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

[felipelalli]

Please, for your own safety don't search by "Mike Hearn" on Google Images.

[1714490489]

1714490489

[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 ?