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

[moderate]

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

[1713406891]

1713406891

[1713406891]

1713406891

[1713406891]

1713406891

[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.