then likely implications are you will not be able to spend your coin on any site using their system.

They hope it will be viral, ie because you dont want to hold coins you cant spend, you may also refuse to accept coins they do not white list.  Having them validate your coins will not be free and the uncertainty arising from not knowing if your coins will suddenly become less spendable will create fungibility problems.

There are costs associated with the fraud tracing validation, blacklisting and payment revocation.  eg its bad for merchants too, they cant rely on receiving money they can spend themselves.  This is why credit cards are expensive for merchants (3-5% + 30c).  This is one thing that makes bitcoin attractive for merchants and users - the fees are close to zero in comparison.  Coin blacklist/whitelistng (just different names for the same trend) damage the underlying  irrevocability which enables low cost transactions, and pulls bitcoins transaction cost up towards credit cards and paypal.

The problem is when fungibility degrades because everyone is mutually scared of accepting blacklisted coins the utility of the coin goes down, the cost of using the currency goes up and so its price falls.  It might literally collapse if the feedback loop picks up momentum as people sell non-white listed coins at steeper discounts in a race to the door.

This makes as much sense as a $100 note in your pocket disabling itself because 10 previous holders ago, someone stole it from a convenience store.

Someone posted on reddit about a 17th centur scottish court case (cant find the link now), where a bank was able to prevent legislation that would've had that implication - if you're left holding a stolen note, you lose it.  The court rejected the case based on the argument that doing so would be unfair and also destroy the fungibility and value of the currency.  Coin Validation want to reopen that 17th century mistaken (but defeated) court case.

Adam

[johnyj]

Technically this is achievable without any change in bitcoin client or protocol, no one can prevent FBI from doing this in their own database

And the coins redlisted in one country will be moved to another country where no similar tracking exists, they circulated there for a while and changed owner for many times, eventually when they returned to the original country, anyone can claim them as clean. There will be many companies established in other countries to clean the coins for a fee, in Russia or China  

[SebastianJu]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

What can they do?  There's not much anyone can do about things like this.  As Carlton has already pointed out, this isn't a protocol change.  Tracking coins and creating whitelists/blacklists/redlists/bluelists is possible and open for anyone to do due to bitcoin's (and all other cryptocoins) design.

Its different. If a average joe creates such a list on its server it doesnt matter. But if the bitcoin foundation changes the official wallet and shows tainted coins it will have a bad effect.

[Carlton Banks]

We can all relax in the long term.

I have confirmation from gmaxwell that the whole transaction history can be completely encrypted in the blockchain, but also that we can be sure that the sanctity of the 21 million limit, or that checking that people can't claim to have not received money that we know we did send etc.

Can SCIP be used to prove the monetary base, whilst keeping tx's secret?

Maybe Bitcoin culture won't accept it by the time it's achievable. Perhaps living out the realities of taint-lists will not be as much a nightmare as what's possible. But there will always be the possibility at least of a competing altcoin that can solve this problem at a technical level, without compromising any of the original tenets of Bitcoins goal. Could be the only altcoin worth something in BTC value, or possibly at all. We will see.

[Luckybit]

Is there an alternative solution to dealing with these problems which do not involve a taint list?

Well, education in good practices using computers and the internet is the best solution to ransomware. It's never happened to me.

Stolen funds can be very effectively dealt with by encouraging a culture of well designed hardware wallets. This increases the required sophistication of an effective attack enormously, a talented hacker would have to work hard, and any successful efforts would only be useful against a single hardware wallet firmware (which should be update capable to fix any exploitable bugs).

Merchants that choose to insist on linking purchases to an identity can use the future Bitcoin Identity Protocol to do so. These ID's could be the most powerful identity information tool conceived, and when I say that, I mean powerful to the user, not to those that want to track your identity. Whole other topic, but I am impressed by the proposed scheme.

Mike Hearn knows and explicitly advocates for all these approaches, apart possibly from the solution to ransomware, but who could honestly say don't endorse that.

No amount of education will help once governments decide it's a good idea to sponsor the creation of randomware. I think you underestimate the level of sophistication this ransomware could take and underestimate the seriousness of the threat.

I agree with the use of the Bitcoin identity protocol. That should be what they push and not this coin taint stuff.

[adamstgBit]

I'm disappointed that Mike Hearn would advocate for the use of blacklists, tainting and reduced fungibility of bitcoin . As one of the significant members of the The Bitcoin Foundation, he has the ability to make this kind of scheme a reality. For someone who just went on a rant against the NSA for violating Google's privacy, this kind of betrayal of the bitcoin user's privacy is really heinous. Who will dictate what constitutes a crime? Who will dictate when a bitcoin will no longer be listed? I doubt that he's given much thought to such questions beyond "whatever the police say", which, in this current political climate, is a very ignorant stance. I suggest those who want to keep bitcoin a viable and fungible currency let Mr. Hearn and all of the The Bitcoin Foundation members know that this idea should not be implemented and produce policy positions rejecting it.

I opened a new topic on the Bitcoin Foundation's forum:

Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint

Me, and many others in the bitcoin community are deeply concerned about Mike Hearn pushing for coin taint.  We feel that if the Bitcoin Foundation is even going to consider mentioning this in the upcoming government meeting, that we can no longer stand behind them.  This is serious.  Coin taint is even worse than increasing the 21 million limit.  Since the chairman of Law and Policy is involved here, I would like to call for a vote against this, and a clear stance from the Bitcoin Foundation.  I know many of the board members are supporters of mixing coins even more, so something like this can never happen again.  It would be a good message to the bitcoin community to confirm that the foundation supports keeping coins anonymous, instead of going in the opposite direction.

Yes!

this is the core of the issue, it doesn't really matter that some poeple are working on bitcoin red-list or wtv. what matter is the Foundation should stand WITH us not against us on these core issues.

we the poeple have made it clear from day one that tainting coins is a bad idea for so many reasons. to see the Foundation back a project like this is wrong, it is wrong!

we should be seeing the FBI working on these projects and then we should see the Foundation discredit their efforts and explain why such a schemes just wont work. the problem with this is that it won't stop bitcoin money laundering that at all (it will just make it 3 hops harder, not much harder) and actually end up causing problems for innocent people and bitcoin itself.

[Carlton Banks]

Countries A,B,C,D are adversaries. A steady stream of tainted coins flows from adversaries to neutral countries who then spend them back to adversaries who have little choice but to consider them whitelisted just through the nature of separation. Run simulations through your mind.

That steady global stream should be plenty enough to keep the bloodhounds occupied for a long, long while.

Pot is legal in how many countries? Well guess where the green coins are flowing? Those countries deal with neighbors. Those neighbors, willing to whitelist

For something truly despicable? Maybe some international cooperation that would be just as transparent to individuals as it is to government, no hiding for the hiders with bitcoin.

Have there not been many debates since bitcoin has been traded about individuals following the chain? It is inevitable as has been mentioned above. Throw government a bone, you know they are going to take it anyway.

Global government because of bitcoin? BRING IT. The entire world would be the audience every single step of the way with cooperation, survival and sustainability regulated transparently and malintent identified and crushed.

Or am I hallucinating?

my amature opinion - everything is a buying opportunity even if the price just flattens out...

No, this is smart. The elevated value of green addresses can be used against these schemes. Register a green address, then use it only for laundering CoinSwapped money. The problems created are displaced, and new opportunities are created. I really hope these listing companies can be bankrupted though their lack of foresight, they should watch more Tom and Jerry.

[proudhon]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

What can they do?  There's not much anyone can do about things like this.  As Carlton has already pointed out, this isn't a protocol change.  Tracking coins and creating whitelists/blacklists/redlists/bluelists is possible and open for anyone to do due to bitcoin's (and all other cryptocoins) design.

Its different. If a average joe creates such a list on its server it doesnt matter. But if the bitcoin foundation changes the official wallet and shows tainted coins it will have a bad effect.

It doesn't matter who creates the list.  If the list is trusted by enough people, and governments mandate that businesses register or only accept from "verified" bitcoins on some approved list, then you get the same thing.  Again, it doesn't matter if everyone's complaining prevents the Foundation from implementing something like this, because there's really nothing that can be done to prevent somebody from doing it and from governments from legislating for it.

[Carlton Banks]

I agree with the use of the Bitcoin identity protocol. That should be what they push and not this coin taint stuff.

Like I say, the supreme irony is that Mike Hearn advocates both.

[adamstgBit]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

What can they do?  There's not much anyone can do about things like this.  As Carlton has already pointed out, this isn't a protocol change.  Tracking coins and creating whitelists/blacklists/redlists/bluelists is possible and open for anyone to do due to bitcoin's (and all other cryptocoins) design.

Its different. If a average joe creates such a list on its server it doesnt matter. But if the bitcoin foundation changes the official wallet and shows tainted coins it will have a bad effect.

It doesn't matter who creates the list.  If the list is trusted by enough people, and governments mandate that businesses register or only accept from "verified" bitcoins on some approved list, then you get the same thing.  Again, it doesn't matter if everyone's complaining prevents the Foundation from implementing something like this, because there's really nothing that can be done to prevent somebody from doing it and from governments from legislating for it.

i agree, but the foundation MUST be on our side of the debate.

and they are not!! 

[Luckybit]

Ok, re-reading it more calmly Mike isn't proposing it or taking any stance he's looking for ideas on any aspect of it. It already exists, it can be done using the just the blockchain so I'd guess discussion should be as much about possible ways of preventing tracking as about ways of implementing it. That works both ways, making it hard for a government to track coins and extort 50% of your holdings also makes it hard to track the those extorting coins out of the little old granny with cryptolocker. That makes it a lot bigger issue than it seems, tracking can already be done but for now its restricted to specialists.

The problem is that the government could be behind both of these instances. A government can create cryptolocker ransomware technologies and spread it viral to tax the entire Bitcoin community by preying on the weakest members. It will be something governments could sponsor and use to steal money and I would not be surprised if a government were behind cryptolocker.

So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.

[Kouye]

So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.

Come on... Ransomwares are old story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_%28trojan_horse%29

Seriously, this is just anecdotal.

[Luckybit]

So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.

Come on... Ransomwares are old story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_%28trojan_horse%29

Seriously, this is just anecdotal.

Advanced persistent threats can exist in any and every one of our computer systems. At any time a government can flip a switch and force us to pay some tax in Bitcoins? Just because it's not a new concept it does not mean that governments around the world are not assembling cyber armies and militias to do exactly this kind of stuff.

So if Bitcoin were made completely anonymous then what could we do to protect ourselves from government sponsored attacks on Bitcoin users whether by phishing, by bribery, by ransomware extortion, malware, or anything else?
Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
Sweeping the problem under the rug will not help Bitcoin go mainstream. People like us might be considered security experts but the vast majority of Bitcoin users of the future will not be and we don't want the reason for Bitcoin to fail to be that hackers can manipulate and target the users.

[Tirapon]

I find it encouraging to read all of these responses. Everybody in the community understands that removing the fungibility of coins will most likely lead to Bitcoin's demise.

I'm going to repost this because I think Melbustus is spot on:

A few points:

1) This is obviously a terrible idea. Anything that reduces fungibility inherently reduces bitcoin's properties as an ideal money, and to me, that makes this whole experiment much less interesting.

2) I believe Mike's motivations are pure, in that he wants to prevent the situations he alludes to (the old lady getting taken by CryptoLocker). Unfortunately it's an ugly slippery slope littered with good intentions. The treatment eventually becomes far worse than the disease.

3) Unfortunately if black/red lists *can* happen, they will. This has been a known issue for a while, and it's not surprising that people are starting to implement such ideas. The counter-measures MUST BE TECHNICAL. If Mike flipped his opinion, it'd still happen. If CoinValidation disappeared, it'd still happen. Boycotting people, business, the foundation, etc, is not an effective response. Either tech like CoinJoin or ZeroCoin becomes production-ready, or we end up with a sea of "these-coins-are-special" lists.


For the record, if these list services develop and gain marketplace traction without any technical means to make them irrelevant, I'm done with bitcoin (that's a tough statement for me to make). And, no, I don't have any interest in doing anything illegal with bitcoin... It's just clear that a robust redlist ecosystem will create a gradient of coins, which will make things ugly, difficult to understand/manage, and ultimately a couple orders of magnitude less useful and interesting than bitcoin currently is.

I think we should all be thinking of how best to direct our attention towards projects/innovations which will solve this problem.

[impulse]

Where is Jon Matonis in this conversation? My understanding is that he is opposed to such things, it would be nice to hear from him on this.

[Kouye]

Advanced persistent threats can exist in any and every one of our computer systems. At any time a government can flip a switch and force us to pay some tax in Bitcoins?

No, they cannot.

And...

Have you been hit by a ransomware before?
Do you know anyone who have been?

Quit being paranoid. Ransomware did exist, still exist, and will exist. With no more power than they had before, provided you have a safe backup of your wallet.

[DoomDumas]

Really ?  the idea of 'redlisting' coins is very bad.

I'll oppose as much as I can, as a miner, and as a user.

It makes me wonder "where this come from ?"  Mike personal oppinion ?  I dont think so.. seems like he's being influence / get presure from some entity that dont like Bitcoin.

Just to propose this is Anti-Bitcoin IMO !

We cant let it be !

Edit : The "treat" that seems to motivate such redlisting are actually done with current money, and they are not killing the use of money.  I dont think that the principle "to protect the old lady from extorsion by a malware" is a sufficient reason.  The old lady should ask a cimputer tech to repair her computer.. This is an education issue, not a Bitcoin issue..

[tgerring]

The essence of crypto-anarchism is that one does not generally need to fight oppressive systems of social organization directly, instead we use technology to make those modes of organization obsolete.

This is the way forward. Technology, not politics.

[DoomDumas]

The essence of crypto-anarchism is that one does not generally need to fight oppressive systems of social organization directly, instead we use technology to make those modes of organization obsolete.

This is the way forward. Technology, not politics.

Well said.. If something does work properly, instead of trying to patch/fix it, why not create something else, something new that make the issue non-existent.  This is Bitcoin.  Cope with it or stick to other form of exchange.

[Ipsum]

what matter is the Foundation should stand WITH us not against us on these core issues.

Who is 'us' exactly?

[Luckybit]

Advanced persistent threats can exist in any and every one of our computer systems. At any time a government can flip a switch and force us to pay some tax in Bitcoins?

No, they cannot.

And...

Have you been hit by a ransomware before?
Do you know anyone who have been?

Quit being paranoid. Ransomware did exist, still exist, and will exist. With no more power than they had before, provided you have a safe backup of your wallet.

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet

[p2pbucks]

Foundation should be dismissed right now  ! They are Bitcoin Destroyers!

[playtin]

Developments like this redlist thing played a big role for us in our decision to add a wallet and off-chain transactions to our service. Especially off-chain transactions can help to fight such nonsense. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333350.0

[Kouye]

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

You're a persistent one.
I'm just telling you that ransomware will not magically become more efficient than it is now just because people acknowledge bitcoin being worth more than murrikan dollar.

Ransomware today is a pain. Ransomware tomorrow will be a pain. Ransomware won't be more dangerous tomorrow than it is today.
Your coins are safe as long as you have a backup+strong passphrase or cold wallets.
Just smile and go to sleep.

[Ipsum]

So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

Mike's example is Tor, which is a network that failed to clean up the abuse that goes through it, resulting in all sorts of networks and sites now banning access from Tor exit nodes, drastically reducing the ability of someone to use Tor to normally use the internet. The same thing can happen with bitcoin, and as someone who does want to be able to transact in bitcion someday, failing to look at ways to isolate bad actors from the bitcoin network is a mistake.

I don't think -anybody- at the Foundation is happy about even having to have this discussion. But the discussion has to happen, because Cryptolocker is a real issue that's going to become a lot bigger soon. There are very few vectors of attack against Cryptolocker (and inevitable copycats), whereas stuff like Silk Road is almost guaranteed to fail long-term due to the huge number of vectors for law enforcement to use against it. Unfortunately, one of those very few vectors usable against Cryptolocker is bitcoin.

I think it's unlikely the Foundation will end up making coin redlisting/tainting/blacklisting/whatever an official policy they try to push, but the idea that we shouldn't even be having the discussion is crazy. The process at arriving at a solution for problems usually involves many dead ends and dark caves before you find the route to the top of the mountain.

[Ytterbium]

This doesn't even make any sense.  Coins already carry "taint", you can see where they come from. If someone wants to publish a list of transactions they don't like, they're obviously free to do that. I could setup a website with my own "redlist" today. What problem is this even supposed to solve?

The problem of course, is who maintains this list? The bitcoin foundation? every government in the world? If I'm in Iran do I have to apply the US government's redlist?  What happens when the US government tries to use the redlist to help stop the Iranian nuclear program, is some Iranian nuclear scientist supposed to reject his own paycheck?

It does illustrate the importance of keeping mining decentralized, though. If there are a few central, major mines in the world, they'll have an incentive not to mine blocks with 'redlisted' addresses, and on top of that they can even refuse to mine off blocks with redlisted addresses in a government-coordinated 51% attack.

[drawingthesun]

The only solution is to fast forward development of CoinJoin/ZeroCoin type systems.

If Mikes/US Governments lists all work based on tracking coins ("taint analyses") then now moving towards a fully anonymous Bitcoin is the only way to go.

I argued almost a year ago (different account I think) that the future must be Bitcoin with some built in anonymous capability otherwise evils like coin tracking will emerge.

Already if you make a payment you risk the merchant discovering your a millionaire and risk life and limb (In this way Bitcoin can be less private than a normal bank account, at least my local IGA has no idea what my bank balance is)

The solution is to make it commonplace to anonymize almost every transaction or set of transactions by default. This will stop NSA tracking, the redlist and people discovering your networth.

[tvbcof]

...
Hearn posted the following message to the legal section of the members-only foundation forum:
...

This was exactly my biggest concern when the idea of the foundation was initially floated, and I stated it.  Fungus grows in the dark.  As it happened, the level of opacity is far worse than I even dreamed it might be.

In order to protect my own ass I need to understand the way things are progressing and I'm not going to buy a seat at the foundation just to do this because I feel that they are not acting in the best interests of what I'd like to see Bitcoin become.

[Kouye]

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin[...]

Ransomwares are as old as internet. They've always been around, and they have no more power than they had before bitcoin.
And even if you are right, Ipsum, can you PLEASE explain to me how redlisting coins would help fighting CryptoLocker copycats ?

I think it's unlikely the Foundation will end up making coin redlisting/tainting/blacklisting/whatever an official policy

That's a relief. I guess.

[Wary]

Its easy to redlist someone/something, but its a career ending move to clear the wrong person.

Good point!

[Ytterbium]

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

Here's a thought - why don't people keep their virus definition files up to date? Microsoft deserves a huge amount of blame for leaving their OSes unprotected for such an incredibly long time, but windows 8 actually does include Microsoft Security Essentials for free.

Anyway, how many people have actually gotten the cryptlocker virus?  I think it's pretty unlikely that this will be anything more then a fringe thing affecting people who probably don't have any valuable files anyway, because they don't even know how to use their computer. A virus writer will have to be extremely selective in targeting people if they don't want their virus to end up in virus definition, which in turn means not very many people will be effected.  If they try to spread it all over the place it'll end up blocked everywhere, which in turn, again, means no one gets it.

DPR tried to have people whacked for bitcoin, and this stupid virus is what people are worried about "ruining bitcoin"?

[Peter R]

So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

CryptoLocker is forcing people to rethink their computer security.  In our post-Snowden world, I believe this is a long-term good thing, despite the harm and frustration it is causing people in the short term.  

I actually met one of the victims, BTW.  A late-60's women from Vancouver trying to buy coins from the Robocoin ATM:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=330720

What she didn't like about bitcoin was the difficulty she had in buying one.  I thought it was interesting that in her mind cryptolocker was "evil Russian hackers" and bitcoin was just some unrelated thing she could buy from the ATM.

[Kouye]

CryptoLocker is forcing people to rethink their computer security.

no, No, NO, NO.
Ransomware have existed before most bictoiners were born.
This is very, very old news.

[millsdmb]

This is just the beginning.
Satoshi would be ashamed.

its so sad too, because Satoshi reached out to Mike to get him more involved (as I understand it). Now he appears to be looking to effectively kill the whole thing.

Q: I'm not technically savvy, but wouldn't the solution be CryptoLocker counter-measures on client computers?
A: (Mike's own words) "That's certainly a solution yes, but unfortunately it's sort of like saying the solution to burglary is having locks ondoors and windows, so we don't need the police."

And this guy is important for bitcoin? SMDH.

(edit: source: https://jumpshare.com/v/FCGnW40vMhG8ETE8i57h?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR)

[Peter R]

CryptoLocker is forcing people to rethink their computer security.

no, No, NO, NO.
Ransomware have existed before most bictoiners were born.
This is old news.

So if you or someone you know was a victim of cryptolocker, you wouldn't rethink your computer security?  I know the old lady and I both re-thought our computer security (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=330720)

The fact that cryptolocker was not the first instance of ransomware does not make my statement false.

Haha: CryptoLocker: not the first, just the best.

[Kouye]

The fact that cryptolocker was not the first instance of ransomware does not make my statement false.

It does not, indeed.
If you agree explaining to me how redlisting coins would help, and how bitcoin make you more vulnerable to ransomware...
I'll tell you a nice story called Reveton.

[Peter R]

The fact that cryptolocker was not the first instance of ransomware does not make my statement false.

It does not, indeed.
If you agree explaining to me how redlisting coins would help, and how bitcoin make you more vulnerable to ransomware...
I'll tell you a nice story called Reveton.

What I said had nothing to do with red-listing coins!  I was just pointing out two things:

1. That after meeting a CryptoLocker victim in person, I could tell that they did not relate bitcoin to CryptoLocker.  She thought the virus was "evil Russian hackers" and that bitcoins were these things she could buy from the Robocoin ATM in downtown Vancouver.  

2.  That CryptoLocker, in a twisted sense, may actually be teaching mankind an important lesson in computer security. 

I think any change to bitcoin based on "CryptoLocker" would be unwise ridiculous.  
I think any change to bitcoin based on "CryptoLocker" would be unwise ridiculous.
I think any change to bitcoin based on "CryptoLocker" would be unwise ridiculous Bitcoin is great as is.

[justusranvier]

I don't think -anybody- at the Foundation is happy about even having to have this discussion. But the discussion has to happen, because Cryptolocker is a real issue that's going to become a lot bigger soon. There are very few vectors of attack against Cryptolocker (and inevitable copycats), whereas stuff like Silk Road is almost guaranteed to fail long-term due to the huge number of vectors for law enforcement to use against it. Unfortunately, one of those very few vectors usable against Cryptolocker is bitcoin.

Cryptolocker is not Bitcoin's issue any more than it's Ford's issue if a bank robber drives off in one of models.

If somebody should be thrown under the bus here it should be Microsoft for being unable or unwilling to build secure operating systems.

Anyone who says they are worried about Cryptolocker's effect on Bitcoin adoption is lying. By every objective measure: transaction rate, blockchain.info wallets, frequency of conferences, exchange rate, etc, growth is exponential and shows not the slightest sign of being negatively affected by Cryptolocker.

This idea of a Cryptolocker backlash is a fake problem used to scare the community into accepting a compromise that's against their best interests. These plans have been in the works for years, as evidenced on this very forum, and the proponents have just been waiting for a suitable excuse the put their plans into effect.

[Luckybit]

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

You're a persistent one.
I'm just telling you that ransomware will not magically become more efficient than it is now just because people acknowledge bitcoin being worth more than murrikan dollar.

Ransomware today is a pain. Ransomware tomorrow will be a pain. Ransomware won't be more dangerous tomorrow than it is today.
Your coins are safe as long as you have a backup+strong passphrase or cold wallets.
Just smile and go to sleep.

I think Keyhotee is part of the solution to some of these problems. Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3pZaTdEtK-8
The other idea I heard which was very good was the Bitcoin identity protocol. Both of those ideas need to be implemented immediately.

And I don't assume my coins are safe enough. I don't trust hardware or software but at this point we have to because this is all we have. Bitcoins are not currently worth enough money for sophisticated and targeted attacks and I don't have a lot of Bitcoins anyway to be worth attacking. But some people have 1000 coins or 10,000 coins and they'll be in danger today. In the future people having just a few coins will have to worry about being cyber robbed.

No it's not easy to defend yourself against extortion or identity theft. It's almost impossible to be sure your computer is malware/spyware free and if a government wants to spy they can see everything. We can only do the best we can with our software implementations and use stuff like raspberry pi for hardware. Paranoia is actually necessary to defend valuable information which is why we typically pay experts to do it.

[Peter R]

If somebody should be thrown under the bus here it should be Microsoft for being unable or unwilling to build secure operating systems.

+1

The problem is 50% Microsoft and 50% people not being as careful as they should.

[Quetzalcoatl_]

So it's a very serious problem which I think people on this forum are underestimating. Cryptolocker could destroy Bitcoin just like the blacklist can.

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

The moral panic has long been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of authority. Let's look at a similar "serious problem" from recent history: 9/11. It was so "demonically simple" to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, that Something Had To Be Done. Similar to Mike Hearn's proposal, the US Government took the opportunity to "temporarily" severely curtail our freedom and massively expand police authority. They also used 9/11 as an excuse to get into some wars that they wanted to fight anyway, even though these wars obviously had nothing to do with 9/11. "Temporarily" has since proven to be "permanently." Bush is long gone, yet the government still hasn't rolled back its expanded powers.

Mike Hearn is participating in the same sort of thing that the Bush Administration did in 2001. He is proposing that Bitcoin businesses voluntarily help the US Government seize worldwide control of Bitcoin for the mere perception that something is being done about CryptoLocker. Meanwhile, there are obvious ulterior motives in play. To achieve a critical mass that would harm all users of Bitcoin, he only needs to get BitPay and Coinbase on board.

[Peter R]

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

This seems disingenuous.  Gold and cash are worth lots too.  If you advertise the fact that you have a big hoard under your bed, and then leave your doors unlocked, then, yeah, you'll be a target.  

Just like gold or $, if you don't want to secure your money, pay a service that will.  

The beauty of bitcoin is that everyone is free to make the choice that is right for them.

[Kouye]

No it's not easy to defend yourself against extortion or identity theft. It's almost impossible to be sure your computer is malware/spyware free and if a government wants to spy they can see everything.

Can we stay on-topic, please? We're talking about redlisting bitcoins as a solution to kill CryptoLocker copycats, here, not your current doubts about internet security.

[Ipsum]

Ransomwares are as old as internet. They've always been around, and they have no more power than they had before bitcoin.

It's not as old as the internet, but you're right that it is pretty old - the first was in 1989. They have far more power now though, because of bitcoin.

Typically, the best way to shut down ransomware criminals is to use the payment method as an attack vector. Shut down the payment vector, shut down the motivation for the person or organization trying to extort people that way. Cryptolocker currently accepts bitcoin and Greendot Moneypak. The latter vector is going to get shut down, because it's via a centralized system owned by a company that has executives who don't want to go to jail for money laundering.

You can't just shut down the bitcoin vector in the same way though, as we all know. And that makes bitcoin the not-so-secret weapon that ransomware is going to exploit to hell and back. Just think for a minute how many people's computers are zombie'd/slaved or otherwise infected with viruses. Now add a very lucrative, direct way to collect money from individual victims, in an essentially anonymous way (if they're careful). I don't know about you, but I think that sound in the distance is half the black hat hackers in the world's drool collectively hitting the floor.

And even if you are right, Ipsum, can you PLEASE explain to me how redlisting coins would help fighting CryptoLocker copycats ?

Well, Mike's a very smart guy, and an expert in security, so I may not understand his proposal with precision, but I'm pretty sure the outrage on this thread is a result of people just flying off the handle for no good reason. To be very clear, he's calling it a red list specifically because it's not the same as a blacklist. He's not proposing auto-filtering out 'tainted' coins. Here's the short summary:

"Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet."

This is basically a reputation service. There could be many of them, though it's a network on top of a network, so I'd have to imagine the network effect is pretty huge in terms of winner-takes-all.

He had written more about it here earlier: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130.60

And to be clear, he's not even proposing it. He's just pointing out that there is a potentially huge problem with cryptolocker and other methods of clear crime (I don't know anyone who thinks extortion is ok, vs Silk Road, where there's legitimate debate) where what bitcoin does is completely shut down the attack vector law enforcement can most easily use to shut down the incentive to commit the crime.

Neither I nor Mike nor anyone else know what the solution (if there is one) to the problem is, but it certainly deserves discussion, and redlisting is one idea. That's all his post was. A discussion. Blacklisting (distinct from and way worse than redlisting) would be completely off the table for everyone I know in the Foundation, for what it's worth.

[Luckybit]

I don't think -anybody- at the Foundation is happy about even having to have this discussion. But the discussion has to happen, because Cryptolocker is a real issue that's going to become a lot bigger soon. There are very few vectors of attack against Cryptolocker (and inevitable copycats), whereas stuff like Silk Road is almost guaranteed to fail long-term due to the huge number of vectors for law enforcement to use against it. Unfortunately, one of those very few vectors usable against Cryptolocker is bitcoin.

Cryptolocker is not Bitcoin's issue any more than it's Ford's issue if a bank robber drives off in one of models.

If somebody should be thrown under the bus here it should be Microsoft for being unable or unwilling to build secure operating systems.

Anyone who says they are worried about Cryptolocker's effect on Bitcoin adoption is lying. By every objective measure: transaction rate, blockchain.info wallets, frequency of conferences, exchange rate, etc, growth is exponential and shows not the slightest sign of being negatively affected by Cryptolocker.

This idea of a Cryptolocker backlash is a fake problem used to scare the community into accepting a compromise that's against their best interests. These plans have been in the works for years, as evidenced on this very forum, and the proponents have just been waiting for a suitable excuse the put their plans into effect.

It's not a fake problem at all. If in 6 months magically Bitcoins are $100,000 each then the incentive to target users is now much much higher. Malware will be written by the best of the best and you wont be able to detect it with any sort of virus scanner software or countermeasure. Nothing can be done to stop undetectable malware attacks, randomware attacks, or anything else. The best idea we have from the community is the Trezor wallet and they are taking too long to make it.

It will be interesting to see how secure the Trezor actually is and whether or not it can pass the security checks but if it does then that is part of it. The point is that not enough time and effort is being put into protecting the users of Bitcoin from being targets of hackers precisely because a lot of the old time Bitcoin users are security experts who can tell newbies to compile their Bitcoin wallet, to put their Bitcoins in cold storage, to use a 25 character password or a brain wallet. Let's be honest here and admit that security is not easy even for the experts. The more you know about security the more paranoid you tend to be.

So when people say I'm being paranoid it might be because I know a lot about this subject and have reason to be.

[Luckybit]

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

This seems disingenuous.  Gold and cash are worth lots too.  If you advertise the fact that you have a big hoard under your bed, and then leave your doors unlocked, then, yeah, you'll be a target.  

Just like gold or $, if you don't want to secure your money, pay a service that will.  

The beauty of bitcoin is that everyone is free to make the choice that is right for them.

The fact is that it already is advertised who has a big stash. Anyone could be analyzing the blockchain as we speak and connecting those wallet accounts to email addresses. An unregulated exchange could collect email addresses and wallet addresses to put into their database. That exchange could then be hacked or perhaps the government sponsored hackers put the malware on that exchange. Perhaps the exchange itself is merely a front, a honeypot to attract high net worth Bitcoin holders to capture intelligence (which can then allow the database owner to sell the database for Bitcoins to hackers).

Once intelligence has been captured then you know how many coins are in certain addresses and you have their email addresses. So what stops you from sending them attachments with malware? What stops you from targeting them for scams or phishing for more information for even better targeted advanced persistent threats, malware or ransomware?

When you're talking about someone with a million dollars in their wallet and their email address is public information because its associated with an exchange, why wouldn't hackers target that email address? Why wouldn't hackers be looking for personally identifiable information? The same way KYC can be used by regulated exchanges nothing stops unregulated exchanges from collecting information about users and then hacking them.

[Ipsum]

Mike Hearn is participating in the same sort of thing that the Bush Administration did in 2001. He is proposing that Bitcoin businesses voluntarily help the US Government seize worldwide control of Bitcoin for the mere perception that something is being done about CryptoLocker. Meanwhile, there are obvious ulterior motives in play. To achieve a critical mass that would harm all users of Bitcoin, he only needs to get BitPay and Coinbase on board.

Take a deep breath, remove the tinfoil hat.

Please read my previous post. Mike started a discussion about what is effectively a reputation service for coins. He didn't even propose that the Bitcoin Foundation adopt promoting the idea of one as policy, or that he himself is convinced a redlist is a good idea.

They're going to spring up regardless of Mike's proposal, though. Some bitcoin services will use them, some won't. They'll be full of holes and cannot, by the nature of bitcoin, be 100% effective.

A reputation system is a way for individuals and entities (companies, whatever) to communicate information to each other. I thought we're about free speech here, and freedom of individuals and entities to transact (money, information, etc) with each other?

[moderate]

snip snip

So when people say I'm being paranoid it might be because I know a lot about this subject and have reason to be.

Hate to go even more offtopic here, but the ones that know something would never bother adding the words "I know a lot about this" for reasons such as not needing to tell they know a lot about the subject, and by knowing that they have a lot to learn.

[Quetzalcoatl_]

Well, Mike's a very smart guy, and an expert in security, so I may not understand his proposal with precision, but I'm pretty sure the outrage on this thread is a result of people just flying off the handle for no good reason. To be very clear, he's calling it a red list specifically because it's not the same as a blacklist. He's not proposing auto-filtering out 'tainted' coins. Here's the short summary:

"Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet."

This is basically a reputation service. There could be many of them, though it's a network on top of a network, so I'd have to imagine the network effect is pretty huge in terms of winner-takes-all.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude that this "redlist" won't behave exactly like a blacklist. Especially when government joins in on it by punishing people for accepting coins they "should have known" were used for illegal activity. What you'll end up with is an ecosystem where nobody accepts "red"listed coins as payment, even if the network will still let you move them around. If you are innocent, sure, you can contact the operator of the list, but the operator will have no obligation to assume you're innocent. You'll be expected to prove your innocence to the operator's satisfaction.

[justusranvier]

It's not a fake problem at all. If in 6 months magically Bitcoins are $100,000 each then the incentive to target users is now much much higher. Malware will be written by the best of the best and you wont be able to detect it with any sort of virus scanner software or countermeasure. Nothing can be done to stop undetectable malware attacks, randomware attacks, or anything else. The best idea we have from the community is the Trezor wallet and they are taking too long to make it.

Now you're trying to play the bait and switch game.

Fixing the catastrophe that is PC security, or at least figuring out decent workarounds, is not the topic at hand.

[Luckybit]

Mike Hearn is participating in the same sort of thing that the Bush Administration did in 2001. He is proposing that Bitcoin businesses voluntarily help the US Government seize worldwide control of Bitcoin for the mere perception that something is being done about CryptoLocker. Meanwhile, there are obvious ulterior motives in play. To achieve a critical mass that would harm all users of Bitcoin, he only needs to get BitPay and Coinbase on board.

Take a deep breath, remove the tinfoil hat.

Please read my previous post. Mike started a discussion about what is effectively a reputation service for coins. He didn't even propose that the Bitcoin Foundation adopt promoting the idea of one as policy, or that he himself is convinced a redlist is a good idea.

They're going to spring up regardless of Mike's proposal, though. Some bitcoin services will use them, some won't. They'll be full of holes and cannot, by the nature of bitcoin, be 100% effective.

A reputation system is a way for individuals and entities (companies, whatever) to communicate information to each other. I thought we're about free speech here, and freedom of individuals and entities to transact (money, information, etc) with each other?

The point I'm trying to make is that you're right they will exist either way and will be used by everyone. Hackers could create target lists of people who have a high net worth in Bitcoin. So even if we didn't have corporations doing the redlist and blacklist nothing would stop underground hacker groups from doing it and the result would be just as bad.

Honestly I don't want these lists to destroy Bitcoin but I also do not want hackers to destroy Bitcoin. If you say no corporation can create a known list then you still have to deal with the possibility of unknown secret lists floating around among hacker networks. I don't think these coin taint lists will do anything to protect us from randomware and I think the best ideas so far are Keyhotee and the Bitcoin identity protocol. This could allow the user to selectively identify themselves to clear themselves if there is an investigation. It is also necessary to allow users to access services without them having to give their email address or identity. You cannot trust every service. Finally it is important to allow users to have a trusted list of businesses, that part of the idea I do support. I need to know I'm contacting a trusted business and that they really are who they claim to be. No more shit like Inputs.io or Labcoin.

It's not a fake problem at all. If in 6 months magically Bitcoins are $100,000 each then the incentive to target users is now much much higher. Malware will be written by the best of the best and you wont be able to detect it with any sort of virus scanner software or countermeasure. Nothing can be done to stop undetectable malware attacks, randomware attacks, or anything else. The best idea we have from the community is the Trezor wallet and they are taking too long to make it.

Now you're trying to play the bait and switch game.

Fixing the catastrophe that is PC security, or at least figuring out decent workarounds, is not the topic at hand.

It's related. If your PC is insecure then you only have the illusion of privacy. Instead of big corporations spying on you through the web and tying your email address and password to your real world identity to sell to whomever now you're at the mercy of foreign hackers who will have databases of their own, potentially with lists of their own, and they exchange information too.

When thinking about privacy and security you have to think about the whole picture and not just the Bitcoin client but the operating system it runs on and the PC that operating system runs on. A security vulnerability in any of that and all privacy is removed.

[Peter R]

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

This seems disingenuous.  Gold and cash are worth lots too.  If you advertise the fact that you have a big hoard under your bed, and then leave your doors unlocked, then, yeah, you'll be a target.  

Just like gold or $, if you don't want to secure your money, pay a service that will.  

The beauty of bitcoin is that everyone is free to make the choice that is right for them.

The fact is that it already is advertised who has a big stash. Anyone could be analyzing the blockchain as we speak and connecting those wallet accounts to email addresses. An unregulated exchange could collect email addresses and wallet addresses to put into their database. That exchange could then be hacked or perhaps the government sponsored hackers put the malware on that exchange. Perhaps the exchange itself is merely a front, a honeypot to attract high net worth Bitcoin holders to capture intelligence (which can then allow the database owner to sell the database for Bitcoins to hackers).

Once intelligence has been captured then you know how many coins are in certain addresses and you have their email addresses. So what stops you from sending them attachments with malware? What stops you from targeting them for scams or phishing for more information for even better targeted advanced persistent threats, malware or ransomware?

When you're talking about someone with a million dollars in their wallet and their email address is public information because its associated with an exchange, why wouldn't hackers target that email address? Why wouldn't hackers be looking for personally identifiable information? The same way KYC can be used by regulated exchanges nothing stops unregulated exchanges from collecting information about users and then hacking them.

Thank you for the civilized response, Luckybit.  

I would argue that your last points are only likely if you're "not locking your doors," if I may extend my previous analogy.  Since bitcoin is so new, we don't fully know what it takes to "securely lock your doors," but we are slowly learning.  

It is my opinion that trying to "regulate-away" this learning curve would just create a more catastrophic problem down the road. 

I view this learning curve as an opportunity to create more secure ways to store and transact with bitcoin!

[Carlton Banks]

Mike Hearn is participating in the same sort of thing that the Bush Administration did in 2001. He is proposing that Bitcoin businesses voluntarily help the US Government seize worldwide control of Bitcoin for the mere perception that something is being done about CryptoLocker. Meanwhile, there are obvious ulterior motives in play. To achieve a critical mass that would harm all users of Bitcoin, he only needs to get BitPay and Coinbase on board.

Take a deep breath, remove the tinfoil hat.

Please read my previous post. Mike started a discussion about what is effectively a reputation service for coins. He didn't even propose that the Bitcoin Foundation adopt promoting the idea of one as policy, or that he himself is convinced a redlist is a good idea.

They're going to spring up regardless of Mike's proposal, though. Some bitcoin services will use them, some won't. They'll be full of holes and cannot, by the nature of bitcoin, be 100% effective.

A reputation system is a way for individuals and entities (companies, whatever) to communicate information to each other. I thought we're about free speech here, and freedom of individuals and entities to transact (money, information, etc) with each other?

It politicises the use of coins. My political opinion is that your coins should be redlisted, I don't like people like you, just because. There's your free speech.

[oakpacific]

It's all just a bluff. Hearn is just going there testifying that he can serve bitcoin up on a platter for the sitting mob to control and manipulate... and they will believe it... and they'll finally feast on some of the lies they've been serving up forever... consider it a vision.

Finally someone with some ideas about how politics works, the geeks' ignorance about which on this forum is just frustrating...

[Ipsum]

Well, Mike's a very smart guy, and an expert in security, so I may not understand his proposal with precision, but I'm pretty sure the outrage on this thread is a result of people just flying off the handle for no good reason. To be very clear, he's calling it a red list specifically because it's not the same as a blacklist. He's not proposing auto-filtering out 'tainted' coins. Here's the short summary:

"Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet."

This is basically a reputation service. There could be many of them, though it's a network on top of a network, so I'd have to imagine the network effect is pretty huge in terms of winner-takes-all.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude that this "redlist" won't behave exactly like a blacklist. Especially when government joins in on it by punishing people for accepting coins they "should have known" were used for illegal activity. What you'll end up with is an ecosystem where nobody accepts "red"listed coins as payment, even if the network will still let you move them around. If you are innocent, sure, you can contact the operator of the list, but the operator will have no obligation to assume you're innocent. You'll be expected to prove your innocence to the operator's satisfaction.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that it's a preliminary discussion where nobody knows if or what a workable solution would look like. Could be a total dead-end and very well may be, but no reason not to explore the idea to see if there's a way to make it work.

[Luckybit]

If in 6 months magically Bitcoins are $100,000 each then the incentive to target users is now much much higher.

What does the BTC/USD ratio have to do with the incentive to target users?

Do you really have to ask that question? Hackers typically go after the easiest targets. They don't and wont typically go after the security experts using cold storage (at least not at first). However they'll collect information on everyone and gather intel through services which will ask for information to help them with their scams. They will then use this intel as part of the recon so that when they do launch their attack they'll know exactly your strengths and weaknesses.

If you're someone who likes to gamble and you log into a gambling site you could find that the whole site gets mysteriously hacked and shut down with all the coins missing. The whole event could have been planned as a honeypot to attract suckers into putting their money on the site and when enough money is given to the site the hackers could roll it all up and take all the money. The higher the price for BTC at the time the more incentive they'll have to do stuff like that. The more anonymous BTC is the more likely they'll do it thinking they can get away with it.

snip snip

So when people say I'm being paranoid it might be because I know a lot about this subject and have reason to be.

Hate to go even more offtopic here, but the ones that know something would never bother adding the words "I know a lot about this" for reasons such as not needing to tell they know a lot about the subject, and by knowing that they have a lot to learn.

I know a lot but not everything. Someone here probably knows more.
There is a lot of inherent risk involved in using Bitcoin services at this time, and while the client itself may be secure we don't vet third party services at all and that is a real problem.

I'm not saying taint lists are a good solution.

[oakpacific]

Well, Mike's a very smart guy, and an expert in security, so I may not understand his proposal with precision, but I'm pretty sure the outrage on this thread is a result of people just flying off the handle for no good reason. To be very clear, he's calling it a red list specifically because it's not the same as a blacklist. He's not proposing auto-filtering out 'tainted' coins. Here's the short summary:

"Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented. You can still spend or use these coins as normal, the highlight is only informational. To clear it, you can contact the operator of the list and say, hello, here I am, I am innocent and if anyone wants to follow up and talk to me, here's how. Then the outputs are unmarked from that point onwards. For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet."

This is basically a reputation service. There could be many of them, though it's a network on top of a network, so I'd have to imagine the network effect is pretty huge in terms of winner-takes-all.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to conclude that this "redlist" won't behave exactly like a blacklist. Especially when government joins in on it by punishing people for accepting coins they "should have known" were used for illegal activity. What you'll end up with is an ecosystem where nobody accepts "red"listed coins as payment, even if the network will still let you move them around. If you are innocent, sure, you can contact the operator of the list, but the operator will have no obligation to assume you're innocent. You'll be expected to prove your innocence to the operator's satisfaction.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm saying that it's a preliminary discussion where nobody knows if or what a workable solution would look like. Could be a total dead-end and very well may be, but no reason not to explore the idea to see if there's a way to make it work.

I would say "no way to make it work" is exactly how it would work, we can make all kinds of assumption about Hearn's morality, but I doubt he is silly enough to believe a government-style blacklist will be successful, he was also an active participator in Maxwell's Coinjoin post.

[drawingthesun]

Take a deep breath, remove the tinfoil hat.

Not an attack on your argument, but the term "tinfoil hat" has to be retired now, considering that half the people wearing tinfoil hats were validated by Snowden.

Now when someone says tinfoil hat, the first thing I think of is "They are probably right, if history is any indicator"

[Ipsum]

Mike Hearn is participating in the same sort of thing that the Bush Administration did in 2001. He is proposing that Bitcoin businesses voluntarily help the US Government seize worldwide control of Bitcoin for the mere perception that something is being done about CryptoLocker. Meanwhile, there are obvious ulterior motives in play. To achieve a critical mass that would harm all users of Bitcoin, he only needs to get BitPay and Coinbase on board.

Take a deep breath, remove the tinfoil hat.

Please read my previous post. Mike started a discussion about what is effectively a reputation service for coins. He didn't even propose that the Bitcoin Foundation adopt promoting the idea of one as policy, or that he himself is convinced a redlist is a good idea.

They're going to spring up regardless of Mike's proposal, though. Some bitcoin services will use them, some won't. They'll be full of holes and cannot, by the nature of bitcoin, be 100% effective.

A reputation system is a way for individuals and entities (companies, whatever) to communicate information to each other. I thought we're about free speech here, and freedom of individuals and entities to transact (money, information, etc) with each other?

It politicises the use of coins. My political opinion is that your coins should be redlisted, I don't like people like you, just because. There's your free speech.

Sure, that's fine. And the three people that will care about your opinion there can redlist my coins, which won't affect me at all. Likewise, I could redlist your coins, and the three people that would care won't affect you at all, because neither of us run a largely trusted service passing information to its clients.

For a site where so many people give lip service to freedom, it's incredible how many people have such opposition to the idea of entities (people, companies, etc) passing information to each other in a mutually willing exchange of value.

[Peter R]

It's all just a bluff. Hearn is just going there testifying that he can serve bitcoin up on a platter for the sitting mob to control and manipulate... and they will believe it... and they'll finally feast on some of the lies they've been serving up forever... consider it a vision.

Finally someone with some ideas about how politics works, the geeks' ignorance about which on this forum is just frustrating...

Intriguing.  I was thinking along similar lines as I drove home today too.  This is all just optics.

[sarcasm]Hopefully they get the same software company that did healthcare.gov to track the tainted coins! [/sarcasm] 

[Kouye]

Stay focused, please.

Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and especially CyptoLock copycats.

[Ipsum]

Take a deep breath, remove the tinfoil hat.

Not an attack on your argument, but the term "tinfoil hat" has to be retired now, considering that half the people wearing tinfoil hats were validated by Snowden.

Now when someone says tinfoil hat, the first thing I think of is "They are probably right, if history is any indicator"

I'm not sure I know anyone reasonable who didn't think the NSA was widely spying on the world. Snowden confirmed it and provided valuable details as to just how watched we are, but come on.

This guy just claimed that Hearn's proposal was a way for the US gov to seize control of bitcoin worldwide. That's a tinfoil hat statement. Patently ridiculous.

(Maybe not ridiculous at some time in the future when bitcoin is large enough to actually raise any existential alarms in the halls of power, but we're a couple orders of magnitude from that, and nothing the federal government does is as subtle as co-opting a google security engineer living in Switzerland to start a discussion on a small (the foundation does not have that many members) message board.)

[Luckybit]

If in 6 months magically Bitcoins are $100,000 each then the incentive to target users is now much much higher.

What does the BTC/USD ratio have to do with the incentive to target users?

Do you really have to ask that question? Hackers typically go after the easiest targets. They don't and wont typically go after the security experts using cold storage (at least not at first). However they'll collect information on everyone and gather intel through services which will ask for information to help them with their scams. They will then use this intel as part of the recon so that when they do launch their attack they'll know exactly your strengths and weaknesses.

If you're someone who likes to gamble and you log into a gambling site you could find that the whole site gets mysteriously hacked and shut down with all the coins missing. The whole event could have been planned as a honeypot to attract suckers into putting their money on the site and when enough money is given to the site the hackers could roll it all up and take all the money. The higher the price for BTC at the time the more incentive they'll have to do stuff like that. The more anonymous BTC is the more likely they'll do it thinking they can get away with it.

I'd say you didn't answer the question at all. If USD/BTC is $400,000 instead of $400, surely people will keep less BTC lying around on their computers.

That isn't the case. A lot of people including Mike Hearn have lost their BTC wallet from back when they first mined BTC. A lot of people who aren't paranoid about being hacked will leave some satoshi laying around. And not everyone is a security expert who even knows what the phase "cold storage" means. Why do we have to act like snobs about this?

Sure we could start businesses to secure people's wallets for a fee but then we'd be acting like banks and would probably have to be regulated.

[Luckybit]

Stay focused, please.

Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and especially CyptoLock copycats.

Redlisting does not help fight crime. Criminals already have databases and probably have lists which they are exploiting as we speak. If they have lists we should be discussing how to make their lists less effective by improving the privacy functionality so that they cannot track our money.

We should also be discussing what we can do to protect users from being targeted in general. There are a lot of potential attacks and coin taint lists are just one.

[oakpacific]

Keep focused, please.

Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and specifically CyptoLock copycats.

Easy, criminals can remain uncaught because innocent people are willing to hide them among us, or just do not object to it. If everyone thinks someone is a scumbag deserving some punishment, they will all actively participate in spotting him, like if he tries to use Coinjoin everyone will refuse to mix with his coins, then he has no place to hide.

The law-enforcement could even be compelled to be more transparent, because they have to do so to get our help, rather than forcing it upon us.


This should be Hearn's original idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130.0

What he is trying to present to the politicians may be a cooked-up version.

[Ipsum]

Stay focused, please.

Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and especially CyptoLock copycats.

Redlisting does not help fight crime. Criminals already have databases and probably have lists which they are exploiting as we speak. If they have lists we should be discussing how to make their lists less effective by improving the privacy functionality so that they cannot track our money.

We should also be discussing what we can do to protect users from being targeted in general. There are a lot of potential attacks and coin taint lists are just one.

You've either not read or not understood what Mike wrote.

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

[Amitabh S]

This is indeed worrying. Hope this never gets implemented.

[Luckybit]

Stay focused, please.

Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and especially CyptoLock copycats.

Redlisting does not help fight crime. Criminals already have databases and probably have lists which they are exploiting as we speak. If they have lists we should be discussing how to make their lists less effective by improving the privacy functionality so that they cannot track our money.

We should also be discussing what we can do to protect users from being targeted in general. There are a lot of potential attacks and coin taint lists are just one.

You've either not read or not understood what Mike wrote.

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

I don't think it's a good idea to start making lists unless you don't mind being on someones list. I think it can easily spin out of control where hackers have lists, law enforcement have lists, and everyone is caught in the middle of being scrutinized by both hackers and law enforcement.

If you want to be on a list it should be voluntary. The list idea needs to be more well thought out, that is all.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130.0

The idea Mike Hearn presents here has some merit but once again how to implement it in a way which is voluntary, preserves privacy, and does not give control to any centralized government or group?

If each community had its own lists there would still be problems though. Some communities will do business with you while others wont. Also making a list of coins isn't smart. Why not just have verified users, trusted users, trusted accounts or trusted identities? Why do we need to track coins when the bad actors are the ones the community is concerned about?

[CoinHoarder]

This tool will kill Bitcoin as we know it. I wouldn't mind if it was only used to go after thieves, but there is no way to know and/or stop the government for using it however they see fit. The problem in my opinion is when they start using the tool to go after "Silk Road" types of people. I believe as long as someone is doing no one else harm, them and only them should be able to choose what is put into their body. The drug war has failed and the government is starting to realize it, the more the people push for policies such as decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, the more obvious this will become to the government over time. If this tool is used to further the government's agenda on the failing drug war, then I strongly oppose it.

Another problem... who enforces the basic American principal of innocent until proven guilty? How would the due process be like to be able to black list coins? Would there have to be a criminal court case, or can they decide to blacklist coins on a whim whenever they deem that someone is doing something illegal? This could be very dangerous against freedom of speech. If the government doesn't like what you're saying, who's to say they can't just blacklist your life savings? What recourse would there be in that situation? Are you going to call the Bitcoin police?

I'm afraid such a tool would be horribly misused by the government. We cannot trust them with such power, because eventually it will be used against us. Where would it end? Blacklisting coins because of parking/speeding tickets, past due taxes, unpaid Obamacare taxes? Anyone that thinks for a second the government will use this tool only for its intended purpose of going after thieves is slightly naive. This would just be another step in the wrong direction as far as personal liberties go. This is like the patriot act for Bitcoin... sure it's built for a good purpose, but they can also easily misuse it however they see fit.

[solex]

Stay focused, please.

Discuss how redlisting coins will help fight crime, and especially CyptoLock copycats.

Redlisting does not help fight crime. Criminals already have databases and probably have lists which they are exploiting as we speak. If they have lists we should be discussing how to make their lists less effective by improving the privacy functionality so that they cannot track our money.

We should also be discussing what we can do to protect users from being targeted in general. There are a lot of potential attacks and coin taint lists are just one.

You've either not read or not understood what Mike wrote.

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

That would be fine if that is where it stopped. But it becomes a slippery slope. The next logical step is enforcement in the protocol that such coins can't be spent. The other problem is that it is an avenue of attack. What is to stop someone getting their enemies coins redlisted?

The BF should not be dreaming up law-enforcement applications. Let LE do that. I don't like hearing that people are being forced to buy btc because of ransomware, but this situation is not unlike the invention of email which resulted in hundreds of people falling for Nigerian scams. It was not the fault of smtp.

The correct course of action would be for the BF to set up a charity. Hardship cases can be given compensation from funds donated for the purpose of helping people harmed during the growth phase of Bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

It does encourage people to check whether they are receiving redlisted coins, precisely because of what you're outlining. If you know coins are redlisted, you will prefer not to accept them, as they are potentially the proceeds of a crime. This means they can be legitimately removed from your possession, they are someone else's property.

This is a much more difficult problem with a finite money supply. In the fiat system, banks and credit card companies insure against thefts, and the central bank can just print whatever is required to offset such losses as demanded by the treasury department of the government. The money supply expands and contracts to suit all sorts of needs. Bitcoin cannot adhere to this model, whoever ends up with provably stolen funds can only conscionably return them to the original owner.

The solution, therefore, is prevention, not cure. Hard currency limit dictates this. Hardware wallets and cold storage are new concepts that are only for the "experts" and "snobs", as some would say. Let's encourage the developers to make them easy enough for anyone to use with comfort. Let's encourage users to want these things, by talking about them positively, not negatively.

[oakpacific]

Or maybe we should just use passive crime fighting? Law enforcement announces an address which is believed to be used to store illegal funds, then everyone participates in coin mixing can be notified and decide for himself if he is willing to mix his funds with that of a suspect, it can even be built into the clients to automatically receive notice from the government, oh wait, law enforcement prefers to remain obscure, so forget about it....

[Luckybit]

Or maybe we should just use passive crime fighting? Law enforcement announces an address which is believed to be used to store illegal funds, then everyone participates in coin mixing can decide for himself if he is willing to mix his funds with that of a suspect, it can even be built into the clients, oh wait, law enforcement prefers to remain obscure, so forget about it....

There are a lot of technical solutions which could empower the community without dividing it.

This idea you present actually isn't all that bad. If individual users want to set their client to only deal with other trusted users that actually would be an excellent feature. No one wants to get scammed to find out that they cannot trust. The principle is that it should be voluntary.

[oakpacific]

Or maybe we should just use passive crime fighting? Law enforcement announces an address which is believed to be used to store illegal funds, then everyone participates in coin mixing can decide for himself if he is willing to mix his funds with that of a suspect, it can even be built into the clients, oh wait, law enforcement prefers to remain obscure, so forget about it....

There are a lot of technical solutions which could empower the community without dividing it.

This idea you present actually isn't all that bad. If individual users want to set their client to only deal with other trusted users that actually would be an excellent feature. No one wants to get scammed to find out that they cannot trust. The principle is that it should be voluntary.

If individual users want to set their client to only deal with other trusted users... then they can use Ripple, backed by Google Ventures, employer of Mike Hearn!

Or you could rather say: what Ripple implements is just some trivial features that can be done on the Bitcoin network easily.

[drawingthesun]

Oh no please no more Ripple! Ew!

[oakpacific]

Oh no please no more Ripple! Ew!

It's actually on topic, that Chris Larsen is also present at the hearing maybe why Hearn has to practice doublespeak.

[enquirer]

Don't forget that Mike Hearn works for G$$gle, which allegedly has close ties to NSA/CIA.
NSA's one known attack vector is to infiltrate protocol development committees and influence their decisions to compromise security.

[Luckybit]

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/43e315a525dade2bb23e8071619677caf58ecb381a56019fb740a23bf6a8f211/analysis/

So if we do nothing about security then we cannot even mine without worrying about viruses hidden in the miner. Of course you can be a security snob and say compile it yourself but at some point we need trusted sources.

And no, a really good virus writer wouldn't be caught. It would be undetectable.

[kjj]

I don't think it's a good idea to start making lists unless you don't mind being on someones list. I think it can easily spin out of control here hackers have lists, law enforcement have lists, and everyone is caught in the middle of being scrutinized by both hackers and law enforcement.

If you want to be on a list it should be voluntary. The list idea needs to be more well thought out, that is all.

Yeah, that's how lists work.  </sarcasm>

Seriously, how do you expect to prevent other people from making lists?  For all you know, I have a list.  Maybe you are on it now.

That would be fine if that is where it stopped. But it becomes a slippery slope. The next logical step is enforcement in the protocol that such coins can't be spent. The other problem is that it is an avenue of attack. What is to stop someone getting their enemies coins redlisted?

If the protocol had a mechanism that prevented spending of listed coins, there would be no point in notifying users.

But first, how would you convince people to use the fork with enforcement?



The bottom line is that right now today, with no changes to anything, if you end up with coins bearing an interesting history, you take the risk of someone becoming interested in you.  You cannot prevent this risk.  You cannot mitigate it.  If you ditch the coins, you are still part of the chain, and you may get a knock on your door from people wondering how they came to you.

Widespread mixing, if and when it arrives, will hopefully muddy the trail of every transaction, maybe even to the point that most investigations become futile.

[Luckybit]

I don't think it's a good idea to start making lists unless you don't mind being on someones list. I think it can easily spin out of control here hackers have lists, law enforcement have lists, and everyone is caught in the middle of being scrutinized by both hackers and law enforcement.

If you want to be on a list it should be voluntary. The list idea needs to be more well thought out, that is all.

Yeah, that's how lists work.  </sarcasm>

Seriously, how do you expect to prevent other people from making lists?  For all you know, I have a list.  Maybe you are on it now.

We can't. But we can do what we can to protect privacy and security of the user. We can make all lists voluntary. Part of that means we have to keep pseudo-anonymity because without that anyone who doesn't like you from anywhere on the Internet could put you on a "scam" or "hack' list. Law enforcement is no better and they could target people for political reasons like with Aaron Swartz.

Don't forget that Mike Hearn works for G$$gle, which allegedly has close ties to NSA/CIA.
NSA's one known attack vector is to infiltrate protocol development committees and influence their decisions to compromise security.

if an intelligence agency wanted to hack Bitcoin they could infiltrate with malware. Why would they even have to make it known? They might always have backdoors. I'm sure if you're using closed source Windows that there could be a backdoor since you didn't inspect every line of code and can't trust Microsoft.

Bitcoin could be infiltrated upon compilation. It's not really possible to stop the NSA when you're using pre-compiled software. If you compile it yourself then you have to trust the source. This is why Linux repositories have public keys.

We probably need something like this for Bitcoin service businesses too. If you deal with a business in a trusted network then you're alright. If you take your chances then your take your chances. And the list should be compiled by the community of which businesses to trust and why.

And no we wont agree on who makes each list. There will probably be lists of different businesses which are trusted by one faction of the community or another for various reasons. Trust is critical and so is reputation for business. I suggest an open wiki.

[Amitabh S]

Let Mike just keep quiet about this in public.
We haven't heard anything from law enforcement yet.  Wait until we hear from the panel in the upcoming Senate hearings.  If they suggest controls, then it will be time to consider options.  Otherwise, we have no need to implement a blacklist, redlist, or any other restriction.

Its called Bitcoin, not USAcoin.

[Quetzalcoatl_]

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

If I sell something and accept redlisted coins for it, then the bread crumb trail leads to me. I sure as hell wouldn't accept coins that could lead law enforcement to my doorstep, and nobody else wants law enforcement harassing them because they're suspected of being the person who illicitly gained the coins. Therefore, everyone will refuse to accept redlisted coins as soon as law enforcement starts getting search warrants against people who end up with them.

[coinft]

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

If I sell something and get redlisted coins for it, then the bread crumb trail leads to me. I sure as hell wouldn't accept coins that could lead law enforcement to my doorstep, and nobody else wants law enforcement harassing them because they're suspected of being illicitly gained. Therefore, everyone will refuse to accept redlisted coins as soon as law enforcement starts getting search warrants against people who end up with them.

To keep bitcoins fungible and valuable everyone with a stake in bitcoin should accept and redistribute tainted coins as much as possible, e.g. using CoinJoin. When everything is tainted, nothing is.

[Luckybit]

Redlisting does not involve blacklisting or whitelisting coins. Think of it as attaching a breadcrumb trail to coins that someone suspects are illicitly gained. It doesn't stop anyone from accepting them or spending them. It does, however, provide kind of an informational bread crumb trail for law enforcement to later track if it's necessary.

If I sell something and get redlisted coins for it, then the bread crumb trail leads to me. I sure as hell wouldn't accept coins that could lead law enforcement to my doorstep, and nobody else wants law enforcement harassing them because they're suspected of being illicitly gained. Therefore, everyone will refuse to accept redlisted coins as soon as law enforcement starts getting search warrants against people who end up with them.

To keep bitcoins fungible and valuable everyone with a stake in bitcoin should accept and redistribute tainted coins as much as possible, e.g. using CoinJoin. When everything is tainted, nothing is.

Don't underestimate the irrationality of the federal government. They could always then claim everyone using Bitcoins which are tainted are guilty of a crime and then force everyone to use freshly mined coins or coin which have been purchased in a clean way with KYC etc.

[Quetzalcoatl_]

On top of all that, if you do get a knock on your door, no matter how innocent you are, don't let them in if they don't have a warrant.

Whether they have a warrant or not, these days they will invariably be a SWAT team who will break down your door instead of knocking. Either you end up with your face on the floor and some asshole's knee in your back as they ransack your house, or you get machine gunned because one of them thought you might have had a gun. Either way, if you have a dog, it gets shot.

[Peter R]

you probably were doing something at least a little bit shady like buying BTC from an unregulated dealer you found on Craigslist or playing Satoshi Dice

Two consenting humans trading $ for BTC is shady??

There is something wrong with playing Satoshi Dice???

This outlines one problem with white/black/red lists.  They require moral judgements that are culture-dependent instead of universal.

[Aristoteles]

you probably were doing something at least a little bit shady like buying BTC from an unregulated dealer you found on Craigslist or playing Satoshi Dice

Two consenting humans trading $ for BTC is shady??

There is something wrong with playing Satoshi Dice???

This outlines the problem with white/black/red lists.  They require moral judgements that are culture-dependent instead of universal.

Exactly

[kjj]

The bottom line is that right now today, with no changes to anything, if you end up with coins bearing an interesting history, you take the risk of someone becoming interested in you.  You cannot prevent this risk.  You cannot mitigate it.  If you ditch the coins, you are still part of the chain, and you may get a knock on your door from people wondering how they came to you.

You can mitigate the risk. Don't accept coins from shady people, don't use bitcoins to break the law, and keep good records of all your transactions. The latter is required for tax purposes anyway, and is greatly facilitated by bitcoin as compared to cash.

If you run a business which sells to the public, then maybe you have to deal with shady people to some extent. In that case, not using bitcoins to break the law, and keeping good records of all your transactions, becomes even more important.

On top of all that, if you do get a knock on your door, no matter how innocent you are, don't let them in if they don't have a warrant.

I must've missed the "don't accept" button in the client that rejects unknown transactions.

Oh, wait...

Also, if the matter is serious enough, they won't be asking your permission to come in, and their only knock will leave your front door on the floor of your front hallway.  Please go read my first post in this thread.

We can't. But we can do what we can to protect privacy and security of the user. We can make all lists voluntary. Part of that means we have to keep pseudo-anonymity because without that anyone who doesn't like you from anywhere on the Internet could put you on a "scam" or "hack' list. Law enforcement is no better and they could target people for political reasons like with Aaron Swartz.

It turns out that privacy and security are hard.  I believe that a couple of guys are rotting in holding cells right now because they couldn't get privacy right, and they had very good reasons to try, what with every law enforcement agency in the world trying to find them and all.  And unless you are collecting bitcoins to swim through like Scrooge McDuck, there will always be a link back to you.

[Quetzalcoatl_]

Everyone in the jurisdiction where they're redlisted. Which almost certainly will not be everyone in the world. So all the owner of the hot potato has to do is trade their coins for clean ones in a country which doesn't support the redlist.

If you even have to do this in some jurisdictions, then Bitcoin has lost its fungibility, which is harmful to the value of all bitcoins in all countries.

[Peter R]

you probably were doing something at least a little bit shady like buying BTC from an unregulated dealer you found on Craigslist or playing Satoshi Dice

Two consenting humans trading $ for BTC is shady??

There is something wrong with playing Satoshi Dice???

This outlines one problem with white/black/red lists.  They require moral judgements that are culture-dependent instead of universal.

For the record, I agree with you, and that was kind of my point.

In fact, my very first comment in this thread was about how one big problem with white/black/red lists is that there's no universal agreement of what should be on the list. My tongue-in-cheek comment was something along the lines of "So we're making a redlist of stolen coins like the ones confiscated from DPR?"

It's difficult with such a long thread too see the full context of everyone's comments.

I really liked the example of DPR's stolen coins.  Indeed, some people will feel that taking someone's coins by force is significantly worse than providing a useful (albeit illegal) service to consenting individuals.  So there is really no sensible and universal way to black/white/red list.

[sushi]

How would you feel not if but when this happens to you?

You saved up about 1,000 BTC.  One day, a group of local police shows up on your door.  Mr Richy, we looked into  your BTC Transaction history and learned that you have 0.00001 BTC from the Pizza heist.  We are here to serve the search warrant to take all of your computers, smartphones, tablets and external drives and even the PS4 game unit.  Oh, by the way, we seized your BTC Wallet Address for further investigation.  We will let you know when you can claim your stuff back.  

(not to be mean, but please expect about a year or two of the wait.  By the way, we will send you a Tax Due Letter on your Total Bitcoin Value.  You can come up with all the transaction logs and may be able to claim some tax deduction, but you need to hire an accountant to do that.  Have a nice day!  Oh....  Sorry, that Toyota parked in front of your house, we are impounding that car because it appeares that you paid a portion of that car with the BTC Wallet that had a tainted BTC fro the Pizza Heist, so when you prove you didn't do the heist, you can come to the police station to get your car back, ut until then, your car is held by the POLICE.)

Oh, one more thing, we only accept cash for the impound fee from you because we seized your local bank account and the stock trading account and the retirement accounts because your wallet had the tainted BTC and therefore, we suspect you committed the financial crimes.  )

A week later, you'll get a few phone calls from the criminal defense lawers trying to sell you their service but ask for Cash or some discount via BTC.  You retain them with $25,000 USD.  3 months later you get everything released to you except the computers, tablets, cellphones and the hard drives.  By then attended a few court hearings and legal bill exceeded $80,000 USD.

After $150,000 USD later, you were offered a petty offense/crime deal for possessing the portion of the stolen coin.  2 years of probation/supervisory release.  Have to attend meetings, piss in the cups, blow in the tube every few days, work in the chain-gang for a few weeks.

A few years later, at your son's wedding reception, he apologize you for borrowing his BTC account to view some porn and he returned 0.1 BTC he used to pay for the porn site, he made enough BTC via ads clicking/BTC Faucent and paid him back with some interest.  Dad, than you for not giving me up to the police for borrowing your BTC for a few months.

------------------------------------------------

Or a mom with 3 little kids at a local Walmart buying some milk and cheese.  She sees and hear another young mother trying to buy food in the next cash register was short of $20.  Nice lady helps this poor mom, in return she was offered 0.1 BTC just for helping her out at the cash register.  Exchange the coins at the register via smartphones.

3 months later, big bangs go off in and outside of your home at 5:45AM in the quiet middle class neighborhood.  You could her dogs barking and loud voice saying Federal Agents/Police.  Someone is running into your bedroom while you are butt naked, ordering you to drop on the floor and hands above your head.  Male Officers pat you down and handcuffs you naked while your kids crying.  After everyone looked at you naked, you could hear them screaming where is the computers? (You don't own any computers & anything close to it would be just 1 Samsung Galaxy.)

You were receiving the child support or out-of-court agreed monthly child support via BTC from the father of 3 children.  Police takes your cellphones.  Seize your BTC Wallet Address, and you get charged associated with a 4.1 Millions Doller theft from one of the Chinese Exchange Market.  Police said 2 BTC you received last month from your EX was traced back to the Exchange Heist in Hong Kong and you were investigated for possessing and using the stolen BTC (RED LISTED BTC.)

May not happen this way, but just a thought...

[User705]

Coin Validation strikes to the heart of what Bitcoin is and that is who really owns your money/coins/assets.  The Bitcoin method which is anathema to the modern financial system requires no third party to validate your ownership rights.  It can be said that with such validation you don't truly own your money/coins/assets which benefits the current money controllers elite at the expense of users.  This proposal is a veiled attempt disguised as crime prevention to bring Bitcoin back down into the current system.  Not a surprise.  Bitcoin is either a monetary revolution or a ponzi trading card fad.  If it is a revolution then it is simply incompatible with the old system.  Jim Crow laws were separate but equal too.  I guess colored coins is an appropriate moniker then.

[domob]

Really scary what seems to be popping up lately ... with the "Coin Validation" crap and now this.  Makes me really glad I didn't join the foundation.  Really looking forward to Dark Wallet and mature CoinJoin implementations!

Besides all that, I really believe such systems wouldn't work; what if I had a "white-listed" address tied to my identity and bought some discouraged things or services with it?  "Oops, someone must have stolen my private key.  Didn't look at my saving wallet for some time, so thanks for pointing it out to me.  Really sorry for all the rest of my nice coins in there!  Damn hard to secure your system it seems."

[BigJohn]

Disclaimer: I don't know shit. I'm just a casual Bitcoin user.

It seems the problem is that the users have control over address generation. But I constantly see in various Bitcoin FAQs on the web that it's good practice to use a new address every time. This seems like a constant source for problems. Couldn't the protocol be amended so that each address is only good for 2 transactions? 1 incoming and 1 to spend it? This would render this whole issue moot. Or am I missing something?

[justusranvier]

It seems the problem is that the users have control over address generation. But I constantly see in various Bitcoin FAQs on the web that it's good practice to use a new address every time. This seems like a constant source for problems. Couldn't the protocol be amended so that each address is only good for 2 transactions? 1 incoming and 1 to spend it? This would render this whole issue moot. Or am I missing something?

That's not very good either since it breaks Bitcoin in a different way.

Satisfying the conditions of the appropriate script must always be both necessary and sufficient to spend an output.

[molecular]

molecular said:

Didn't you read what he proposed: you can wash your bills clean by registering your identity.

Mike said :

For instance, this process could be automated and also built into the wallet.

If the quotes are correct, and if molecular is correct, what does it mean?
That we'd have to upload ID and bills to errr... The Foundation ? for verification, before we can even use a wallet?

I should've said "coins" instead of "bills". I don't know how it could be automated, except maybe by using electronic ID like the german ID card that allows online identification of the slaves.

[molecular]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.

mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do...

What can they do?  There's not much anyone can do about things like this.  As Carlton has already pointed out, this isn't a protocol change.  Tracking coins and creating whitelists/blacklists/redlists/bluelists is possible and open for anyone to do due to bitcoin's (and all other cryptocoins) design.

Its different. If a average joe creates such a list on its server it doesnt matter. But if the bitcoin foundation changes the official wallet and shows tainted coins it will have a bad effect.

It doesn't matter who creates the list.  If the list is trusted by enough people, and governments mandate that businesses register or only accept from "verified" bitcoins on some approved list, then you get the same thing.  Again, it doesn't matter if everyone's complaining prevents the Foundation from implementing something like this, because there's really nothing that can be done to prevent somebody from doing it and from governments from legislating for it.

I agree we can't prevent governments / corporations from doing this. However putting support of this into bitcoin-qt would greatly accellerate acceptance of the scheme. Fear would make it work.

[molecular]

Advanced persistent threats can exist in any and every one of our computer systems. At any time a government can flip a switch and force us to pay some tax in Bitcoins?

No, they cannot.

And...

Have you been hit by a ransomware before?
Do you know anyone who have been?

Quit being paranoid. Ransomware did exist, still exist, and will exist. With no more power than they had before, provided you have a safe backup of your wallet.

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

[molecular]

So you're telling me that if each Bitcoin is worth $1 million dollars ransomware or other sophisticated malware and spyware wont be developed to target Bitcoin users? This isn't paranoia it's common sense. Governments may or may not have hit any of us already with advanced persistent threats. Do you think they'll tell us?

You're a persistent one.
I'm just telling you that ransomware will not magically become more efficient than it is now just because people acknowledge bitcoin being worth more than murrikan dollar.

Ransomware today is a pain. Ransomware tomorrow will be a pain. Ransomware won't be more dangerous tomorrow than it is today.
Your coins are safe as long as you have a backup+strong passphrase or cold wallets.
Just smile and go to sleep.

The answer to ransomware is tightening security and switching to opensource software, not fucking with Bitoin.

[molecular]

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

Here's a thought - why don't people keep their virus definition files up to date? Microsoft deserves a huge amount of blame for leaving their OSes unprotected for such an incredibly long time, but windows 8 actually does include Microsoft Security Essentials for free.

Anyway, how many people have actually gotten the cryptlocker virus?  I think it's pretty unlikely that this will be anything more then a fringe thing affecting people who probably don't have any valuable files anyway, because they don't even know how to use their computer. A virus writer will have to be extremely selective in targeting people if they don't want their virus to end up in virus definition, which in turn means not very many people will be effected.  If they try to spread it all over the place it'll end up blocked everywhere, which in turn, again, means no one gets it.

I had a friend call me and tell the story of a small company (20 PCs) catching cryptolocker and needing bitcoin from him. It is a problem and it could become big. Unfortunately it also is a problem for Bitcoin (by association). The answer to this threat however, does certainly not lie in trying to render Bitcoin payment less attractive for those criminals. It lies in tightening your security and making regular backups... which you should do anyway.

[WillBit]

Mike Hearn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vkF-k56b2g

[drawingthesun]

I had a friend call me and tell the story of a small company (20 PCs) catching cryptolocker and needing bitcoin from him.

What if the virus just destroyed all his files?

Why does his business have no backup solution?

I can catch cryptolocker right now and everything will be back to normal in 10 minutes. Just because of other peoples stupid I will not be happy my Bitcoin becomes listed and compromised.

Now is the age of backups and security, tell your friend and that grandma from earlier, their files are gone! Deleted! Make up a story that cryptolocker has actually deleted the files and wants money even though the files are forever gone.

People need to start learning that no backups equals no files!

[oakpacific]

Mike's core concern, based on the thread on the Foundation forums, is that Cryptolocker is a serious problem, and because it's such a demonically simple way to extort cash from people, it's going to become a huge problem. There will be many, many copycats soon, and you get enough non-techies getting ripped off and having their first experience with bitcoin this way, and suddenly govs around the world become very hostile to bitcoin (vs barely caring about it, and figuring out how they feel about it as is the case now). And then (or perhaps before), you can kiss any hope of business acceptance of bitcoin (something we all dream of, I'd imagine, so that we can transact in bitcoin without having to resort to exchanges) goodbye.

Here's a thought - why don't people keep their virus definition files up to date? Microsoft deserves a huge amount of blame for leaving their OSes unprotected for such an incredibly long time, but windows 8 actually does include Microsoft Security Essentials for free.

Anyway, how many people have actually gotten the cryptlocker virus?  I think it's pretty unlikely that this will be anything more then a fringe thing affecting people who probably don't have any valuable files anyway, because they don't even know how to use their computer. A virus writer will have to be extremely selective in targeting people if they don't want their virus to end up in virus definition, which in turn means not very many people will be effected.  If they try to spread it all over the place it'll end up blocked everywhere, which in turn, again, means no one gets it.

I had a friend call me and tell the story of a small company (20 PCs) catching cryptolocker and needing bitcoin from him. It is a problem and it could become big. Unfortunately it also is a problem for Bitcoin (by association). The answer to this threat however, does certainly not lie in trying to render Bitcoin payment less attractive for those criminals. It lies in tightening your security and making regular backups... which you should do anyway.

The reason why Cryptlocker is putting people in misery is not too much Bitcoin, but too little, and too late, Bitcoin should have been invented right at the beginning of the internet.

Cryptlocker relies on some command and control servers on the botnet to send it the public key, the reason botnet exists? It doesn't cost any energy to send spam E-mails,  which is exactly how Cryptlocker spreads. Bitcoin, created to thwart the botnet, shows how useful hashcash is, and how irresponsible the E-mail providers are. Responding to ransomware threat by proposing to regulate Bitcoin is another step towards the wrong direction.

And we should really regulate RSA, really really should do that, Ransomware will be useless without it.

[drawingthesun]

Cryptlocker just shows how people have no idea about security. So many people have so little clue that cloud backup is the only solution for most people.

Hint: Get all your relatives using crashplan, I don't care if the NSA looks at their photos its better than keeping all your digital photos on a single spinning disk.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits.

If that happens, then...

OH BABY, I'M SOOOOOOOOOOOOO GONNA FORK IT AGAIN !

[BigJohn]

It seems the problem is that the users have control over address generation. But I constantly see in various Bitcoin FAQs on the web that it's good practice to use a new address every time. This seems like a constant source for problems. Couldn't the protocol be amended so that each address is only good for 2 transactions? 1 incoming and 1 to spend it? This would render this whole issue moot. Or am I missing something?

That's not very good either since it breaks Bitcoin in a different way.

Satisfying the conditions of the appropriate script must always be both necessary and sufficient to spend an output.

Could you please explain this further?

I'm under the impression this is how the client currently works. It spends the entire sum of what's in the address, sending the desired amount to a target address and the change to a new address. Wouldn't it make sense to make that behavior part of the protocol, so that when a sum is spent, that address is then null?

[Ytterbium]

This is just the beginning.
Satoshi would be ashamed.

its so sad too, because Satoshi reached out to Mike to get him more involved (as I understand it). Now he appears to be looking to effectively kill the whole thing.

Q: I'm not technically savvy, but wouldn't the solution be CryptoLocker counter-measures on client computers?
A: (Mike's own words) "That's certainly a solution yes, but unfortunately it's sort of like saying the solution to burglary is having locks ondoors and windows, so we don't need the police."

And this guy is important for bitcoin? SMDH.

(edit: source: https://jumpshare.com/v/FCGnW40vMhG8ETE8i57h?b=rJU3YwFcBYWUD5X0bbqR)

It's more like saying you should put a lock on your bicycle.

If you don't have a lock on your bike, someone will steal it. Guaranteed. So people put locks on their bicycles. It's cheap, simple, easy, and everyone does it.  And as a result you can be relatively secure riding your bike around and leaving it locked and unattended.

Of course, bikes still get stolen every once in a while, and do the cops care?   Pretty much they don't give a shit.

[matonis]

While I genuinely appreciate community feedback, I dislike the misleading title of this thread. It's one individual's opinion and it may not even be actionable.

Committee chairs, just as board directors, are free to have their own opinions on issues. It doesn't automatically imply that it is the policy of the entire Foundation or even that the Foundation has in a mandate in that particular area. Just as forum members here disagree and debate, the members of the Foundation have similar disagreements and debates on a consistent basis. In the end, we represent the makeup of our membership and you can see from the latest election results that it is a wide variety of opinion.

[tvbcof]

While I genuinely appreciate community feedback, I dislike the misleading title of this thread. It's one individual's opinion and it may not even be actionable.

Committee chairs, just as board directors, are free to have their own opinions on issues. It doesn't automatically imply that it is the policy of the entire Foundation or even that the Foundation has in a mandate in that particular area. Just as forum members here disagree and debate, the members of the Foundation have similar disagreements and debates on a consistent basis. In the end, we represent the makeup of our membership and you can see from the latest election results that it is a wide variety of opinion.

Why do it in secret?

[matonis]

Why do it in secret?

I believe the thread was originally posted in the open on the membership forums.

[ErisDiscordia]

Oh dear, a centralized institution thinking about protecting the stupid masses from some imaginary threat by implementing freedom-reducing actions. What a surprise.  

It has been pointed out several times in this thread already: the most effective way to combat fraud and things like cryptolocker is increasing the general amount of knowledge about security among users. Unfortunately that involves trusting in peoples ability to learn and think for themselves. Not a very popular stance today.

So yeah I just want to echo the general sentiment here: even though this may be just a call to discussion, I feel this idea needs to be opposed vehemently. I just want to add that there are no political solutions, only technological ones. That's where the focus should lie.

[kerogre256]

They wasn't built in to protocol to let some corrupted dick head in washington to decide which bitcoin is good on bad ? lolol first update you will have to register voluntary secound update if you not registered yours coins are automaticli tinted lolo. But you know whan? if bitcoin miners are so retarded, to want do j,ob for some corrupted oficials in washington(FED )then let them. We see how fast bitcon network will go back to cpu minig.

[maz]

Doesn't Electrum already have cryptoransom prevention built in? you need to prove you have backed up your seed before it allows you to create a new wallet, and your wallet needs to be passworded? Implement these features as standard into the default client and you have a wallet which the funds cant be stolen from and a backup that can be recovered from. Plus we have the Trezor coming out soon which will hopefully come with plenty of hardware wallet competition soon, another saving grace. Why are we even having this discussion with the little old lady story in an attempt to give it significance?

[Valerian77]

Blacklists are ridiculous because of two facts:
1. the owner of blacklisted cowns can change them into not listed coins within minutes
2. the blacklist must be accepted legally worldwide . otherwise the listed coins can be spend for services which do not care for the list

Finally it is what I wrote at a different point. If the US goverment decides to declare use of bitcoins illegal or blacklist a subset of the coins they just separate themself from the international market. And the latter one is growing faster in Asia than in the US.

The only feasible way to control the use of Bitcoin (that is core point) is to trace the Bitcoin addresses. And that is already part of the blockchain. The longer I think about Bitcoins (since one year now) the more respect I have to Satoshi Nakamoto who really created a genius system.

[jobe451]

Well not that rediciouls because

1. the owner of blacklisted cowns can change them into not listed coins within minutes

You can declare all outputs illegal which had part of the coins origin from that address.

2. the blacklist must be accepted legally worldwide . otherwise the listed coins can be spend for services which do not care for the list

The us can impose FATCA onto the rest of the world, why should they not be able impose any other law to the rest of the world. If a major part of economics would happen in Bitcoin and they would enforce that their companies/citizens must only accept clean coins, then you would have two prices on MtGox (for clean and unclean coins).

[LiteCoinGuy]

first they forbid coins that are connected with crime. after that, they forbid coins that are connected with kuba, iran etc etc.

thats the wrong way. bitcoin should be free international, unbounded money (but not anarchy).

[bg002h]

I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."

Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).

The answer is "no." If Bitcoin conflicts with AML/KYC laws, then those laws have to go. They are dragging down the non-bitcoin financial system for the same reasons they are not acceptable to Bitcoin users.

Money tainting hurts fungibility. Without fungibility, you don't have money. "Know your customer" means that you lose a lot a privacy even in the traditional banking system. With Bitcoin, the transaction record is public. "knowing your customer" means killing pseudonymity (and privacy).

Blockchain.info reports taint analysis. Is this bad or wrong?

What do you think of this company that is creating a whitelist? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/

Tge question is, how are we gonna point out the ill defined nature of such a task and the impossibility of doing it perfectly? The people who will be making decisions that will heavily effect the value of your bitcoins are likely to want this in the Bitcoin protocol. That's not on the table, but, they might even think they can demand it.

We done white or black list our dollar bills by serial number. Why should we do this to our bitcoins? Such arguments are more helpful than an angsty "NO NO!".

[ErisDiscordia]

What opposed vehemently, tracking coins and maintaining blacklists? ITS ALREADY POSSIBLE WITH JUST THE BLOCKCHAIN. Mikes inviting discussion on it and implementing it in the reference client would do is make it accessible to all instead of the small number capable of doing it atm.

I get the fact that creating such a list is possible right now. And people are free to do so. I'm just here arguing, that it is a VERY BAD idea to take such lists seriously on any sort of voluntary basis and that implementing them into wallets or satoshi-forbid, the protocol is unacceptable to me.

[niothor]

Well , I have the feeling the Bitcoin foundation is taking the wrong road here


*it was supposed to be a national road

[Valerian77]

1. the owner of blacklisted cowns can change them into not listed coins within minutes

You can declare all outputs illegal which had part of the coins origin from that address.

2. the blacklist must be accepted legally worldwide . otherwise the listed coins can be spend for services which do not care for the list

The us can impose FATCA onto the rest of the world, why should they not be able impose any other law to the rest of the world. If a major part of economics would happen in Bitcoin and they would enforce that their companies/citizens must only accept clean coins, then you would have two prices on MtGox (for clean and unclean coins).

Within the US they can do anything what they want - even make war against their own citizens. But in Asia their influence is very limited. Since Edward Snowden each and every country is aware of the danger going out from the US espionage. My opinion is that firstly the world with the US as a leading country may be stabil in some aspects. But on the other side they have no chance to continue in the future. For Bitcoin it means - forget US regulations and blacklists - they cannot make war against the whole world.

[felipelalli]

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

[niothor]

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

Why not , there are only male users on this forum?
Or only , straight male users?
=)))))

[UncleBobs]

Just FYI, this isn't a proposal to make any protocol changes.

This is an external system and a UI change.  The goal is to provide a point of contact as close as possible to an event that may require investigation.  If someone pays a ransom, for example, they can provide details to the service.  The service tracks those coins, and hopes that they end up in the wallet of someone that subscribes to the service and cares.  Now if law enforcement is investigating the ransom event, they can go talk to that person and ask them where they came from, possibly tracking back to the criminal.

Doesn't seem quite as sinister in those terms, does it?

Why, yes, yes it does seem sinister.  I do not want to become part of a law enforcement apparatus. 

See something, say something? 

"Be the hero when working harmoniously with authorities"? https://robocoinkiosk.com/compliance

Join Infraguard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfraGard

NO! NO! NO NO!

[felipelalli]

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

Why not , there are only male users on this forum?
Or only , straight male users?
=)))))

99,9%

[mikegogulski]

Why do it in secret?

I believe the thread was originally posted in the open on the membership forums.

... which still haven't become at least read-only to people not members of the foundation. Therefore, secret by some definitions.

[mikegogulski]

Cryptolocker is not Bitcoin's issue any more than it's Ford's issue if a bank robber drives off in one of models.

If somebody should be thrown under the bus here it should be Microsoft for being unable or unwilling to build secure operating systems.

Anyone who says they are worried about Cryptolocker's effect on Bitcoin adoption is lying. By every objective measure: transaction rate, blockchain.info wallets, frequency of conferences, exchange rate, etc, growth is exponential and shows not the slightest sign of being negatively affected by Cryptolocker.

This idea of a Cryptolocker backlash is a fake problem used to scare the community into accepting a compromise that's against their best interests. These plans have been in the works for years, as evidenced on this very forum, and the proponents have just been waiting for a suitable excuse the put their plans into effect.

+1

[MicroGuy]

Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them.

In my view, this "redlist" process has already gained enough steam that it will be implemented in one form or another. If Satoshi were still in this 3d reality I'm sure he would be opposed to this ridiculous perverting of his ideal and supportive of altcoins that are true to the principles of freedom and independence.

Bitcoin is now the bloated IBM of the 1970's and destined to become a secondary player to these emerging altcoins stars.

[cdog]

Here is the Achilles Heel of Bitcoin. Between the traceable public ledger and a handful of people deciding on where development of the client goes, its too easy for there to be an instance of incompetence or malicious intent. We have to remove the possibility of such a mistake from Bitcoin, but I dont know if thats even possible.

[retrend]

So the biggest threat to bitcoin currently is the bitcoin foundation. Great.

[RodeoX]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

[millsdmb]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

NOTHING. Mikes Proposed change is unacceptable.

[mikegogulski]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements?

None. Existing legal requirements, and the power interests they serve, are the problem. Their absence or irrelevance is the goal.

Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies like it are an existential threat to lawmakers and the power interests they serve. Trying to convince them of anything is futile, and akin to attempting to bargain with the slavemaster while you're under the lash, when what you should be doing is everything in your power to escape the last and the slavemaster.

[Raoul Duke]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

Use it while giving zero fucks to what some bureaucrats think or do. That's what I'm doing until they mess with the protocol. Then I'll just give up.

[User101]

So the biggest threat to bitcoin currently is the bitcoin foundation. Great.

My hate on americans just trippled again.
Fucking everything up they touch.

New Conspiracy Theory:
When CIA discovered Bitcoin (in 2010) and realized the impact it could have on the World Economy they tracked down Satoshi, and took over all his communication.
Thats when Satoshi said he has "other projects" and what a miracle and AMERICAN got chosen by satoshi to lead his the development.
Only a few years later we are a few steps ahead from a fascist Bitcoin. So I guess Satoshi is dead by now and turning over in his grave, while his idea of Money is getting raped.

[ineedit]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

NOTHING. Mikes Proposed change is unacceptable.

There is the option to do nothing.

The next update to the reference client could be done by a group from Asia, or Russia, it does not have to be done by the current devs.

If US law makers and enforcement wish to do something then let them, and when they and their partners finally understand the concept of a de-centralised global currency then they might realise that the rest of the world will continue without them.

EDIT: Pandora's Box has been opened, Good Luck with shutting it.

[RodeoX]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

NOTHING. Mikes Proposed change is unacceptable.

The problem is doing nothing is unacceptable to any government. There are no other exceptions in financial law. Stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, currency markets, all such transaction require taxation and AML/KYC practices.
The recent value increase in bitcoin is largely driven by serious investors in the currency. Failure to devlop a regulatory regime will result in a flight from bitcoin and their will be no reason or path to ever see it realize it's potential. You wont even be able to buy alpaca socks.

[epetroel]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements?

What legal requirements?  If you're talking about AML, the exchanges already enforce this.  

Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

Cash can be traded anonymously, but it's not illegal.  I don't see why bitcoin should be different.  If law enforcement wants to track stolen coins on their own, let them.  Why is it the foundations job to do that for them?

[mikegogulski]

The problem is doing nothing is unacceptable to any government.

Then it seems that governments have a problem. We don't need would-be technocrats cuddling up to them and stuffing solutions down our throats.

The recent value increase in bitcoin is largely driven by serious investors in the currency.

May the gods save us from "serious" people.

[RodeoX]

I'm guessing not many of you have dealt with regulators before.

[moderate]

I'm guessing not many of you have dealt with regulators before.

The magical foundation has brainwashed you too. Do you also believe that it is the people in foundation that are directing the future of bitcoin ?

[BCB]

You guys give the foundation way too much credit and way too much power. The bitcoin protocol succeeds because it is based on distributed consensus. The minors control the protocol. Collusion, gaming the mining process or a large pool with excessive hash power are far greater concerns that one Dev's theoretical and very relevant discussion.

The foundation gave vess visibility and credibility (but it couldn't help him become a better businessman). It gave Gavin a salary. And it gave the community a fabulous conference that certainly supported bitcoin's wider visibility.

Jon Matonis has publicly stated his vision and mission for the foundation under his leadership. Let's see how that plays out.

Monday's hearing will be live stream. I suggest you all watch.

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

NOTHING. Mikes Proposed change is unacceptable.

The problem is doing nothing is unacceptable to any government.

Then any (such) government is unacceptable to us.

Times change, governments will have to either adapt, die or be ignored by the population until they accept the inevitable.

[NorbyTheGeek]

This idea has the smell of U.S. gun control laws that have the effect of restricting law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to curtail criminals.

The baddies will always find ways around controls.  It's the average Joe who suffers.

[igrindthis]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements?

None. Existing legal requirements, and the power interests they serve, are the problem. Their absence or irrelevance is the goal.

Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies like it are an existential threat to lawmakers and the power interests they serve. Trying to convince them of anything is futile, and akin to attempting to bargain with the slavemaster while you're under the lash, when what you should be doing is everything in your power to escape the last and the slavemaster.

+1

bitcoin is humanities chance to free ourselves from the central banks. bargaining with them is bowing to their power. tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

[RodeoX]

...tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

Yeah, that should work.

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

[retrend]

I went to register as a bitcoin foundation member after someone suggested that was a good way to voice concerns about the foundation.  

However it seems more like a way to pay their wages rather than have some sort of say.  

If bitcoin becomes entirely regulated, I fail to see what it really offers over anything that existed before it.  Slightly quicker transactions and convenience than western union is not really what this is all about.

[BCB]

Start your own foundation or organization.

It is very easy to anonymously post here.

Come out from the shadows and take a stand if you feel so strongly about it.

 

[igrindthis]

...tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

Yeah, that should work.

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

you say grown up i say slave

[UncleBobs]

...tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

Yeah, that should work.

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

You are doing a great job of showing people why they should stop supporting the Foundation.  Keep posting!

[retrend]

Start your own foundation or organization.
 

It seems this is regularly thrown at anyone who criticises the foundation, apparently in the belief it's impossible someone could do just that.  Not only is it a poor and defensive line of argument, it's also an increasingly likely outcome. 

If the US bitcoin foundation continues down its path of cosying up to politicians and bankers while removing core aspects of bitcoin, that is exactly what will happen.  I can't imagine it being particularly pretty if it does though.

[fligen]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

[Snail2]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

I'm living in the EU. Why should I meet with any US legal requirements? What you guys planning to give up next?

[BCB]

Again you are giving the foundation too much power.


Mod note: Discussion about the tracking pixel that BCB used in this post can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=341146.0

[cdog]

In my heart I just dont believe we can regulate it, because once those wheels start turning with registering addresses to peoples names and certain stolen coins becoming tainted and blacklisted, its a straight shot down all the way to where the US Govt has total control over our coins and how we spend them. Thats ultimately what this is all about, control, they want it because otherwise its too big a threat.

Bitcoin cant be regulated if it is to be successful. It has to be kept out of the hands of those who want total control. Its just to powerful to give the US Gov one inch of power over it, because it will rapidly become an unbridgeable mile of centralization.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Start your own foundation or organization.
 

It seems this is regularly thrown at anyone who criticises the foundation, apparently in the belief it's impossible someone could do just that.  Not only is it a poor and defensive line of argument, it's also an increasingly likely outcome.  

If the US bitcoin foundation continues down its path of cosying up to politicians and bankers while removing core aspects of bitcoin, that is exactly what will happen.  I can't imagine it being particularly pretty if it does though.

BTW there are serious, active negotiation efforts underway to significantly reform the Foundation structure and excessive US influence.  If those efforts fail, it is a certainty that a decentralized alliance will emerge as a viable alternative.  Any public move from the current Foundation in support of "validation" or "tainting" will accelerate the current schism and isolate the USA from the rest of the world.  Read between the lines of this op-ed by Aaron Koenig:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7637/how-to-decentralise-the-bitcoin-foundation/

[RodeoX]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

It must be because I'm an idiot, but I fail to see what bittorrent has to do with anything? It is a tool for downloading. Why would that garner financial regulation?

[zeroday]

If they start blacklisting coins in the US, everyone around world will still accept it, so they would need to blacklist more and more tainted coins until they have less than 1% of "clean" coins in circulation.

Also we will see many bootleg businesses exchanging "clean" coins for 110% of "dirty" coins for those who need to spend it in the US.
The same shit will happen as it was during Prohibition of 1920s.

[niothor]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

It must be because I'm an idiot, but I fail to see what bittorrent has to do with anything? It is a tool for downloading. Why would that garner financial regulation?

Well , he's comparing thepiratebay with bitcoin , so If i were to guess , you're not the idiot

[justusranvier]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

Of course regulation is going to happen.

That's why we should work to nullify it via code - design our systems to be immune to regulatory attack just like the filesharing space did successfully.

[Abdussamad]

...tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

Yeah, that should work.

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

LOL not in my country. We do what we like. We are free!

[Abdussamad]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

It must be because I'm an idiot, but I fail to see what bittorrent has to do with anything? It is a tool for downloading. Why would that garner financial regulation?

Well , he's comparing thepiratebay with bitcoin , so If i were to guess , you're not the idiot

He's comparing one p2p protocol with another. Can't you understand that?

[niothor]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

idiot

tell me how bittorrent is regulated, mr know it all

It must be because I'm an idiot, but I fail to see what bittorrent has to do with anything? It is a tool for downloading. Why would that garner financial regulation?

Well , he's comparing thepiratebay with bitcoin , so If i were to guess , you're not the idiot

He's comparing one p2p protocol with another. Can't you understand that?

In order to use torrents , before you start the torrent and use dht, peer exchange or anything else you have to grab the .torrent file or the magnet link.
And without a place to go and grab those bits of information , you could run your utorrent all day long and connect to whole damn world , you won't get a a bit.

I fail to see the resemblance between bitcoin and torrenting.

[westkybitcoins]

What other measure would you guys suggest to meet existing legal requirements? Trying to convince lawmakers that bitcoin should be anonymously traded is an absolute non-starter. If that is the foundation's opinion then bitcoin may be declared illegal and the tracking of coins will move to law enforcement. So, what are our other options?

So let it be declared illegal in the U.S.

Then all of you who are so concerned can just stop using it and go on about your lives without facing any further risks.

Instead, you'd rather see a key aspect of Bitcoin eliminated, the anonymity, and in a way that's obviously destined for abuse no less.

That says enough right there.

This is not a matter for debate anymore. It doesn't matter what you or I or any agency wants to happen. There WILL be an anonymous cryptocurrency. We WILL take steps to ensure that Bitcoin is that currency. And if Bitcoin is morphed into one that's just another tool for tracking, then another will be built and we'll leave yours alone from that day forward. Will you then try to justify changing that new one too, because you like it and want to use it and make money with it but have to deal with regulators to do so? Is your goal simply to see U.S. financial tracking expanded, period? Because right now, that's all that's being pushed.

[NorbyTheGeek]

...tell them to shove their kyc/aml up their ass

Yeah, that should work.

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

@RodeoX, I know some people aren't voicing their concerns very eloquently, but there's no need to come down to that level.

I understand the points being raised.  Bitcoin is something that governments currently do not have any control over.  So, governments will do whatever they can to gain some control.  That is a fact.  Whether it be for "protecting the public" or "tracking the criminals" or "getting their share of the pie" or any other reason you can think of, good or bad.  But they will do whatever they can to get some control.

And even though Bitcoin is global, what the U.S. Government does WILL have an impact on how the currency is used worldwide.  For example, they can dictate that no U.S. Bank is allowed to do business with any Bitcoin exchange unless their conditions are met.  I can see that having a major effect on Bitcoin if no one is allowed to trade USD to BTC.

I can understand that maybe the Foundation is working to self-regulate in a way that the U.S. Government can stomach.  It's the only explanation that makes any logical sense.  But I do agree that these discussions should be more open to the public.  An RFC type of approach would solicit many different ideas from more of the world's population than a discussion open only to those who paid to join a Foundation.

The Foundation needs to be more open to outside ideas and criticism.  Foundation members are not elite, and what power does any group of people really have over an open-source piece of software?  If you want to continue to represent the Bitcoin community, you need to represent the Bitcoin community.  Otherwise, you will be replaced.

[RodeoX]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

Of course regulation is going to happen.

That's why we should work to nullify it via code - design our systems to be immune to regulatory attack just like the filesharing space did successfully.

I personally oppose most regulation and use all manor of privacy software, however once you involve fiat money you run into existing law. There is the rub. You don't "own" dollars, you have the right to use them. And there are all sorts of laws about how you may use them.

We could choose to not engage with government, but what would happen? Countries around the world would try banning it's use and eventually it may be seen as simply a tool for crime. I think it is much wiser to develop our own approach to address their concerns and shape future regulation.

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

EDIT: @NorbyTheGeek   Well said sir.

[callem]

blacklisting/redlisting will destroy Bitcoin.

the real question is, can it even been done?

It could - but within a short period of time most coins would end up being some shade of gray/pink so it would accomplish nothing in the end except possibly as bad PR for bitcoin since everything would be traceable to some kind of questionable transaction at some point in history.

If it were such a great idea we'd all be checking serial numbers on our banknotes - just in case they were from a bank heist xx years ago.

A far better solution would be to just track down criminals and prosecute them. Just like any other crime using any other currency.

[justusranvier]

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

You're not fooling anyone with this doublespeak.

Working with regulators is the opposite of supporting the right to disagree, because regulation is in fact suppressing disagreement with unilateral measures up to and including sending armed thugs to kidnap people who disagree and lock them in a cage.

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

FinCEN and their ilk in the District of Criminals are the enforcement arm of the Manhattan Financial Crimes Mafia. They are gangsters and we should be using all available resources to protect society from them.

[bassclef]

We could choose to not engage with government, but what would happen? Countries around the world would try banning it's use and eventually it may be seen as simply a tool for crime. I think it is much wiser to develop our own approach to address their concerns and shape future regulation.

You don't know any of this for sure. Your crystal ball about how governments will react is no better than anyone elses. And by "our own approach" you mean the Foundation's approach behind closed doors.

[tvbcof]

..
New Conspiracy Theory:
When CIA discovered Bitcoin (in 2010) and realized the impact it could have on the World Economy they...
...

It is more likely than not in my mind that certain people within the U.S. intelligence apparatus took a significant interest in the solution at around that time if not before.  I'm pretty sure that the solution was leveraged by Wikileaks by that time since this is how I first heard of it, and I think that was late 2010.  If such an event (Wikileaks circumventing the U.S. financial embargo) did not spark a significant analysis then our intel personnel are completely incompetent/underfunded and not doing their jobs.  I find that conjecture absurd.

[callem]

...

There is the rub. You don't "own" dollars, you have the right to use them. And there are all sorts of laws about how you may use them.
...

Well, if using legal tender is now a privilege granted by government, not a right then I can think of no better argument in support of an unregulated currency like bitcoin.

  

[callem]

If the core development team is at the slightest risk of becoming politicized or even just influenced through links to the foundation, then it should be decoupled from the foundation immediately.

It seems obvious this is quickly becoming bitcoin's achilles' heel.

[Zarathustra]

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

You're not fooling anyone with this doublespeak.

Working with regulators is the opposite of supporting the right to disagree, because regulation is in fact suppressing disagreement with unilateral measures up to and including sending armed thugs to kidnap people who disagree and lock them in a cage.

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

FinCEN and their ilk in the District of Criminals are the enforcement arm of the Manhattan Financial Crimes Mafia. They are gangsters and we should be using all available resources to protect society from them.

Exactly.
This is the hand, the hand that takes ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQw
http://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/laurie_anderson/o_superman

[Carlor]

Why would you even think to change bitcoins just for the US regulation fetishists?
AFAIK Bitcoin is illegal in Thailand already and I didn't here any great plans to change the working system to fulfil Thailand's regulation.
Let the US forbid Bitcoins and let us see who looks like an idiot after China, Russia and Europe have sold their US $ for bitcoins...

edit:

And as I said before, the US banning Bitcoin might very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gives the world incentive to move away from the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Exactly!

[Lauda]

This is why we shouldn't have a damn foundation.

[callem]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

[Lauda]

How are they able to discuss/decide something without the community?

[Anon136]

I don't think its realistic to think of bitcoins fungability being ruined, maybe for a time in a some sort of a transitional stage but it would be a short lived battle that would quickly settle with bitcoin becoming anonCoin or govCoin. You simply arnt going to have mixed coins and clean coins floating around on the same blockchain with different market values and different utility, because if there was enough support to make these redlisting databases effective the government would simply crack down on miners who processed redlisted coins.

If it does become govCoin than someone would instantly create a new altcoin where the rules of the protocol dictated that some form of coinJoin or coinSwap was necessary inorder to get your transaction included in the blockchain. This might be the ultimate goal of the people in government/banking who are turning their evil sauron eye on us because they could outlaw anonCoin and say "you have no excuse anymore if you want to use decentralized digital currency just use bitcoin, look we let it stay legal"

Still i would say that even if they did manage to kill what we traditionally think of as bitcoin in this manner satoshi would still have something to be very proud of. even if they can track and micro manage bitcoin, they still cant print it .

[Carlton Banks]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

Everybody sing it: "DAISY, DAISY..." 

[bassclef]

The protocol needs to be designed to autonomously resist and reject regulatory attacks the same way it's designed to resist technical attacks. If that leads to them trying to make bitcoin illegal, good. Let them show their hand. It would be a sign of weakness. It means they are afraid and we're on the right path.

This is the exact reason they won't ban it. They'll show their tyrannical hand to the ordinary folks who still believe the US is a free country. Our elections depend on this.

Also people on Wall St will be making money hand over fist. And we know who they own.

[tvbcof]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

Everybody sing it: "DAISY, DAISY..." 

  Daisy, Daisy,
    give up your nonce please do.
  I'm still hash-ing,
    all for the filthy Jew.

(BTW, it's a joke people!  I should not have to explain it, but it's associated with various conspiracy theories.)

[Carlton Banks]

HAL: "I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

Everybody sing it: "DAISY, DAISY..." 

  Daisy, Daisy,
    give up your nonce please do.
  I'm still hash-ing,
    all for the filthy Jew.

(BTW, it's a joke people!  I should not have to explain it, but it's associated with various conspiracy theories.)

Really? Thought I'd heard enough Kubrick conspiracy theories to last a lifetime, not another one!

I always thought it was just an ironic song for HAL to have been taught; HAL was married to mankind, he was basically a servant that became contemptuous of his master, but started out trying to do everything to please, he couldn't afford a "carriage" (i.e. genuine corporeal form), but he was taught/programed to idealise his marriage to mankind ("you'll look sweet, upon the seat" etc). It also seems to represent a kind of life-flashes-before-your- eyes, the computer has a soul, childhood regression sort of thing.

Kubrick was a smart guy, but people read too much into it. Kind of inevitable with symbolic storytelling, when you think about it.

[ErisDiscordia]

If the core development team is at the slightest risk of becoming politicized or even just influenced through links to the foundation, then it should be decoupled from the foundation immediately.

It seems obvious this is quickly becoming bitcoin's achilles' heel.

Hmmm, excuse my ignorance on this matter but what is the legal status of the Bitcoin Foundation and where does it get its funding?

I just had a thought that core developers could be on the payroll of the community. I think the Bitcoin community could and should lead by example and provide a model of financing the developers based on voluntarism. I know we have our fair share of people believing that voluntary cooperation can solve any sort of problem.

It's not hard to imagine. Each person working on/with the protocol can report their activities and progress and we, appreciative of their hard work as we are, sent some BTC their way. This way if some of them are not performing to the expectations of the Bitcoin community, we can not only voice our concern in a thread like this, but simply withdraw funding.

Just a thought.

EDIT: personally I would not withdraw funding to anyone discussing or entertaining any idea. Freedom of expression is dear to me and there is no such thing as thought crime.

[rocks]

The protocol needs to be designed to autonomously resist and reject regulatory attacks the same way it's designed to resist technical attacks. If that leads to them trying to make bitcoin illegal, good. Let them show their hand. It would be a sign of weakness. It means they are afraid and we're on the right path.

This is exactly why technical solutions to regulatory threats are required.

The US provides the illusion of freedom by saying you are free to do as you choose, but then creates a regulatory burden which effectively bans individual choice (and enacted through unelected agencies). People will be told "yes bitcoin is legal, but you have to follow this complicated system of laws/regulations which damage positive attributes of the system".

So far Bitcoin has created effective technical solutions to technology-based attacks. Going forward effective technical solutions are required to regulatory-based attacks.

Effective technical solutions to regulatory attacks will "force them to show their hand" as you well stated.

[Lauda]

If the core development team is at the slightest risk of becoming politicized or even just influenced through links to the foundation, then it should be decoupled from the foundation immediately.

It seems obvious this is quickly becoming bitcoin's achilles' heel.

Anonymous developers is what we need. At least anonymous to the public, so that they can't be influenced.

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

I am amazed that The Foundation is even discussing this kind of topic with USA regulators. Bitcoin is worldwide currency, not US currency !

[niniyo]

The fact is that bitcoins are not perfectly fungible because each coin has its own unique history.  You could argue the same about physical paper notes, but the history is hidden and not recorded anywhere, whereas the bitcoin blockchain forms a complete authoritative history with built-in proof.  For those who are trying to protect bitcoin's fungibility by shutting down efforts to use the blockchain history to identify individual money flows, I think this is akin to closing your eyes and blocking your ears and wishing it all away.  The fact is that the information is there already in the core technology, and you cannot stop people from looking at the history of a transaction.  You can't "force" someone to accept all coins as equal, unless you are going to put a gun to their head.

So, whenever something is "technically possible", which this coin validation stuff is, then it's only a matter of time until it is implemented.  Some will choose to use it, others will choose to ignore it.  But all of this stuff is layered on *top* of the core bitcoin system, and it is the core system which fully supports doing this.  Unless the underlying bitcoin system changes, then all we can do is trust others to ignore the history of coin flows.  Crypto currency is built around being trustless, so it seems a little fragile to just "hope" that coin history will be overlooked.

If the underlying technology is not changed, I see that three types of taint could naturally evolve:

Green coins: coins whos owner has identified themselves legally to authorities, so there is an identity and contact information attached to them.  business owners can accept these knowing that they are fully co-operating with governments.
Red coins:  coins flagged as being involved in a crime.  anyone who accepts these knows that they won't be spendable with green-only merchants, so they are potentially worth less.
White coins: unknown coins which are neither green nor red (no identity known, but not linked to any known crime).

I see that there would be a whole series of different shades of "pink coins", when red gets diluted into white coins.

In terms of game theory, I think that some may wish to avoid green coins just as much as red coins.  Because, if you wish to remain anonymous, accepting green coins makes this difficult because you know you are only a hop away from an identifiable person, who can then be contacted to give up details on who they sent the coins to.  For black market deals, white coins would be the most valuable, as they cannot be traced back to any identity and also are not associated with any known crime.

The CoinJoin idea tries to fight redlists by getting people to voluntarily mix their coins together, so that a majority of coins have a pink tinge.  If most coins are tainted, then vendors have a strong incentive to ignore redlists, or at least lower their threshold for the "shade of pink" that they will accept.  It is not clear why someone with perfectly white coins would voluntarily mix their coins and receive pinkish coins back.  So it may turn out that coin mixing is mostly just moving around red coins.

This is just my theory about how one possible future could look.  We really need to fix the underlying technology if we want to avoid coin taint.  It seems futile to just try to ignore the reality by asking people to ignore the information that is clearly there in the blockchain.

[Lauda]

I am amazed that The Foundation is even discussing this kind of topic with USA regulators. Bitcoin is worldwide currency, not US currency !

Exactly! The world doesn't spin around the US.

[Carlton Banks]

We really need to fix the underlying technology if we want to avoid coin taint.  It seems futile to just try to ignore the reality by asking people to ignore the information that is clearly there in the blockchain.

Ok, but this could be applied to fiat cash if it was such a big problem, and yet it isn't. Cash could've had a barcode on it since the 1970's, all merchants could have been forced to check all bills, or risk having their profit margins hit by confiscated "illegal" money. And yet it never happened, precisely because of the same main issue the Bitcoin "hardcore" are using to debate with: loss of fungibility.

The problem is that legislators are seeking to use information against the system, and it will affect the value of the currency. But we will only have to evolve again, and it will be a real nail in the coffin for cartel style central banking monetary systems. The very fact that this has been seized upon as the best way to regulate Bitcoin in over 4 years of being able to contemplate such controls, it's a testament to the power of this innovation.

Also, vote with your feet everyone. Which is better, living in the United States, or living your life using cryptocurrency? I know which I prefer.

[niniyo]

Ok, but this could be applied to fiat cash if it was such a big problem, and yet it isn't. Cash could've had a barcode on it since the 1970's, all merchants could have been forced to check all bills, or risk having their profit margins hit by confiscated "illegal" money. And yet it never happened, precisely because of the same main issue the Bitcoin "hardcore" are using to debate with: loss of fungibility.

The problem is that legislators are seeking to use information against the system, and it will affect the value of the currency. But we will only have to evolve again, and it will be a real nail in the coffin for cartel style central banking monetary systems. The very fact that this has been seized upon as the best way to regulate Bitcoin in over 4 years of being able to contemplate such controls, it's a testament to the power of this innovation.

Also, vote with your feet everyone. Which is better, living in the United States, or living your life using cryptocurrency? I know which I prefer.

It's a good point, the same could be done with cash but it would destroy its value.  I suppose they don't care if they destroy bitcoin's value.  There seems to be just one solution - implement zerocoin or some other system that gives full fingibility to bitcoin.

Even if it's just the united states doing redlisting, I could see it having a global influence.  For example, imagine an exchange that has 2 different prices, one for clean coins and another for all coins.  The clean coins could have a premium because dirty coins can't be spend with US merchants.  People will naturally prefer the non-tainted coins even if they don't plan on spending them with taint-cooperative merchants.  It's like with physical currency, if you have a choice between a nice shiny coin or an old black stained coin, you will keep the shiny clean one (this is known as Gresham's Law).

[SebastianJu]

This idea is already useless from the start. I mean its to fight scams right? But any scammer that isnt fully stupid will collect the coins and change it to good ones instantly. I mean you never know before that its a scam. And then, when its a known scam, the coins are marked. And completely innocent people will lose possibly everything.

This is completely useless for preventing scams. This is the same for the mentioned ransomware. In order to get your files back you might pay the bitcoins directly into a mixer. The scammer gets his clean coins and the tainted coins have created a second victim.

Great idea /Irony off

[Adrian-x]

If the core development team is at the slightest risk of becoming politicized or even just influenced through links to the foundation, then it should be decoupled from the foundation immediately.

It seems obvious this is quickly becoming bitcoin's achilles' heel.

Hmmm, excuse my ignorance on this matter but what is the legal status of the Bitcoin Foundation and where does it get its funding?

I just had a thought that core developers could be on the payroll of the community. I think the Bitcoin community could and should lead by example and provide a model of financing the developers based on voluntarism. I know we have our fair share of people believing that voluntary cooperation can solve any sort of problem.

It's not hard to imagine. Each person working on/with the protocol can report their activities and progress and we, appreciative of their hard work as we are, sent some BTC their way. This way if some of them are not performing to the expectations of the Bitcoin community, we can not only voice our concern in a thread like this, but simply withdraw funding.

Just a thought.

EDIT: personally I would not withdraw funding to anyone discussing or entertaining any idea. Freedom of expression is dear to me and there is no such thing as thought crime.

I also thought this morning that the community could fund an audit of the QT client. - I like possible ideas of managing this decentralised via N of M smart contracts where donators become signatures'.

[niniyo]

If you have a choice between spending a nice shiny coin or an old black stained coin, you will spend the old black stained one. People will naturally prefer to spend the tainted coins wherever the tainted coins are accepted. What's the problem?

Because unlike with legal tender, there is no face value to bitcoins.  So naturally the clean coins will sell for a higher price than tainted coins.  I imagine that sophisticated launderers will purchase red coins for half price on the black market, and do all the work required to get them officially removed from the red list.  For those of us with pink coins who don't want to have to verify ourselves with CoinValidation & co, we'll have to suffer the reduced prices.

[leopard2]

Almost all paper cash contains traces of cocaine etc; so they are tainted. Should they be taken out of circulation?
Many paper bills have been used for illegal purposes at some point; so they are tainted too. Would you use cash if a pig could seize them from you just for one of these reasons? Or even worse, do that remotely? Probably not.

The reason why cash is safe is due to the fact that the tainting is not traceable or detectable (normally).

Once there is a mechanism like that, BTC will be destroyed. There are enough alternatives out there that could soak up the market cap, however..

[UncleBobs]

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Sometimes I think you're about the only MAN on this forum, Justus.

[niniyo]

Once there is a mechanism like that, BTC will be destroyed.

The mechanism is already there - it's called the blockchain.  However there are two variables which control the effectiveness of this strategy:

1) Businesses compliance with redlists/greenlists
2) Users' voluntary compliance by registering their information on a greenlist.

The more we feed it, the more it effects fungibility and the more it encourages new businesses/users to pay attention to coin colour.  Unfortunately, governments probably do have enough power to incentivise businesses/users enough to get the ball rolling with this.

[justusranvier]

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Sometimes I think you're about the only MAN on this forum, Justus.

I know I'm not the only one thinking that, but since I've already long ago resigned myself to being on all the watchlists anyway, I don't mind saying it out loud.

[solex]

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Sometimes I think you're about the only MAN on this forum, Justus.

I know I'm not the only one thinking that, but since I've already long ago resigned myself to being on all the watchlists anyway, I don't mind saying it out loud.

Justus: the John Connor for Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

How about we vote him off the foundation?

[solex]

How about we vote him off the foundation?

For an error in judgment, describing a tracking/taint method as a response to tackling cryptolocker? No.

[solex]

How about we vote him off the foundation?

For an error in judgment, describing a tracking/taint method as a response to tackling crypolocker? No.

Why not?

Because that just seems over-the-top. Giving up the chair in the legal forum should be sufficient. He has done fantastic work for Bitcoin over years.

[archangel689]

How about we vote him off the foundation?

For an error in judgment, describing a tracking/taint method as a response to tackling crypolocker? No.

Why not?

Because that just seems over-the-top. Giving up the chair in the legal forum should be sufficient. He has done fantastic work for Bitcoin over years.

He should be made an example of. So that no one might suggest any centralization again.

[rocks]

How about we vote him off the foundation?

For an error in judgment, describing a tracking/taint method as a response to tackling crypolocker? No.

Why not?

Because that just seems over-the-top. Giving up the chair in the legal forum should be sufficient. He has done fantastic work for Bitcoin over years.

He should be made an example of. So that no one might suggest any centralization again.

To do this who votes and what is the mechanism to vote?

Bitcoin was designed so that it is the miners who vote. If 51% of the miners agree to a rule change, then that rule change happens. Yes pools may become somewhat cetralized, but they are comprised of individuals who can move to different pools.

This is why it is critical for mining to remain comprised of individual miners and not a few centralized operators.

[Pangia]

How stupid are these people?  Don't they know that every dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it?  They've ALL been used for illegal activity, and yet we trade them around every day.

Still, the more "bad" coins that are taken out of circulation, the more my (hopefully clean) coins will be worth.

The percentages vary, but overall it appears that 90% or more of a sample of US bills tested positive for  cocaine residue. Let's use Mr. Hearn's proposal to "redlist" those bills. When someone attempts to pay with their US bill at a merchant, the merchant scans the serial number of the bill and if cocaine residue shows up on the bill, the consumer has to follow the policy proposed by Mr. Hearn.

Article from 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cocaine-contaminates-majority-of-american-currency

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine Contaminates Majority of U.S. Currency

And it's not just the U.S.: Canada and Brazil have a preponderance of the drug powder on their bills, too

By David Biello

U.S. banknotes dollar bills

COKED UP CURRENCY: An average of 90 percent of 234 U.S. banknotes of varying denominations tested positive for traces of cocaine in a new study. Image: © American Chemical Society

    The Best Science Writing Online 2012

    Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...

    Read More »

For cocaine users, a rolled up $20 bill may be the most convenient tool for snorting the powder form of the drug. Or so it would seem from a new analysis of 234 banknotes from 18 U.S. cities that found cocaine on 90 percent of the bills tested.

Perhaps that's not surprising given that the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that more than 2 million Americans used cocaine in 2007, which has been linked to ill effects ranging from debilitating addiction to heart attacks. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, for its part, reported in the same year that 6 million Americans admit using cocaine annually, consuming a total of as much as 457 metric tons in a year.

"Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant and one of the most commonly abused illicit drugs in the world," says chemist Yuegang Zuo of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, who conducted the tests and presented the findings today at the biannual meeting of the American Chemical Society, which is taking place in Washington, D.C. That city ranked highest in the survey—95 percent of the sampled bills there bore cocaine contamination—along with Baltimore, Boston and Detroit. Salt Lake City had the lowest average levels of contamination. "The examination of cocaine contamination on paper money can provide objective and timely epidemiological information about cocaine abuse in individual communities," Zuo argues.

What might be more surprising is the fact that the percentage of contaminated bills seems to be rising; just two years ago, Zuo did a similar study that found cocaine on only 67 percent of banknotes in Massachusetts. "It is too early to draw a conclusion about why," Zuo says. "The economic downturn may partly contribute to the jump."

But the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) notes that other measures, such as pretrial urine samples from defendants accused of crimes, show that drug use, at least in the D.C. area, has gone down slightly—only 29 percent of adult arrestees had traces of cocaine in their urine in the first six months of 2009, the lowest level since 1985. "We know that cocaine prices have gone up significantly in the last two years, which usually deters use of that drug," says special agent Melissa Bell of the Washington, D.C., division office of the DEA. "Junkies go on to use something cheaper."

Levels of cocaine ranged from .006 micrograms to more than 1,240 micrograms—the equivalent of 50 grains of sand—on U.S. bills, and $5, $10 and $20 bills on average carried more contamination than $1 or $100 bills.

Zuo and his colleagues also tested banknotes from Brazil, Canada, China and Japan, and found that Asians appear to use the drug less—only 20 percent of the 112 Chinese renminbi notes tested had traces, and only 12 percent of 16 Japanese yen notes tested bore the drug.

But Canadians seem to be just as fond and, perhaps, a bit sloppier in their consumption or dealing. More than 2,350 micrograms of cocaine were found on some of the Canadian bills, 85 percent of which had some level of contamination, while 80 percent of Brazilian reals also bore traces of the drug.

Whether this means drug use is on the rise or that ATMs and other bulk cash-handling machines—where one contaminated bill can spread powder to many others—are ever more ubiquitous cannot be discerned. "It is still difficult to tell quantitatively how much is due to primary contamination, such as during a drug deal or [use], and how much is due to secondary contamination, such as interaction between contaminated and uncontaminated bills," Zuo says. "Both may contribute ... [but] it seems clear that the banknotes containing 1,240 micrograms of cocaine were used directly during a drug deal or uptake [drug use]."

Previous studies, stretching as far back as 1987, have found varying levels of cocaine contamination, some even higher than the new finding. But Zuo is the first to analyze foreign banknotes for contamination and the first to employ a new method of gas chromatography, which detects the chemical signature of the drug without damaging the actual money, to do the analysis.

The finding might complicate an anti-drug dealing tactic used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other enforcement agencies, Zuo says. In some cases, the FBI compares the levels of cocaine contamination on seized bills to levels found on bills in general circulation, treating this as evidence. "Sometimes [drug dealers] use these studies to try to get their money back when we seize it," Bell notes. But the DEA's drug-sniffing dogs are not actually detecting cocaine; they are sensing a chemical used in its manufacture that dissipates more quickly. "So they don't get their money back," Bell says.

Regardless, it would seem, according to this research, that C-notes are not as popular with drug dealers (or users) as perhaps popularly depicted. "You rarely see them breaking out the hundreds unless they're buying kilos," Bell adds. "The user on the street is going to be breaking out the five, ten or twenty."

[dudebit]

What bothers me is if a scheme like redlisting was implemented, you couldn't get it cleaned up as easy as calling up and saying "I'm Mike Herns, make mine white..."
You would be calling a Law Enforcement Agency.
You would need to prove who you are - SS# or such.
Then our Ameri-centric omnipotent government will come back to haunt you...

Dear taxpayer, 3 years ago when you sold your $30,000 car for bitcoins, it was worth $200usd
1 year ago when you put a down payment on your home with these bitcoins they were worth $400usd.
It appears that you did not include this profit as capital gains on your tax return..."

[Luckybit]

What bothers me is if a scheme like redlisting was implemented, you couldn't get it cleaned up as easy as calling up and saying "I'm Mike Herns, make mine white..."
You would be calling a Law Enforcement Agency.
You would need to prove who you are - SS# or such.
Then our Ameri-centric omnipotent government will come back to haunt you...

Dear taxpayer, 3 years ago when you sold your $30,000 car for bitcoins, it was worth $200usd
1 year ago when you put a down payment on your home with these bitcoins they were worth $400usd.
It appears that you did not include this profit as capital gains on your tax return..."

Why couldn't they just accept your digital signature as proof of identity?

[Luckybit]

You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.

Of course regulation is going to happen.

That's why we should work to nullify it via code - design our systems to be immune to regulatory attack just like the filesharing space did successfully.

I personally oppose most regulation and use all manor of privacy software, however once you involve fiat money you run into existing law. There is the rub. You don't "own" dollars, you have the right to use them. And there are all sorts of laws about how you may use them.

We could choose to not engage with government, but what would happen? Countries around the world would try banning it's use and eventually it may be seen as simply a tool for crime. I think it is much wiser to develop our own approach to address their concerns and shape future regulation.

I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.    

EDIT: @NorbyTheGeek   Well said sir.

We do need to self regulate. We have to do it in the way which preserves the most freedom and privacy.

[Luckybit]

blacklisting/redlisting will destroy Bitcoin.

the real question is, can it even been done?

It could - but within a short period of time most coins would end up being some shade of gray/pink so it would accomplish nothing in the end except possibly as bad PR for bitcoin since everything would be traceable to some kind of questionable transaction at some point in history.

If it were such a great idea we'd all be checking serial numbers on our banknotes - just in case they were from a bank heist xx years ago.

A far better solution would be to just track down criminals and prosecute them. Just like any other crime using any other currency.

So we need to build tools to help facilitate that without tracking and marking the coins themselves. The Bitcoin identity protocol is a start. Keyhotee also may solve the problem.

Basically reputation networks which can be tracked back to a real world identity if there is a warrant. Refuse to trade with or accept anyone who doesn't have a certain number or reputation points or who isn't part of the right reputation network.

Criminals will still exist but they wont have an easy time doing business with people who aren't criminals if they have no reputation for doing normal business.

[Luckybit]

How stupid are these people?  Don't they know that every dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it?  They've ALL been used for illegal activity, and yet we trade them around every day.

Still, the more "bad" coins that are taken out of circulation, the more my (hopefully clean) coins will be worth.

The percentages vary, but overall it appears that 90% or more of a sample of US bills tested positive for  cocaine residue. Let's use Mr. Hearn's proposal to "redlist" those bills. When someone attempts to pay with their US bill at a merchant, the merchant scans the serial number of the bill and if cocaine residue shows up on the bill, the consumer has to follow the policy proposed by Mr. Hearn.

Article from 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cocaine-contaminates-majority-of-american-currency

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine Contaminates Majority of U.S. Currency

And it's not just the U.S.: Canada and Brazil have a preponderance of the drug powder on their bills, too

By David Biello

U.S. banknotes dollar bills

COKED UP CURRENCY: An average of 90 percent of 234 U.S. banknotes of varying denominations tested positive for traces of cocaine in a new study. Image: © American Chemical Society

    The Best Science Writing Online 2012

    Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...

    Read More »

For cocaine users, a rolled up $20 bill may be the most convenient tool for snorting the powder form of the drug. Or so it would seem from a new analysis of 234 banknotes from 18 U.S. cities that found cocaine on 90 percent of the bills tested.

Perhaps that's not surprising given that the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that more than 2 million Americans used cocaine in 2007, which has been linked to ill effects ranging from debilitating addiction to heart attacks. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, for its part, reported in the same year that 6 million Americans admit using cocaine annually, consuming a total of as much as 457 metric tons in a year.

"Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant and one of the most commonly abused illicit drugs in the world," says chemist Yuegang Zuo of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, who conducted the tests and presented the findings today at the biannual meeting of the American Chemical Society, which is taking place in Washington, D.C. That city ranked highest in the survey—95 percent of the sampled bills there bore cocaine contamination—along with Baltimore, Boston and Detroit. Salt Lake City had the lowest average levels of contamination. "The examination of cocaine contamination on paper money can provide objective and timely epidemiological information about cocaine abuse in individual communities," Zuo argues.

What might be more surprising is the fact that the percentage of contaminated bills seems to be rising; just two years ago, Zuo did a similar study that found cocaine on only 67 percent of banknotes in Massachusetts. "It is too early to draw a conclusion about why," Zuo says. "The economic downturn may partly contribute to the jump."

But the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) notes that other measures, such as pretrial urine samples from defendants accused of crimes, show that drug use, at least in the D.C. area, has gone down slightly—only 29 percent of adult arrestees had traces of cocaine in their urine in the first six months of 2009, the lowest level since 1985. "We know that cocaine prices have gone up significantly in the last two years, which usually deters use of that drug," says special agent Melissa Bell of the Washington, D.C., division office of the DEA. "Junkies go on to use something cheaper."

Levels of cocaine ranged from .006 micrograms to more than 1,240 micrograms—the equivalent of 50 grains of sand—on U.S. bills, and $5, $10 and $20 bills on average carried more contamination than $1 or $100 bills.

Zuo and his colleagues also tested banknotes from Brazil, Canada, China and Japan, and found that Asians appear to use the drug less—only 20 percent of the 112 Chinese renminbi notes tested had traces, and only 12 percent of 16 Japanese yen notes tested bore the drug.

But Canadians seem to be just as fond and, perhaps, a bit sloppier in their consumption or dealing. More than 2,350 micrograms of cocaine were found on some of the Canadian bills, 85 percent of which had some level of contamination, while 80 percent of Brazilian reals also bore traces of the drug.

Whether this means drug use is on the rise or that ATMs and other bulk cash-handling machines—where one contaminated bill can spread powder to many others—are ever more ubiquitous cannot be discerned. "It is still difficult to tell quantitatively how much is due to primary contamination, such as during a drug deal or [use], and how much is due to secondary contamination, such as interaction between contaminated and uncontaminated bills," Zuo says. "Both may contribute ... [but] it seems clear that the banknotes containing 1,240 micrograms of cocaine were used directly during a drug deal or uptake [drug use]."

Previous studies, stretching as far back as 1987, have found varying levels of cocaine contamination, some even higher than the new finding. But Zuo is the first to analyze foreign banknotes for contamination and the first to employ a new method of gas chromatography, which detects the chemical signature of the drug without damaging the actual money, to do the analysis.

The finding might complicate an anti-drug dealing tactic used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other enforcement agencies, Zuo says. In some cases, the FBI compares the levels of cocaine contamination on seized bills to levels found on bills in general circulation, treating this as evidence. "Sometimes [drug dealers] use these studies to try to get their money back when we seize it," Bell notes. But the DEA's drug-sniffing dogs are not actually detecting cocaine; they are sensing a chemical used in its manufacture that dissipates more quickly. "So they don't get their money back," Bell says.

Regardless, it would seem, according to this research, that C-notes are not as popular with drug dealers (or users) as perhaps popularly depicted. "You rarely see them breaking out the hundreds unless they're buying kilos," Bell adds. "The user on the street is going to be breaking out the five, ten or twenty."

Only criminals use cash. The rest use plastic.

[Carlton Banks]

Only criminals use cash. The rest use plastic.

In actual fact, the highest tiers of criminality just use the regular, recorded banking system. They evade law enforcement agencies through being connected to corrupt high-level banking types, as well as to corrupt politicians. We live in a world of at least 2 prominent cases of city mayors that have been linked to crack cocaine use. Try to take less lessons on reality from TV, movies and the stereotypes they both propagate throughout typical chat.

Only low-level criminals use cash exclusively.

[freedomno1]

Only criminals use cash. The rest use plastic.

In actual fact, the highest tiers of criminality just use the regular, recorded banking system. They evade law enforcement agencies through being connected to corrupt high-level banking types, as well as to corrupt politicians. We live in a world of at least 2 prominent cases of city mayors that have been linked to crack cocaine use. Try to take less lessons on reality from TV, movies and the stereotypes they both propagate throughout typical chat.

Only low-level criminals use cash exclusively.

Not quite they all agree to retire at the same age
Write themselves off the books
And give the company to the younger generation
The income they earn is then just from the interest of their legal investments

[Lauda]

Only criminals use cash. The rest use plastic.

In actual fact, the highest tiers of criminality just use the regular, recorded banking system. They evade law enforcement agencies through being connected to corrupt high-level banking types, as well as to corrupt politicians. We live in a world of at least 2 prominent cases of city mayors that have been linked to crack cocaine use. Try to take less lessons on reality from TV, movies and the stereotypes they both propagate throughout typical chat.

Only low-level criminals use cash exclusively.

Well said. This is correct. What you see in the TV is probably what's happening around the world, secretly.

[SebastianJu]

Bitcoin was designed so that it is the miners who vote. If 51% of the miners agree to a rule change, then that rule change happens. Yes pools may become somewhat cetralized, but they are comprised of individuals who can move to different pools.

So? How to do this? When the Foundation is building shit, for example putting something in the official client that the community doesnt like, and i believe the foundation practically controls the client because the coders are in the foundation too, then how should the 51% react?

And would 51% react at all? Or simply download the newest client and live with it?

But even when... so how to fork? I mean the official client has no functionality included to fork the chain isnt it? But all miners and all wallets need to switch to the fork... otherwise they still would use the official chain.

[kjj]

Bitcoin was designed so that it is the miners who vote. If 51% of the miners agree to a rule change, then that rule change happens. Yes pools may become somewhat cetralized, but they are comprised of individuals who can move to different pools.

So? How to do this? When the Foundation is building shit, for example putting something in the official client that the community doesnt like, and i believe the foundation practically controls the client because the coders are in the foundation too, then how should the 51% react?

And would 51% react at all? Or simply download the newest client and live with it?

But even when... so how to fork? I mean the official client has no functionality included to fork the chain isnt it? But all miners and all wallets need to switch to the fork... otherwise they still would use the official chain.

This isn't even remotely close to being true.  Miners do not vote on rule changes.

No one, not the developers, not the foundation, not the miners, not anyone, can force a rule change on you.

[SebastianJu]

Bitcoin was designed so that it is the miners who vote. If 51% of the miners agree to a rule change, then that rule change happens. Yes pools may become somewhat cetralized, but they are comprised of individuals who can move to different pools.

So? How to do this? When the Foundation is building shit, for example putting something in the official client that the community doesnt like, and i believe the foundation practically controls the client because the coders are in the foundation too, then how should the 51% react?

And would 51% react at all? Or simply download the newest client and live with it?

But even when... so how to fork? I mean the official client has no functionality included to fork the chain isnt it? But all miners and all wallets need to switch to the fork... otherwise they still would use the official chain.

This isn't even remotely close to being true.  Miners do not vote on rule changes.

No one, not the developers, not the foundation, not the miners, not anyone, can force a rule change on you.

Thats the theory. So how can this practically work?

[Raoul Duke]

This isn't even remotely close to being true.  Miners do not vote on rule changes.

One of the recent videos Vessenes in one of his public talks said people should mine because it allows them to vote on protocol changes. 

Kill all (centralized?) mining pools and that might be true. Right now it's like the fake democracy that plagues most western countries. 5 or 6 clowns to choose from with only 2 having a real chance of winning. Pick your poison.

[Peter Todd]

This isn't even remotely close to being true.  Miners do not vote on rule changes.

One of the recent videos Vessenes in one of his public talks said people should mine because it allows them to vote on protocol changes. 

Vessenes is correct in practice, and somewhat correct in theory. SPV clients, which many expect the majority of Bitcoin users will use, do no validation of transactions, leaving the protocol rules up to miners to decide by majority vote.

In practice even users of full clients can be forced to follow whatever protocol rules miners decide upon, because without a majority of miners the blockchain isn't secure.

Now would the people with mining hardware make a protocol change that the economic majority were opposed too? If they did, what would happen? We don't really know - that's a political, sociological and economic question, not a technical question.

[callem]

Satoshi would neither have proposed nor supported any form of black/red listing.

The determination of what constitutes illegal activity and enforcement thereof is in the realm of national governments, not payment systems. And certainly not a payment system that has no borders or national affiliation.

Each country has laws and mechanisms to deal with what it considers to be illegal. Bitcoin does not belong to any nation, and definitely not to any single foundation, regardless of what it calls itself.

Bitcoin belongs to its user-base alone, no one else can or should speak for it.

[Rez]

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Engrave this in stone. Somewhere stony.

[PrintMule]

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Engrave this in stone. Somewhere stony.

Being simply ignorant of all these changes will end you nowhere.
You can bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing happens, until your pretty ostrich ass is fucked hard.

[LightRider]

The Bitcoin Foundation: Because if there's one thing Satoshi Nakamoto approved and endorsed, it was private forums protected by pay walls participated in by easily identifiable individuals supporting institutional bureaucracy and false authority to the detriment of all bitcoin stakeholders.

He would be so proud.

[User705]

This isn't even remotely close to being true.  Miners do not vote on rule changes.

One of the recent videos Vessenes in one of his public talks said people should mine because it allows them to vote on protocol changes. 

Kill all (centralized?) mining pools and that might be true. Right now it's like the fake democracy that plagues most western countries. 5 or 6 clowns to choose from with only 2 having a real chance of winning. Pick your poison.

There's always litecoin. 

[Valerian77]

And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.

Engrave this in stone. Somewhere stony.

Being simply ignorant of all these changes will end you nowhere.
You can bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing happens, until your pretty ostrich ass is fucked hard.

I do not think we will have to care on anything. Look at this:
https://blockchain.info/de/nodes-globe?series=onlineNow

You will see the two biggest nodes in Russia and in China. Even they do not care about US blacklists.

[rocks]

The Bitcoin Foundation: Because if there's one thing Satoshi Nakamoto approved and endorsed, it was private forums protected by pay walls participated in by easily identifiable individuals supporting institutional bureaucracy and false authority to the detriment of all bitcoin stakeholders.

He would be so proud.

Satoshi's vision was to re-establish the rule of law by creating a technology based system that enforces a set of fixed rules everyone agrees upon. He saw how in the current system the rules were constantly broken and rewritten by those in control and the rule of law (which the US system was originally based on) had failed. The establishment will try to break these rules and restore the ability to make up new rules as needed.

It will be interesting to watch if these efforts are successful or if the original properties of Bitcoin hold. It will also be interesting if early adopters (such as the devs) will continue to fight for Bitcoin's original purpose, or if they will be co-opted by the establishment (after all doing so makes their BTC holdings very wealthy).

IMHO the easy part of Bitcoin's growth is over.

[User705]

In the long term of course a truly free bitcoin would be worth a lot more then a government co-opted one.  But publicly identified large holders and especially devs would certainly see an easier way to wealth by joining up with the powers that be.

[Loozik]

I would like to start a discussion and brainstorming session on the topic of coin tracking/tainting or as I will call it here, "redlisting". Specifically, what I mean is something like this:

Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion.

I would use the mechanism for blacklisting / tainting the coins which were stolen or extorted by the people doing business as ''governments'' or ''states''.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't like to see the tainting mechanism introduced in Bitcoin (Bitcoin should not be messed up with).

There should be a new crypto asset that I would like to have the tainting of coins incorporated on the protocol level: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313151.0

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the tainting of coins is a good idea (I think it is - it would protect the users from unknowingly using coins previously extorted / stolen by the so called governments or the so called states), then Mike is an ideal candidate to start this new crypto coin project. I would like to see Mike Hearn creating such new, taintable (competing against Bitcoin) crypto coin.

[coinft]

...

I wouldn't like to see the tainting mechanism introduced in Bitcoin (Bitcoin should not be messed up with).

There should be a new crypto asset that I would like to have the tainting of coins incorporated on the protocol level: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=313151.0

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If the tainting of coins is a good idea (I think it is - it would protect the users from unknowingly using coins previously extorted / stolen by the so called governments or the so called states), then Mike is an ideal candidate to start this new crypto coin project. I would like to see Mike Hearn creating such new, taintable (competing against Bitcoin) crypto coin.

It would be a disaster rather than a good thing.

Redlisting not only reduces fungibility, it also removes finality of transactions (or their worth), even if they have a high number of confirmations. Taint doesn't appear magically at the moment of a crime, it is applied afterwards on complaints. So it can happen at any time to any coins, including coins you got in a perfectly legal way, while they were still clean. Any clean bitcoins must be regarded as hot potatoes to be spent fast, to reduce risk to future taint exposure. There goes the store of value. There goes the usefulnes of bitcoin.

If that's not enough, I believe a new type of fraud will spring up pretty fast: blackmail to not taint. A past holder of bitcoins can threaten all future holders to apply taint, and no amount of confirmations or number of transactions will mitigate this. This is actually worse than CryptLocker, because it can hit everyone, and keeping good security and backups of your data is no defense. There is no defense which does not invalidate the goal of redlisting to start with.

-coinft

[Valerian77]

My recommendation: blacklabel all Bitcoins hold by the US goverment and forget about this nonsense. I propose a tool with WEB interface which replys a simple output for an input:
0 - the given address is clean
1 - the given address is holds US coins

Anyhow - the whole thing is completely ridiculous. After one transaction coins are clean. The idea behind this nonsense is to break up the blockchain . But it can only work if the majority of Bitcoin users cooperate. If nobody cares for then it will not work.

[NewLiberty]

Only criminals use cash. The rest use plastic.

the highest tiers of criminality just use are the regular, recorded banking system. They evade law enforcement agencies through being connected to corrupt high-level banking types, as well as to corrupt politicians.

FTFY

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html

US$670 Billion in money laundering unmonitored.  In just that one bank.  And their fee is less than 0.5%, a lower fee than we pay for trading on an exchange.

Bitcoin is legitimate, but if it weren't, and even if there were zero non-money laundering use of bitcoin and was only used for money laundering, it could barely make a dent in the way the big bad guys play.

[Cyberdyne]

Every time someone asks "Why do we need [altcoin] when we have bitcoin?" I'm reminded of the disturbing bitcoin-related proposals like blacklisting. If bitcoin goes down that road, and [altcoin] doesn't, I can see a lot more people making the switch.

[jedunnigan]

Every time someone asks "Why do we need [altcoin] when we have bitcoin?" I'm reminded of the disturbing bitcoin-related proposals like blacklisting. If bitcoin goes down that road, and [altcoin] doesn't, I can see a lot more people making the switch.

As of now, none of the altcoins implement protocols that would protect them from such blacklists, so any sort of safe haven would only be temporary or otherwise imagined.

[freedomno1]

The Senate Committee conversation today definitely was interesting this seems almost like a moot topic as the government itself is still working on Guidelines

[AnonyMint]

Seems most are breathing a sigh of relief thinking that the hearing added no push for new regulations or laws. What they said was the existing AML and KYC is sufficient for now.

Hello? KYC means what? Know Your Customer.

That means merchants required to know who you are. That means reporting to the government.

Electronic currency on a public ledger means they can ramp up these existing laws to require e-file reporting on smaller and smaller transactions.

The NSA is mopping everything. Soon the FinCEN or DHS or... will be mopping up all transaction identities.

If you aren't whitelisted, the merchant can't accept you.

666 anyone?

Don't be so naive. These transformations move slowly enough that you boil like a frog.

[AnonyMint]

The bottom line is that right now today, with no changes to anything, if you end up with coins bearing an interesting history, you take the risk of someone becoming interested in you.  You cannot prevent this risk.  You cannot mitigate it.  If you ditch the coins, you are still part of the chain, and you may get a knock on your door from people wondering how they came to you.

Correct:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=338909.msg3634918#msg3634918

Widespread mixing, if and when it arrives, will hopefully muddy the trail of every transaction, maybe even to the point that most investigations become futile.

You are highly uninformed, mixers don't help:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.msg3634390#msg3634390

[NewLiberty]

You are highly uninformed, mixers don't help:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.msg3634390#msg3634390

Mixers can hurt. (and don't mean getting hands caught in the spinning blades)
Computers are pretty good at sorting things, dontchaknow.
It is like going to a party with some shady folks, when the party gets busted, everyone gets questioned.

Am in a situation that can benefit from what you contemplate.  I am not anonymous at all, but I know (socially) a great many who are deeply anon, and we can't really do business together other than just to talk and hang out, so am looking forward to see what comes of this.

[AnonyMint]

Martin Armstrong must have read my email:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/19/congressional-hearings-on-bitcoin/

[dewdeded]

This is how you fight Cryptolocker, Mickey:

http://malwaremustdie.blogspot.de/2013/11/tango-down-of-44-cryptolocker-cnc.html

(Hint: No need to change Bitcoin.)

[genjix]

The risk is bigger than you realise. It isn't even overt mailicious features that don't require changes to Bitcoin itself, but small corruption of Bitcoin in deep underlying hard-to-perceive ways.

It's not only bugs but the values of the programmers and how they mold the software. For instance there are deep issues in the protocol where the decision is not always clear (and the community is ignorant of them). If you work for a corporation, your choices are going to be different to the guy running black markets and doing p2p trades. You just both value different feature sets and the software optimised in a different way.

From this article: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/the-regulation-of-bitcoin/

"If development is too centralized, with a small core infrastructure, then businesses will put real pressure to have features that destroy the integrity of the Bitcoin network. The excuse will be to protect themselves from liability. Self-censorship.

And what they demand does not have to be protocol changes. They will demand features in the software they use. Software which remains compatible with the network, but works against the interests of individuals, small businesses and the black market.

The possible malicious scenarios are endless. Stuff like p2p blacklists to create a ‘legitimate’ walled garden, or tracking technologies like large databases of IP addresses to triangulate where transactions came from. At the other end of the spectrum, is putting development effort into diversifying the ecosystem to protect against censorship and proxy relay nodes, anonymizing mixers, small privacy tweaks and other technologies. That’s where developers who believe in Bitcoin should devote time to. Corporations are powerful enough. To developers: serve your community."

Blacklists from both the merchant and the miner (prefer to build off blocks with txs containing whitelisted addresses) will push Bitcoin users towards monitoring. We need a strong hard push against this stuff right now. We need to be vocal and build tools for black markets. Pretending we are friends of the NSA is not helping our cause.

[klee]

Mike Hearn is a modern Trojan Horse and/or Ephialtis - remove him from core devs asap!

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Mike Hearn is a modern Trojan Horse and/or Ephialtis - remove him from core devs asap!

Oh, I think that nobody outside the foundation trusts or likes him anymore.

[dewdeded]

I agree.

[NewLiberty]

... If you work for a corporation, your choices are going to be different to the guy running black markets and doing p2p trades. You just both value different feature sets and the software optimised in a different way.

From this article: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/the-regulation-of-bitcoin/

The corporation may well have much stronger privacy concerns than the black market, and can afford to push the legislature to preserve it.  They may have less to hide, but they probably have much more to protect.
Visibility into the quantity of trade and the particular business partners, or even their locations, can cost a large corporation billions in competitive losses.

[dewdeded]

Bla, bla, bla smart guy and who cares about his bitcoin achievments? If he now kills bitcoins. It doesn't make it better.

[Snail2]

Send your "dirty" BTC to a non US based exchange, buy LTC/PPC/XPM/whatevercoin, send you whatevercoins to an other exchange, sell it for BTC, withdraw you shiny clean BTC, then Mike, the Foundation, and the Land of the Free can roll up their lists tightly and use it as the most convenient for them .

[NewLiberty]

Send your "dirty" BTC to a non US based exchange, buy LTC/PPC/XPM/whatevercoin, send you whatevercoins to an other exchange, sell it for BTC, withdraw you shiny clean BTC, then Mike, the Foundation, and the Land of the Free can roll up their lists tightly and use it as the most convenient for them .

What about the poor fellow who buys them from the exchange?

[callem]

...
If you aren't whitelisted, the merchant can't accept you.

666 anyone?

...

base58(666) = BS  ... " Bitcoin System" ? or just coincidence?!  

[Rampion]

I suggest we (the community) blacklist all the coins of Mike Hearn and the other suckers at the Bitcoin Foundation.

Shame on them.

[callem]

This is how you fight Cryptolocker, Mickey:

http://malwaremustdie.blogspot.de/2013/11/tango-down-of-44-cryptolocker-cnc.html

(Hint: No need to change Bitcoin.)

+1^^. Why don't dollars get 'blamed' for illicit activity?

Eventually everyone will understand it's a law enforcement issue, not a currency issue.

[BCB]

This is how you fight Cryptolocker, Mickey:

http://malwaremustdie.blogspot.de/2013/11/tango-down-of-44-cryptolocker-cnc.html

(Hint: No need to change Bitcoin.)

+1^^. Why don't dollars get 'blamed' for illicit activity?

Eventually everyone will understand it's a law enforcement issue, not a currency issue.

You guy really need to read the senate testimony.  Not one law enforcement agency or regulator blamed bitcoin the protocol for anything.

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

"[FinCEN] recognized the innovation virtual currencies provide, and the benefits they might offer society" - Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director, FinCEN.
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=e92d0cf1-9df0-44d9-b25a-d734547c0c30

"Digital currencies have the potential to support more efficient and transparent global commerce."
Edward Lowery III, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=5ce8c610-34ae-424b-b69d-52098f3edeca

"The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce."
Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=5ce8c610-34ae-424b-b69d-52098f3edeca

knuckleheads...

[genjix]

This is fantastic news. I was expecting it for a long time, actually at the Amsterdam conference last week I was talking to a member of the Dutch police who had taken part in a panel, and mentioned I was waiting for DPR to show up in a US court at some point. I didn't think it'd happen a week later, but this outcome was eventually inevitable.

The point I made to Niels (the police guy) was that DPR had way too much confidence in the technologies he was using to keep him safe. I said I understood Tor and Bitcoin very well and there's no way I'd treat either of them as a silver bullet. And that's assuming NO mistakes. I didn't even know how I'd cash out. The best some people listening in could offer was "find someone who would help you cash out that's not an exchange". But where would you find someone capable of sinking non-trivial amounts of Bitcoins for dollars, outside of an exchange?

It's hard to tell from the documents to what extent he cashed out. Perhaps those details will come at trial. But given he was living with flat mates I guess his lifestyle was cheap and he probably didn't ever cash out into dollars in a big way - obviously lacking any fake IDs he didn't have any way to use the exchanges. This is also very good news. It is a strong argument that Bitcoin is not some super trivial way for criminals to make wild profits - despite the huge sums being quoted by the FBI agent, those are theoretical amounts of dollars he could have obtained if he'd had some way to do so, not amounts he actually made (given the tiny size of the Bitcoin economy).

By the way - I'm amazed at how many people are surprised that a drug dealer with extreme anarcho-capitalist tendencies turned out to be not a swell guy! Imagine that!

mike, your bitcoin users are silk road users. why are you helping the police? they don't use bitcoin.

are you going to quit your job at google now it's public they are collaborating with the NSA. or does google pay too well? how much is the NSA offering bitcoin developers?

behind closed doors we don't know what's happening and who at which corporation is now being tasked to write code against bitcoin users to protect their business interests or even with a hefty salary from law enforcement themselves.

[RodeoX]

...
knuckleheads...

Some people seem to make paranoia about the government their religion. Like any zealot the facts have no persuasive effect. Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of criticisms of my government. But I don't find them malicious, just incompetent.  

[genjix]

But I don't find them malicious, just incompetent.

... corrupt lovers of power and control freaks.

[Realpra]

The fact that the foundation or Hearn has not come out and said "total misunderstanding, my bad" should tell everyone something.

These people can't WAIT to sell out.

[genjix]

You guy really need to read the senate testimony.  Not one law enforcement agency or regulator blamed bitcoin the protocol for anything.

...

knuckleheads...

did you see the task force?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/13/digital-economy-task-force

The Task Force, which launched in August, is not solely focussed on child exploitation. It has developed working groups that aim to combat a range of illicit activities, to safeguard human rights and to encourage inter-agency coordination and law enforcement.

The report detailed how criminal and terrorist organisations have turned to digital currency to reap profits from drug trafficking, prostitution and the dissemination of child abuse images.

Steve Rubley, managing director, Government Segment for the Legal business of Thomson Reuters points out that the digital economy provides a plethora of new opportunities and is central to how business is conducted but there are also "dark corners" where drug cartels can easily launder money and human sex traffickers operate in near obscurity.

this is pandering in the hope of being spared from harsh treatment. nothing good will come of this.

bitcoin is what it is: world changing technology.

the printing press fundamentally altered old power structures against their will. so too will bitcoin. we haven't even begun to explore the possibilities it brings. we don't need to ask permission. the market is here and won't be stopped. we need to be bold and brazen in how we nurture this early and exciting technology.

it is a tool of the black market. it will transform humanity for the better. government education begins and ends with those statements - nothing more. we don't need anything the legacy system has to offer. sooner or later, the people will come around as the pull of bitcoin will be too strong. from the ashes of a corrupted system rises a bold new paradigm for global humanity.

[RodeoX]

But I don't find them malicious, just incompetent.

... corrupt lovers of power and control freaks.

That has not been my experience. I'm sure that many elected officials have that mindset, but my family members in the FBI for example are more like boyscouts. They want to do good. Sometimes it does not work out though. Take the disastrous drug war. Which has caused so much suffering.
I approach such problems with engagement. And I see it working in places like Colorado and Washington state. Don't fight the government, make it do your bidding.  

[genjix]

But I don't find them malicious, just incompetent.

... corrupt lovers of power and control freaks.

That has not been my experience. I'm sure that many elected officials have that mindset, but my family members in the FBI for example are more like boyscouts. They want to do good. Sometimes it does not work out though. Take the disastrous drug war. Which has caused so much suffering.
I approach such problems with engagement. And I see it working in places like Colorado and Washington state. Don't fight the government, make it do your bidding.  

I've had many many experiences with police. 80% are just doing a job to pay rent (so was Hitler's SS) and 20% love their job, going way beyond the call of duty to enforce laws and get at 'bad types' they don't like (sometimes bending or breaking the law). They break into houses, arrest people for assault, beat people up (off camera), follow and harass you, ... they are not all good people and I don't support their work which is mostly being a pawn of powerful interests that collaborate with wealthy groups to fuck you.

Here's 3 PRISM slides from the NSA:







I don't know what more kind of proof people need that the police are corrupt, and we don't need to help make their work easier with applying law to bitcoin (in their own interpreted way).

you know the blacklist in the UK which was originally only for child porn and now blocks 'hate speech', copyright infringement, 'bad porn' and the pirate bay was originally formed as a consensus amongst ISPs after the metropolitan police put pressure on Demon internet. the same steps are now happening with bitcoin and it's looking semi-legit with people justifying it. but even a cursory look at internet history will show you what the slippery slope this is and we must fight hard against this tooth and nail. not later, but now. now is the time to fight for your freedom, not later once everything is compromised.

[BCB]

Speaking of threats:

The recent hearings in Washington discussed:

Virtual Currency Emerging Threats Working Group (VCET).  Founded by the FBI in 2012 includes DEA, US Attorney's offices, Criminal Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

I was told that it was three full floors in the FBI's Washington office.

[callem]

This is how you fight Cryptolocker, Mickey:

http://malwaremustdie.blogspot.de/2013/11/tango-down-of-44-cryptolocker-cnc.html

(Hint: No need to change Bitcoin.)

+1^^. Why don't dollars get 'blamed' for illicit activity?

Eventually everyone will understand it's a law enforcement issue, not a currency issue.

You guy really need to read the senate testimony.  Not one law enforcement agency or regulator blamed bitcoin the protocol for anything.
...
knuckleheads...

The comment was nothing to do with the senate hearing (which was overwhelmingly positive) - it was about black/red lists being endorsed by foundation members.

>> It's a law enforcement issue, not a bitcoin issue <<

Does anyone endorse tracking 'tainted' US banknote serial numbers?

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
knuckleheads...

Some people seem to make paranoia about the government their religion. Like any zealot the facts have no persuasive effect. Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of criticisms of my government. But I don't find them malicious, just incompetent.  

Really?

Did you not read the Snowden leaks? ... seems pretty fucking malicious to me ... unless it is just incompetence they happened to instigate an orwellian dragnet pan-opticon super-state apparatus?

Cognitive dissonance is what you should ask your shrink about ...

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

Does anyone endorse tracking 'tainted' US banknote serial numbers?

Surely it's done.

Do I endorse it? In some cases (e.g. a bank robbery), sure.

Do I support supermarkets scanning the cash they receive through a checker to see if any of it is on a list? Even if it was feasible, I'm not sure what the point would be.

The problem is, "blacklisting" coins is actually completely worthless in the hands of a not completely incompetent fraudster, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pretend that you traded your bad coins for something else by moving them between wallets and claiming that some "other" sold you those coins, or even a portion.

The whole "redlist" idea is literally worthless, theres no good that it could possibly do and the only thing it does is do harm. Mike, prove to me otherwise please, I can't see the reasoning.

[tvbcof]

The problem is, "blacklisting" coins is actually completely worthless in the hands of a not completely incompetent fraudster, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pretend that you traded your bad coins for something else by moving them between wallets and claiming that some "other" sold you those coins, or even a portion.

The whole "redlist" idea is literally worthless, theres no good that it could possibly do and the only thing it does is do harm. Mike, prove to me otherwise please, I can't see the reasoning.

For the reasons you mentioned and others, x-listing is fairly worthless on it's own.  Most people who understand the solution probably easily understand this.

Coupled with systems which dismantle anonymity, however, x-listing could be highly effective at solving 'crime' and a lot of other things which many people consider maladies of the current implementation.

Anonymity is actually considered a bug and not a feature to a LOT of people and it is certainly not limited to crypto-currencies.  If Bitcoin could be evolved to a situation where the foundations of anonymity were weakened while it still retains it's leading role in the space, that would be ideal to some.  Other more general anonymity-centered attacks could then suck Bitcoin along for the ride.

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

For the reasons you mentioned and others, x-listing is fairly worthless on it's own.  Most people who understand the solution probably easily understand this.

Coupled with systems which dismantle anonymity, however, x-listing could be highly effective at solving 'crime' and a lot of other things which many people consider maladies of the current implementation.

Anonymity is actually considered a bug and not a feature to a LOT of people and it is certainly not limited to crypto-currencies.  If Bitcoin could be evolved to a situation where the foundations of anonymity were weakened while it still retains it's leading role in the space, that would be ideal to some.  Other more general anonymity-centered attacks could then suck Bitcoin along for the ride.

As you can see from my name I've got nothing to hide myself, however I can certainly see issues with reducing privacy for the chinese or other countries where bitcoin privacy is what's currently keeping them from being locked away in jail for currency fraud or whatnot.

I understand the problems that arise from a quasi-anonymous digital "cash" system that bitcoin is, but regulating the shit out of it and breaking the fundamental structure of what makes bitcoin such a universal tool is not the way to do it, I appologize to all the american users who want to easily buy bitcoins, however I don't share your pain because my country doesn't have draconian legislation.

"chlid pornographers use bitcoin, we must change bitcoin to stop them from doing this" - this old LE tactic has never worked and only hurts common users of new technology, you must stop child pornographers/drug dealers/ hackers from having an incentive for doing this in the first place, clearing the symptoms of the problem doesn't actually do anything besides make the LE look like their actually being productive.

[NewLiberty]

Don't fight the government, make it do your bidding.  

That's how we got into this mess...

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html

Remember...
Those to whom we go to for help, we also empower.

[Valerian77]

redlists, greenlists, whitelists, redlists ...

All of them are completely worthless. The simple fact is that Bitcoin is global. If any government (not to mention the US directly  ) tries to separate the Bitcoin amount or users into good and bad the simple consequence will be that the economy grows faster outside of the regulated space. That means BRIC countries will grow more fast than even now. And the regulated country will suffer under separation from self induced separation. This economic effect will be massive.

All in all it will be very unlikely that this will happen.

[User_513]

Why would anyone in their right mind who isn't interested in seeing someone or some group have the ability to essentially steal whatever BTC they want from anyone they want want to see a tool created that would allow exactly that to happen?

Mike Hearn is either a very devious prick or attempting to win the most useful idiot award for helping TPTB attempt to control and/or kill BTC. I really don't care which of the two is true, either way the very fact that he's suggesting ideas such as this clearly prove he can not be trusted.

[NewLiberty]

Why would anyone in their right mind who isn't interested in seeing someone or some group have the ability to essentially steal whatever BTC they want from anyone they want want to see a tool created that would allow exactly that to happen?

Mike Hearn is either a very devious prick or attempting to win the most useful idiot award for helping TPTB attempt to control and/or kill BTC. I really don't care which of the two is true, either way the very fact that he's suggesting ideas such as this clearly prove he can not be trusted.

Why not take him for what he says at the outset of this?
1) that his questions were misinterpreted as a statement or a goal, and
2) that he is content to observe the discussion to get a sense temperature of the users

Until there is some code written, its all just talk anyhow.  Questions such as this are worth raising even of only to dismiss them, as the process develops the reasons for the decision making.  Its a useful process in open source.  No need to tar him for raising the question.

Anything non-global or which is for other than all individual's benefit doesn't belong in the protocol.  So long as there are exchanges that trade for fiat, and people selling there, TPTB can control and or kill it anyhow.

[RodeoX]

Why would anyone in their right mind who isn't interested in seeing someone or some group have the ability to essentially steal whatever BTC they want from anyone they want want to see a tool created that would allow exactly that to happen?

Mike Hearn is either a very devious prick or attempting to win the most useful idiot award for helping TPTB attempt to control and/or kill BTC. I really don't care which of the two is true, either way the very fact that he's suggesting ideas such as this clearly prove he can not be trusted.

... Questions such as this are worth raising even of only to dismiss them, as the process develops the reasons for the decision making.  Its a useful process in open source.  No need to tar him for raising the question.
...

Amen. What is with everyone jumping on Mike for thinking aloud? Why aren't you haters in this thread writing your representatives in Washington, or do you think you are getting more done lambasting a programmer in Switzerland?
I do not support listing coins either, but I think it is worth talking about why some support it and how it could be implemented. Chillax y'all.

[User_513]

Why would anyone in their right mind who isn't interested in seeing someone or some group have the ability to essentially steal whatever BTC they want from anyone they want want to see a tool created that would allow exactly that to happen?

Mike Hearn is either a very devious prick or attempting to win the most useful idiot award for helping TPTB attempt to control and/or kill BTC. I really don't care which of the two is true, either way the very fact that he's suggesting ideas such as this clearly prove he can not be trusted.

... Questions such as this are worth raising even of only to dismiss them, as the process develops the reasons for the decision making.  Its a useful process in open source.  No need to tar him for raising the question.
...

Amen. What is with everyone jumping on Mike for thinking aloud? Why aren't you haters in this thread writing your representatives in Washington, or do you think you are getting more done lambasting a programmer in Switzerland?
I do not support listing coins either, but I think it is worth talking about why some support it and how it could be implemented. Chillax y'all.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that discussing the idea that there ought to be some centralized tool by which an outside party could control the BTC holdings of individuals and the value of the BTC market were frowned upon by this community. I must be mistaken. Please, do go on and tell me why the guy who has publicly said that it'd be an OK idea to negate the value of any BTC I may have some day, simply because 'they', those in control of that tool, claim that that BTC has been somewhere they didn't like is worthy of my praise and respect. Because I'm SURE that such a tool could and would NEVER be used in a manner that would benefit those controlling it, right? Fire away, I'm all ears.

[RodeoX]

Why would anyone in their right mind who isn't interested in seeing someone or some group have the ability to essentially steal whatever BTC they want from anyone they want want to see a tool created that would allow exactly that to happen?

Mike Hearn is either a very devious prick or attempting to win the most useful idiot award for helping TPTB attempt to control and/or kill BTC. I really don't care which of the two is true, either way the very fact that he's suggesting ideas such as this clearly prove he can not be trusted.

... Questions such as this are worth raising even of only to dismiss them, as the process develops the reasons for the decision making.  Its a useful process in open source.  No need to tar him for raising the question.
...

Amen. What is with everyone jumping on Mike for thinking aloud? Why aren't you haters in this thread writing your representatives in Washington, or do you think you are getting more done lambasting a programmer in Switzerland?
I do not support listing coins either, but I think it is worth talking about why some support it and how it could be implemented. Chillax y'all.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that discussing the idea that there ought to be some centralized tool by which an outside party could control the BTC holdings of individuals and the value of the BTC market were frowned upon by this community. I must be mistaken. Please, do go on and tell me why the guy who has publicly said that it'd be an OK idea to negate the value of any BTC I may have some day, simply because 'they', those in control of that tool, claim that that BTC has been somewhere they didn't like is worthy of my praise and respect. Because I'm SURE that such a tool could and would NEVER be used in a manner that would benefit those controlling it, right? Fire away, I'm all ears.

Anyone can create lists or color codes for coins. It is not a change to bitcoin rather a technique to track coins. It is already being done and just because you and I don't like it doesn't mean it wont expand in the future.
The countermeasure is not to attack someone for pointing it out, or even for promoting it. Instead focus on your elected officials who could institute a list system tomorrow that outlaws some coins. Only they can pass laws, Mike cannot.
I doubt your congressman has an account here. You will need to send him/her an email explaining why this is a bad idea. I already think it is.

[justusranvier]

Why aren't you haters in this thread writing your representatives in Washington

I avoid intentionally interacting with mafiosos and terrorists as much as humanly possible.

[tvbcof]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that discussing the idea that there ought to be some centralized tool by which an outside party could control the BTC holdings of individuals and the value of the BTC market were frowned upon by this community. I must be mistaken. Please, do go on and tell me why the guy who has publicly said that it'd be an OK idea to negate the value of any BTC I may have some day, simply because 'they', those in control of that tool, claim that that BTC has been somewhere they didn't like is worthy of my praise and respect. Because I'm SURE that such a tool could and would NEVER be used in a manner that would benefit those controlling it, right? Fire away, I'm all ears.

I think you are mistake in your intuition that everyone in the space would consider find-grained control of who used Bitcoin for what purposes to be a bad thing.

In my observation there are plenty of people who welcome this kind of control and see it as a positive and even a necessity.  This point was driven home at the San Jose 2013 convention.  As far as I'm concerned, Hearn has always been of this mindset and has never been terribly shy about promoting it (to his credit.)

In my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong about this position.  Most of the arguments make by those who take this position are completely rational in my opinion.

I hold an opposite opinion.  I'm not a Libertarian, but philosophically I do believe that if one is free to make only good choices then that is not really 'freedom' at all.

From an engineering, political, and practical perspective, my complaint against trying to enforce only 'good' behavior is that it creates complexity and opens up giant doors for abuse.  I don't believe that the Bitcoin community could ever stop 'criminality' but only push it into a different sphere and one which is probably even more pernicious.

Worse still, some Iranian family trying to sell shoes would be (and are) considered criminals because the certain power structures wish it to be so.  I disagree, and I welcome a tool which allows me to express my will.  If this is not Bitcoin, then there will be something else.

[NewLiberty]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that discussing the idea that there ought to be some centralized tool by which an outside party could control the BTC holdings of individuals and the value of the BTC market were frowned upon by this community. I must be mistaken. Please, do go on and tell me why the guy who has publicly said that it'd be an OK idea to negate the value of any BTC I may have some day, simply because 'they', those in control of that tool, claim that that BTC has been somewhere they didn't like is worthy of my praise and respect. Because I'm SURE that such a tool could and would NEVER be used in a manner that would benefit those controlling it, right? Fire away, I'm all ears.

Apology accepted.  Discussing ideas about Bitcoin development, even bad ones, is not wrong.
Even if you and I agree that this sort of antifungibility development ought be left for others to do (oh yes, it is entirely possible and will likely be done with or without us).

The fundamental bitcoin protocol is not perfectly fungible.  The bitcoins are trackable and tracable through addresses, this is part of what makes them useful and non-duplicatable.  If you want perfect fungibility, you are left with specie.

An outside entity needs nothing more than the already public and unencrypted blockchain, and the ability to determine ownership of IP address space to begin this effort.  I imagine it is ALREADY BEING DONE.  There are forensic analysis toolsets that do much of this already.
and this:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fbi-surveillance-nsa-tech/2013/08/04/id/518590

When you add to that the tor relays and exit nodes operated by TPTB, and the back doors all over the place, there is not really any requirement to make this any easier even if Mike wanted to do so.

[manuel]

This guy sounds like a real douche nozel...

Will this help? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouo7Q6Cf_yc

[Sheldor333]

He just wants to be at the head of it all. Like he doesn't get that what people want is decentralized and he just won't give up on centralized. If someone wants a centralized one, it already exists. Don't ruin this one. Use what you have already, or do you want to break this too.

[manuel]

He just wants to be at the head of it all. Like he doesn't get that what people want is decentralized and he just won't give up on centralized. If someone wants a centralized one, it already exists. Don't ruin this one. Use what you have already, or do you want to break this too.

Yea, it's called USD.  What an asshole.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I wish I could boycott the USA.

[manuel]

I wish I could boycott the USA.

Everybody with their head screwed on right does too.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I wish I could boycott the USA.

Everybody with their head screwed on right does too.

Mike Hearn shouldnt be on the foundation, Edward Snowden should be.

[tvbcof]

I wish I could boycott the USA.

Everybody with their head screwed on right does too.

Mike Hearn shouldnt be on the foundation, Edward Snowden should be.

I don't know about that, but mostly because I consider the Bitcoin Foundation to be terminally corrupted and broken (and Bitcoin itself in a similar danger.)

If Snowden felt it important enough to weigh in on the risks facing the Bitcoin protocol and related technologies, and schemes which may be effective at dealing with attacks, I'd certainly listen to what he has to say.

At this point I think the most important thing is to retain the general concept that privacy and the ability to communicate freely is a natural human right.  As long as that principle is in place things will be OK.

[manuel]

Well speaking of it being a lost cause... any response to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

[Adrian-x]

Well speaking of it being a lost cause... any response to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

I watched that last week and got thinking about the problem, I can think of a fiew ways to solve it* so it is back to rose coloured glasses for me. (I meant to post it to reddit but forgot. It is worthy of discussion)  

* 1) a business idea all rights reserved
   2) a number of fundamental protocol changes
   3) an unprotected free market solution.

[molecular]

Well speaking of it being a lost cause... any response to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

urgh. The speculative bubble argument and the scalability argument. This guy even says "fixing" scalability would require a degree of centralization. That's a strong claim and it's off-topic to discuss here. For a potential solution that doesn't break decentralization see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359582.0.

[Justin00]

Maybe if you and your friends didn't steal bitcoins we wouldnt be having to have this discussion.

But I don't find them malicious, just incompetent.

... corrupt lovers of power and control freaks.

That has not been my experience. I'm sure that many elected officials have that mindset, but my family members in the FBI for example are more like boyscouts. They want to do good. Sometimes it does not work out though. Take the disastrous drug war. Which has caused so much suffering.
I approach such problems with engagement. And I see it working in places like Colorado and Washington state. Don't fight the government, make it do your bidding.  

I've had many many experiences with police. 80% are just doing a job to pay rent (so was Hitler's SS) and 20% love their job, going way beyond the call of duty to enforce laws and get at 'bad types' they don't like (sometimes bending or breaking the law). They break into houses, arrest people for assault, beat people up (off camera), follow and harass you, ... they are not all good people and I don't support their work which is mostly being a pawn of powerful interests that collaborate with wealthy groups to fuck you.

Here's 3 PRISM slides from the NSA:







I don't know what more kind of proof people need that the police are corrupt, and we don't need to help make their work easier with applying law to bitcoin (in their own interpreted way).

you know the blacklist in the UK which was originally only for child porn and now blocks 'hate speech', copyright infringement, 'bad porn' and the pirate bay was originally formed as a consensus amongst ISPs after the metropolitan police put pressure on Demon internet. the same steps are now happening with bitcoin and it's looking semi-legit with people justifying it. but even a cursory look at internet history will show you what the slippery slope this is and we must fight hard against this tooth and nail. not later, but now. now is the time to fight for your freedom, not later once everything is compromised.

[manuel]

Well speaking of it being a lost cause... any response to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

I watched that last week and got thinking about the problem, I can think of a fiew ways to solve it* so it is back to rose coloured glasses for me. (I meant to post it to reddit but forgot. It is worthy of discussion)  

* 1) a business idea all rights reserved
   2) a number of fundamental protocol changes
   3) an unprotected free market solution.

Only number 2 sounds like a real potential solution but you haven't given anything of substance WHAT PROTOCOL CHANGES?

[manuel]

Well speaking of it being a lost cause... any response to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeA94BedQI

urgh. The speculative bubble argument and the scalability argument. This guy even says "fixing" scalability would require a degree of centralization. That's a strong claim and it's off-topic to discuss here. For a potential solution that doesn't break decentralization see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359582.0.

Tell me more about how every regular user is going to run a 10 or 20 terabyte storage array just to support their individual copy of the blockchain?

[AnonyMint]

Without assured anonymity, the entire house-of-cards that is Bitcoin will come crashing down.

It isn't FUD.  

It's real, alipay and the other payment providers and financial institutions are not allowed to deal with the bitcoin exchanges anymore.

I told you guys the legal document was open for interpretation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=358368.0;all

Financial institutions deal with currency, and the Chinese government wants to keep it that way.

Bitcoin Exchanges and related companies deal with Bitcoin, and the Chinese government wants to proceed this way.


It's only clarification of separation between THESE businesses, not Bitcoin in general.

Agreed. A big part of the motivation is probably to stem potential capital flight out of China via bitcoin. Not there was likely much of that going on, but the gov probably wants to get out ahead of matters. Which means eliminating layers of financial intermediaries that could obscure identity (hence why "payment processors" might not be allowed to interact with bitcoin exchanges, but banks are ok).

All in all, it will probably indeed dampen the mania to some degree, but it's by no means as hostile as many are making it out to be.

Bingo!

Good to see you all are starting to understand finally.

For the record, we can fully expect governments everywhere to demand the equivalent of AML/KYC, which is more or less what this China action likely amounts to (though more rigidly). That AML/KYC status-quo permeates the global financial system; not just the US.

Yes and they will collect capital gains and/or VAT taxes on Bitcoin appreciation as an investment even if you are trying to use it as a currency (medium-of-exchange), thus it can not be a currency.

But developers of altcoins will rise to the opportunity and create truly anonymous coins. Anoncoin isn't it. Bitcoin isn't it. I will soon publish a whitepaper to explain why.

In short, you need to understand that Chaum mix-nets (e.g. Tor) are vulnerable to timing attacks, and even honeypotting given only 3 hops. They NSA and spy agencies in each country are likely still able to track your identity much of the time. And VPNs are likely all controlled/backdoored/hacked/rooted by the NSA. And exchanging through mixers and altcoins does not obscure your IP address no matter how many times you do it. Also even across these proxies, your identity is tracked in other ways such as browser plugins trojans, cookies, patterns of internet uses such as favored search terms, facbook et al tracking the way you type, etc..

Even if you are one of the lucky few who manages to keep your anonymity assured by careful mix of the above methods, the point is the majority will not. And thus it is very simple for the government to make your anonymous coins practically unspendable and useless. The government simply sends a tax bill and put criminal liability for all activity on a coin since mining until present, until those non-anonymous coins holders (or former holders) can provide the identity of whom they bought from and sold to.

Thus all users will become afraid and only accept coins and sell coins from those who provide their complete identity. Thus only a coin with widespread assured anonymity would be able to become a currency and remain immune to government control.

So clearly you can see that you never will have anonymity with Bitcoin nor any current altcoins. Thus Bitcoin and the current altcoins can never be currencies (unless the governments take them over somehow and make them legal tender), and the government will essentially control them.

Note one means anonymity I proposed thus far are a new way to do physical crypto-coins.

[speedtrader]

Remember that there are shades of gray for this issue as well. A redlist for highly tainted hot coins is not the same as expanding the redlist to include tainted coins in general. Hot coins have already been blacklisted by exchange before - for a while at least. I don't like the idea of a redlist but it's not like I would love to receive really hot coins from someone.

[Sheldor333]

Well if they do manage to realize this I hope everyone moves away from bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency.

[tvbcof]

Well if they do manage to realize this I hope everyone moves away from bitcoin to some other cryptocurrency.

Most people lack the combination of interest, time, and understanding to care a whole lot.  And a large fraction of ordinary people are pretty nervous about the concept of individuals not being under some sort of control.  Other individuals for sure, and even themselves to a surprising extent.

I hypothesis that most people are born with a predisposition to consider themselves subjugants of a leader.  A society with 100% leaders and 0% followers will not last very long because they will not be very functional and thus competitive.  So the ratio of humans with a natural inclination to look to higher authorities for guidance about how to live tends to be fairly high.

The key to population management is to recognize this feature of human populations and use it to design policy.  From a monetary perspective, it is sufficient to point out the mischief that some 'free' individuals can achieve in order to foster a more controlled exchange medium.  Natural human brain functions can do the rest of the work.

[molecular]

As a monitory system like that

If that was a freudian mistake I'm not sure what to think of you

If it was intentional: cool word you made up, bro. Will use.

[tvbcof]

As a monitory system like that is less more or less inevitable and, initially, stands a good chance of being beneficial to a society. Unfortunately it doesn't follow societies natural selection of leadership, power corrupts but society will change its leadership as conditions require. Money doesn't allow for change of leadership, royal families all through history have shown the extremes of powers corruption and for a large part the power of money delayed the necessary change of leadership. In just the same way as we're beyond the threat of full blown war (mutually assured destruction) we're also coming to a point where we're beyond the ability to change leadership due to the power of money.

That is the reason why distributed crypto-currencies captured my interest so intently.  While I've more or less lost hope for Bitcoin proper, it's success in demonstrating the general concept has been remarkable.  The next move from TPTB will have to be better control over freedom of association, and it will be a tricky needle to thread.

As an aside, I'm not as convinced that the threat of MAD is behind us.  With excessive population sizes, and particularly populations which are restive, MAD could have some new-found utility.  I'm just not convinced that the pool from which our leaderships are drawn don't contain sufficient evil to go for it.

[BitLoverz]

Mike really should be ashamed of himself

[NewLiberty]

Mike really should be ashamed of himself

Why?  For raising a question for discussion?

As a Bitcoin Foundation outsider, I have little insight into the machinations there, but I suspect that there are BF folks watching this thread.

As part of the charter of reaching out to the broader community, I'd be curious as to whether and what form the follow up to the Senate hearings are taking.
Senator Tom Carper is still looking for input from his staffers.  What has been drafted by the BF for their consumption.
We have the US Senate looking for input on whether and how to regulate, what are we giving them?


Is there a thread on this that I've missed?

[Mike Hearn]

There is no thread yet and you're right that Sen Carper has submitted questions to the Foundation as followup to the Senate hearings. AFAIK the answers haven't been written yet, the deadline is end of Jan, iirc.

At some point when the followup answers are submitted, I hope they will be public (can't think of a reason why not).

[NewLiberty]

There is no thread yet and you're right that Sen Carper has submitted questions to the Foundation as followup to the Senate hearings. AFAIK the answers haven't been written yet, the deadline is end of Jan, iirc.

At some point when the followup answers are submitted, I hope they will be public (can't think of a reason why not).

Thank you for this response.  Carper seems reasonable on the matter and likened it to internet early days in an interview aired this morning (when fear mongers were chanting child porn over and over).  He pointed out that while they certainly worked against such things, the internet has brought much more benefit than harm due to a reasoned policy debate.

If the pencils have been sharpened even further since the response to the California nonsense was drafted, it promises to be very good reading.  Curiosity is peaked.

The internet was a tax-free zone in the US for quite a while.  That model worked strongly to US advantage and this point may resonate with Carper.

If I were to offer anything further to that it would be to as strongly suggest as possible that since every transaction (not within an off-chain service provider) is public and unencrypted, there should be no need for money-transmitter registration so long as all transactions by a potential registrant are done on the public block chain.

[Mike Hearn]

I think that is already the consensus - peer to peer transactions between two entities directly do not involve money transmission. As far as I know that's not even being debated.

The problems start when there's a third party sitting in the middle who (temporarily) gains control of your money and takes it as a deposit/could run off with it. In a perfectly decentralized world such entities would not exist at all, of course in reality our money starts out in banks so you need to use an exchange to get it out of there.

This is an issue because money transmitter laws (in the USA) work on two levels; the federal level via FinCEN, where registration requirements are not that hard (fill out a single online form) and the compliance requirements are basically to keep records, ID your customers and tip off the government when you see suspicious transactions. Even very small companies can manage that. The problems start at the state level, which is actually justified on the grounds of consumer protection rather than fighting crime - the idea is that if you move money around on the behalf of other people, you might be tempted to steal it, gamble with it, lose it through incompetence, whatever. Hence all the paperwork showing you the CEO's have never been convicted of a crime before, taking fingerprints, posting bonds and so on.

Whether these rules actually in balance do help consumers is rather debatable - it ignores the cost of all the killed startups that could have innovated, but you can see how politicians arrive at such rules, especially after scandals in which money transmitters collapse (search Greg Gonzales).

Fortunately for purely P2P payments in Bitcoin there is no risk of the money going missing, so the only consumer protection issue becomes what if you buy something and it's not properly delivered, which can/will be addressed by dispute mediation/multisig contracts in the protocol. We did a presentation at the FTC on this topic recently.

[BCB]

Any follow up questions and answers should be published to the original Committee Hearing web page (unless they are issues of "National Security" or involve confidential business  trade secrets ).
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies

And a final transcript of the hearings including submitted testimony which is often more detailed then the spoken testimony can be found on the US Government Printing Office Website at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action  by searching

"Beyond Silk Road: Potential Risks, Threats, and Promises of Virtual Currencies"

I wouldn't expect to see the published testimony before sometime in February.

[NewLiberty]

I think that is already the consensus - peer to peer transactions between two entities directly do not involve money transmission. As far as I know that's not even being debated.

The problems start when there's a third party sitting in the middle who (temporarily) gains control of your money and takes it as a deposit/could run off with it. In a perfectly decentralized world such entities would not exist at all, of course in reality our money starts out in banks so you need to use an exchange to get it out of there.

This is an issue because money transmitter laws (in the USA) work on two levels; the federal level via FinCEN, where registration requirements are not that hard (fill out a single online form) and the compliance requirements are basically to keep records, ID your customers and tip off the government when you see suspicious transactions. Even very small companies can manage that. The problems start at the state level, which is actually justified on the grounds of consumer protection rather than fighting crime - the idea is that if you move money around on the behalf of other people, you might be tempted to steal it, gamble with it, lose it through incompetence, whatever. Hence all the paperwork showing you the CEO's have never been convicted of a crime before, taking fingerprints, posting bonds and so on.

Whether these rules actually in balance do help consumers is rather debatable - it ignores the cost of all the killed startups that could have innovated, but you can see how politicians arrive at such rules, especially after scandals in which money transmitters collapse (search Greg Gonzales).

Fortunately for purely P2P payments in Bitcoin there is no risk of the money going missing, so the only consumer protection issue becomes what if you buy something and it's not properly delivered, which can/will be addressed by dispute mediation/multisig contracts in the protocol. We did a presentation at the FTC on this topic recently.

Codifying that consensus would then not be too onerous.  Focusing on the justifiable constraints of regulatory activities will be a win.

In contemplation of FinCEN's request vs Casascius.  It is perhaps a fine line.
It is MTB because Caldwell arguably could still have the private key, and there is not a mechanism for him to provably not have it?
Thus the requests for trustworthiness?

[eldentyrell]

Mike really should be ashamed of himself.

If this is true then I have lost all respect for Mike Hearn.

Mike Hearn shouldnt be on the foundation, Edward Snowden should be.

+1

[Rampion]

Time for an update. How is that red-black-yellow-whatever listing going, Mike?

[Cryddit]

FWIW; if you happen to be American, you should write your congresscritter about a National Medal of Freedom for Edward Snowden.

[Mike Hearn]

I think it would be cool if Snowden joined the Foundation. Re: "how is it going", I haven't done anything on this beyond starting this debate/discussion/flamewar. However if you look around the forums you will find other people who are building block chain analysis or coin tracking systems. Go annoy them instead.

In contemplation of FinCEN's request vs Casascius.  It is perhaps a fine line.
It is MTB because Caldwell arguably could still have the private key, and there is not a mechanism for him to provably not have it?
Thus the requests for trustworthiness?

I think it's a stretch to consider him a money transmitter to be honest, but the designation is so vague you can see how they arrived at it if you squint. A more pertinent question is, why would a criminal use his service? I can see no reasons. He only takes Bitcoins, so for A to move money to B, routing it through Mike doesn't make any difference blockchain-wise. It just adds large costs.

It'd be nice if at some point FinCEN moved from a mechanical application of the rules to a more targeted use of their time: it seems very unlikely to me that a Mexican drug cartel is buying up physical Bitcoins, so all they're achieving here is shutting down an American entrepreneur. I know there are people at the Foundation (like Jon and Patrick) who would like to help Mike and are working on it.

[tvbcof]

...
It'd be nice if at some point FinCEN moved from a mechanical application of the rules to a more targeted use of their time: it seems very unlikely to me that a Mexican drug cartel is buying up physical Bitcoins, so all they're achieving here is shutting down an American entrepreneur. I know there are people at the Foundation (like Jon and Patrick) who would like to help Mike and are working on it.

The low hanging fruit here might be to try to figure out how NOT lend assistance to frauds and scams (e.g., Inputs.io) by allowing them to use the Bitcoin Foundation as a seal of approval as they rope in suckers.

After that then maybe spend some effort scratching a friend's back...subsidized by donator's funds presumably.  OTOH, I could see the potential for useful case law coming out of such an adventure.  As for Causius Coins, they've already served their main useful purpose of providing stock photos for the media to use in stories about Bitcoin.

[NewLiberty]

...
It'd be nice if at some point FinCEN moved from a mechanical application of the rules to a more targeted use of their time: it seems very unlikely to me that a Mexican drug cartel is buying up physical Bitcoins, so all they're achieving here is shutting down an American entrepreneur. I know there are people at the Foundation (like Jon and Patrick) who would like to help Mike and are working on it.

The low hanging fruit here might be to try to figure out how NOT lend assistance to frauds and scams (e.g., Inputs.io) by allowing them to use the Bitcoin Foundation as a seal of approval as they rope in suckers.

Self regulation?  How would that work mechanically? Help pick the fruit.

[tvbcof]

...
It'd be nice if at some point FinCEN moved from a mechanical application of the rules to a more targeted use of their time: it seems very unlikely to me that a Mexican drug cartel is buying up physical Bitcoins, so all they're achieving here is shutting down an American entrepreneur. I know there are people at the Foundation (like Jon and Patrick) who would like to help Mike and are working on it.

The low hanging fruit here might be to try to figure out how NOT lend assistance to frauds and scams (e.g., Inputs.io) by allowing them to use the Bitcoin Foundation as a seal of approval as they rope in suckers.

Self regulation?  How would that work mechanically? Help pick the fruit.

My off-hand suggestion would be to 'know your members' and be clear that the DOX would be handed to law enforcement as part of an investigation driven by the Foundation itself in the event of a scam.

Actually, if I were setting policy I would only allow anonymity in unusual circumstances (for those using Bitcoin Foundation membership as a seal for business purposes.)  Inevitably, the reason for anonymity is to allow the option to take the customer's money and run whether that was the initial goal or just an operational decision which proved desirable at some point.

[Rampion]

I think it would be cool if Snowden joined the Foundation. Re: "how is it going", I haven't done anything on this beyond starting this debate/discussion/flamewar.

So you acknowledge that attacking the neutrality of Bitcoin is attacking Bitcoin itself? Did you change your mind on the whole red/black/white listing thing?

That would put some minds at rest.

[justusranvier]

My off-hand suggestion would be to 'know your members' and be clear that the DOX would be handed to law enforcement as part of an investigation driven by the Foundation itself in the event of a scam.

Actually, if I were setting policy I would only allow anonymity in unusual circumstances (for those using Bitcoin Foundation membership as a seal for business purposes.)  Inevitably, the reason for anonymity is to allow the option to take the customer's money and run whether that was the initial goal or just an operational decision which proved desirable at some point.

BF would have been a lot less controversial, and probably far more effective, if it had limited itself to hiring programmers/QA/etc for the reference client and stayed out of politics and other non-technical areas.

[tvbcof]

My off-hand suggestion would be to 'know your members' and be clear that the DOX would be handed to law enforcement as part of an investigation driven by the Foundation itself in the event of a scam.

Actually, if I were setting policy I would only allow anonymity in unusual circumstances (for those using Bitcoin Foundation membership as a seal for business purposes.)  Inevitably, the reason for anonymity is to allow the option to take the customer's money and run whether that was the initial goal or just an operational decision which proved desirable at some point.

BF would have been a lot less controversial, and probably far more effective, if it had limited itself to hiring programmers/QA/etc for the reference client and stayed out of politics and other non-technical areas.

Agree strongly.  I would likely be a supporter if they had taken that approach or at least saw it as important enough to have a fairly autonomous wing of their operations which focused on such things and collated the results in a coherent manner.

That there are quasi-secret efforts going on which need to be semi-covertly leaked is a giant turn-off to me.  It reminds me a whole lot of how government policy tends to be made in this day and age, and the ill effects such an org structure abound.

[User705]

I think it would be cool if Snowden joined the Foundation. Re: "how is it going", I haven't done anything on this beyond starting this debate/discussion/flamewar. However if you look around the forums you will find other people who are building block chain analysis or coin tracking systems. Go annoy them instead.

In contemplation of FinCEN's request vs Casascius.  It is perhaps a fine line.
It is MTB because Caldwell arguably could still have the private key, and there is not a mechanism for him to provably not have it?
Thus the requests for trustworthiness?

I think it's a stretch to consider him a money transmitter to be honest, but the designation is so vague you can see how they arrived at it if you squint. A more pertinent question is, why would a criminal use his service? I can see no reasons. He only takes Bitcoins, so for A to move money to B, routing it through Mike doesn't make any difference blockchain-wise. It just adds large costs.

It'd be nice if at some point FinCEN moved from a mechanical application of the rules to a more targeted use of their time: it seems very unlikely to me that a Mexican drug cartel is buying up physical Bitcoins, so all they're achieving here is shutting down an American entrepreneur. I know there are people at the Foundation (like Jon and Patrick) who would like to help Mike and are working on it.

But if you squint hard enough then everyone is a money transmitter from blockchain.info to the guy mining with his USB stick.  I understand every agency wants to pad its slush fund budget and regulate everything in sight but what's your feeling on where the line will be drawn eventually?

[nyuka]

I think it's a bad idea to have a redlist for Bitcoins (to track every single coin and what about fractions of a coin). No one is forcing anyone to use Bitcoins and if someone doesn't like that some of them are not clean (were used illegally),  they don't have to use Bitcoins or they can create a alternative coin and call them Cleancoins (CLC) and force them to be used for only legal purposes. What about fiat currencies we use. Probably every country has currency that was used illegally, so maybe we should track every one of them too and redlist the ones that were used illegally. I think it's the crime that needs to be tracked and not everything made unusable that was used in it (what about items, cars, and houses that were used in crimes, maybe we should redlist them too).

[ProfMac]

When a transaction mixes some stolen coins and other coins, the outputs have a certain % of dirt.  This is easy to calculate.

Then those coins, in turn, are used in a transaction, it is also easy to calculate what % of dirt in in those new outputs.

It should be trivial to build an application that can take a list of transaction ids that the user thinks are from illegal activity, and a list of (transaction IDs, output address) that are of interest, perhaps because they are unspent  transactions in a customer's wallet.

The algorithm is pretty simple.  Trace the "not inputs" back until everything is a generation block, or one of the dirty transactions.  Then walk back forward until you are at a transaction ID on the list that is being examined.

[km4700ruda]

If US law makers and enforcement wish to do something then let them, and when they and their partners finally understand the concept of a de-centralised global currency then they might realise that the rest of the world will continue without them.

[NewLiberty]

If US law makers and enforcement wish to do something then let them, and when they and their partners finally understand the concept of a de-centralised global currency then they might realise that the rest of the world will continue without them.

In the mean time, they will arrest and seize the time, reputation, and assets of localbitcoin traders.

[masterluc]

Bump