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

[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...