The beginning of the end?

[revans]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qmbtu/mike_hearn_chair_of_the_bitcoin_foundations_law/


I said that this was inevitable, and now it seems there are people with a lot of influence in the Bitcoin community trying to blacklist coins. So much for the brave new world of money.

[CMMPro]

Oh fuck off with this bullshit....this is just more fud.

No one here is going to stand for this bullshit that someone dreamt up about green/black listing coins.
If they try this there will be a hard fork....the dev team will be tossed out on their asses and a new fork will go to the new team and the 99% of people who find the entire idea preposterous.

In the end we will be way better off because the fork that moves to block this will make bitcoin permanently anonymous.

Right now they can already track nearly every coin anyway...I'm sure the NSA has a grasp on pretty much the location every coin in existence just based on people accessing their wallets via their home IP. Duh.





 

[Le Happy Merchant]

Honestly, if they could blacklist ('redlist') only coins that came from that cryptolocker virus, I would support it.

On the other hand: Criminals would use them, transact with criminals and make the coins even more tainted with literally no consequence.

[klee]

Oh fuck off with this bullshit....this is just more fud.

No one here is going to stand for this bullshit that someone dreamt up about green/black listing coins.
If they try this there will be a hard fork....the dev team will be tossed out on their asses and a new fork will go to the new team and the 99% of people who find the entire idea preposterous.

In the end we will be way better off because the fork that moves to block this will make bitcoin permanently anonymous.

Right now they can already track nearly every coin anyway...I'm sure the NSA has a grasp on pretty much the location every coin in existence just based on people accessing their wallets via their home IP. Duh.

Who is gonna do the hard fork? BF? The same guys who propose this scheme??

[MaxBTC1]

>you know realise its 2013 and people are using reddit as their source

ishiggydiggydoodooooo

[oda.krell]

Yeah. I'm not easily startled, but I consider this the first "real" threat  to Bitcoin I know of since I joined this little club.

I'm in a discussion with Mike Hearn right now on the btcfoundation forum. I get the impression he genuinely believes that a) it's a good idea to implement this, and b) won't do much damage to Bitcoin. I disagree with a), and vehemently disagree with b).

Head over there yourself (if you are a member already. otherwise: pay up and join :D). Otherwise, arguments I can bring forward in the thread are very much welcome.

[Tirapon]

Yeah. I'm not easily startled, but I consider this the first "real" threat  to Bitcoin I know of since I joined this little club.

+1

@OP, recognising this issue goes some way to redeeming that epic fail in your last thread.

[spiderbrain]

This would completely defeat the point of bitcoin IMO, and would result in a new bitcoin/fork, and that becoming the new bitcoin. Very unlikely to happen.  This guy has obviously been spending too much time with government regulators and has gone native.

[BittBurger]

Yeah. I'm not easily startled, but I consider this the first "real" threat  to Bitcoin I know of since I joined this little club.

I'm in a discussion with Mike Hearn right now on the btcfoundation forum. I get the impression he genuinely believes that a) it's a good idea to implement this, and b) won't do much damage to Bitcoin. I disagree with a), and vehemently disagree with b).

Head over there yourself (if you are a member already. otherwise: pay up and join ). Otherwise, arguments I can bring forward in the thread are very much welcome.

Glad guys like you are having open discussions with them, and even more glad guys like Hearn are putting themselves out there to hear the feedback.

I think this is a positive thing, given the comparison, which is corporation suits having zero interaction with those whom they affect.

-Burger-

[shmadz]

honestly the thing about crypto-locker type viruses demanding bitcoin instead of dollars is the part that scares me the most.

Punishing the currency instead of the criminals is just plain stupid. And the blacklisting is dumb too. As someone already mentioned, it is trivial to track coins and I'm sure the enforcement agencies already have their own blacklists. all that crap is so ridiculous that I do not see it as a threat because I think the chance of it even happening is so remote.

But that crypto-locker virus is a bitch. I've seen it now at 2 different companies, one of them was on a terminal server. If that thing (or something like it) starts demanding bitcoin, I think that would have a very negative effect on the popularity of bitcoin.

I hate that cryptolocker thing. I blame microsoft. Users that have no admin rights should not be able to launch that menace. I haven't spent too much time on it (we just wipe the infected box and restore the backups) but my hunch is that they are exploiting the bitlocker "feature" they introduced in windows 7... but that's just a hunch.

[antimattercrusader]

It already does demand bitcoin.

[piramida]

in short, that proposal is stupid and will be rejected, nothing to see here, really.

[lucaspm98]

in short, that proposal is stupid and will be rejected, nothing to see here, really.

Exactly, everybody knows its total junk and nobody would ever fall for it.

[oda.krell]

in short, that proposal is stupid and will be rejected, nothing to see here, really.

Exactly, everybody knows its total junk and nobody would ever fall for it.

If a sufficient number of people adopt that attitude, the Mike Hearns of BF are going to have their way. Luckily, not everyone's as indifferent or lazy.

[porcupine87]

Could it be implemented, that the owner of an address can be contacted? Via an central webserver. Like this: I get this crypto-locker on my computer and have to send 1btc to an address xyz. Then I send a message to the FBI and they put that output address xyz on a central, worldwide webserver. A business or an exchange don't accept money from one of this addresses. And every individual could do the same, if they want.

Would that be the same problem?

[revans]

Could it be implemented, that the owner of an address can be contacted? Via an central webserver. Like this: I get this crypto-locker on my computer and have to send 1btc to an address xyz. Then I send a message to the FBI and they put that output address xyz on a central, worldwide webserver. A business or an exchange don't accept money from one of this addresses. And every individual could do the same, if they want.

Would that be the same problem?

And where exactly would the line be drawn? Why not start having coins blocked of people who offer services you disagree with, or hold opinions you find unacceptable?


It's amusing that at this early stage the underpinnings on which the Bitcoin concept was sold to its userbase are threatened. By embracing the speculators and the resultant bubble they created, and the money men and their ulterior motives, Bitcoin is in danger of becoming little more than a clone of Paypal.

Well over 90% of all Bitcoin transactions are speculative in nature. The actual number of transactions undertaken on a daily basis in Bitcoin for goods and services is tiny. All Bitcoiners ever seem to want to talk about is its price relative to the USD, there seems to be little interest in anything beyond perpetuating the bubble.

[porcupine87]

Could it be implemented, that the owner of an address can be contacted? Via an central webserver. Like this: I get this crypto-locker on my computer and have to send 1btc to an address xyz. Then I send a message to the FBI and they put that output address xyz on a central, worldwide webserver. A business or an exchange don't accept money from one of this addresses. And every individual could do the same, if they want.

Would that be the same problem?

And where exactly would the line be drawn? Why not start having coins blocked of people who offer services you disagree with, or hold opinions you find unacceptable?

The goverment would draw the line. Like it will do with Bitcoin anyway. Would it be more satisfying for you when Bitcoin would stay an underground currency forever? But for sure, it depends, how the regulator would act. May such services just would be voluntary and a company just denies such "black outputs" to retain reputation...

[An amorous cow-herder]

To tell the truth, if been suspecting this is the way BTC was heading quite a while. Dont know how many people here have lost BTC because a mining pool or an exchange has been hacked and all their BTC stolen. Would you really like those people to go scott free or rather force them into a situation where they cant freely spend their stolen BTC?

[rocks]

To tell the truth, if been suspecting this is the way BTC was heading quite a while. Dont know how many people here have lost BTC because a mining pool or an exchange has been hacked and all their BTC stolen. Would you really like those people to go scott free or rather force them into a situation where they cant freely spend their stolen BTC?

This is exactly the justification they will use.

The problem is we do not curreny do this for money today. For example, if I need change for a vending machine and ask a shop keeper to break a dollar for change, the money I recieve is fully unencumbered from it's past dealings. This means that I own that quarter regardless of what was done with it in the past. If that quarter was previously stolen, it is still my quarter and the government can not take it from you. The only person liable is the person who originally committed the crime.

The protocol probably won't change (as much as I'd love to own both bitcoins and the alt-coins that come into existence after a fork).

The black-white-red-listing can be done without changes to the protocol.

In other words, it doesn't matter if bitcoiners want this or not, it's coming. Whining on a public forum isn't going to change that.

This is exactly how the US government will fight bitcoin, through regulation that defeats Bitcoin's monetary properties, not by outright making Bitcoin illegal. The arguement they will propose is "Yes you can use Bitcoin, but those who refuse to follow US regulations are criminals". And the overall population will agree with this. It is how the US maintains the illusion of freedom in the modern world. Nothing is illegal, itstead behavior is banned through regulation and red tape. Those who do not follow "sensible regulation" are deemed criminals.

Everyone in the US involved with the Bitcoin project will have to make a choice at some point. Do you put your bitcoins under the US regulatory system and stay legal, or do you keep your Bitcoins underground and use them outside the law. The choice is a personal one for each individual, history shows that the vast majority of people will take the compliance route.

[deadweasel]

To tell the truth, if been suspecting this is the way BTC was heading quite a while. Dont know how many people here have lost BTC because a mining pool or an exchange has been hacked and all their BTC stolen. Would you really like those people to go scott free or rather force them into a situation where they cant freely spend their stolen BTC?

The solution to theft is responsibility. Bitcoin may be the easiest asset on the planet to protect from theft, but you actually have to take the steps required.

Storing your coins with a pool or exchange is the first mistake. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

+1

People need to take responsibility for their actions.  Bitcoin seems to attract irresponsible people -- these same people tend to blame everyone else for their actions.  

Put down the pitchforks and torches and just learn to be responsible.  They took the BTC because the owner hadn't learned responsibility.  

We should call it the irresponsible tax.

[piramida]

If a sufficient number of people adopt that attitude, the Mike Hearns of BF are going to have their way. Luckily, not everyone's as indifferent or lazy.

You are jumping to conclusions; I, on the other hand, just summarized the thread from foundation forums. Any requirement from USA regulators should be probably considered but not necessarily obeyed, and most people on board thankfully understand that bitcoin is a global protocol while USA regulations are some (very small) nation's rules which do not apply to bitcoin much.

As for adding parallel metadata which is not part of the protocol - any spamhouse-like entities - nobody can really prevent them from existing, but it does not matter as you can simply ignore them and any merchants using them.

[An amorous cow-herder]

The solution to theft is responsibility. Bitcoin may be the easiest asset on the planet to protect from theft, but you actually have to take the steps required.

Storing your coins with a pool or exchange is the first mistake. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

That sounds like the guy who has all his cash stored under his bed. So, you have, lets say two USB sticks with your cold wallet stored in different locations of your house. House burns down, no insurance is gonna cover that loss.
So well i guess its more like "choose your poison".

[bee7]

Honestly, if they could blacklist ('redlist') only coins that came from that cryptolocker virus, I would support it.

Although, I agree that the activity of cryptolocker's designer is criminal, I would ask you: "Why the Microsoft is not responsible?". It is their fault that nowadays enormous computer power (and thus, electricity) is spent for Antivirus Software activity. The use of MS products implies hidden expenses. Is that fair?

Why you do not care if the dollar note you get as charge probably have been used some day to pay for murder?

Is it not the same thing?

[BitcoinAshley]

I love how so many people are so willing to make it OK for current holders of currency to be liable for the criminal actions of people who have used that currency for "illegal" things in the past.

We don't do that with cash dollars, why do it with bitcoins? How many cash dollars have coke residue on them?

This brings up interesting jurisdictional issues. Different countries have different sets of laws. So how do we decide which jurisdiction a bitcoin was used in if a specific law was broken? If a user in one jurisdiction uses a bitcoin for illegal means, then 10 users later it ends up in a user's wallet who lives in a different area where the original owner's "crime" is not illegal, then do businesses still blacklist those coins? IMO problems like this are just impossible to solve and invite a spaghetti-like mess of regulations to "Save the Children" which will just end up being ignored.
 
Not to mention the idea of altcoins makes this terribly difficult to implement.

NOT TO FUCKING MENTION that we are letting other people decide for us what is wrong and what is right, and potentially making US liable if someone who held our bitcoins in the past did something illegal with them. Sounds we're going back a few hundred years in terms of justice and fairness.

So, good luck supporting this, people who support this. 

[oda.krell]

The protocol probably won't change (as much as I'd love to own both bitcoins and the alt-coins that come into existence after a fork).

The black-white-red-listing can be done without changes to the protocol.

In other words, it doesn't matter if bitcoiners want this or not, it's coming. Whining on a public forum isn't going to change that.

Here is how you fight it. Don't use it. If a merchant requires coins from a certain colored list in order to sell you some products, don't shop there. If you are doing business with someone who asks for coins from a certain colored list, stop doing business with them. Money is power. Starve anyone who supports any colored lists.

Unfortunately, the world is full of uneducated consumers who will gladly hand their money over to the most corrupt institutions known (or unknown) to man. They complain about the rich and powerful while playing by their rules.

Support a mixing procedures of your choice, like coin-join, dark wallet, et cetera. Contribute money to the developers working on that mixing procedure. Contribute to bounties.

The fight for freedom is on going. Bitcoin can be a powerful tool in that fight, but you can't just sit back and watch. You have to want freedom as much as those who seek power want control. You have to take that power from them. They aren't going to easily let go.

Anyone who sees this as the beginning of the end has no spine. This was expected. What are you going to do about it?

You are mostly right. Except for the point where you say complaining about it on here doesn't help.

In reality, that's exactly what we should be doing, and luckily, we are. Evidence: this and many similar threads :D

I'm completely serious by the way. You are of course right, the protocol won't change. But how the protocol will be *used* in the future is still to be determined. And we need to convince as many people as possible that distinguishing (in whatever form, be it blacklisting, redlisting, or validating) between "good, legal coins" and "bad, illegal coins" will probably be the death sentence to Bitcoin.

Head over there yourself (if you are a member already. otherwise: pay up and join :D).

So you want me to give money (power) to the organization which has key members supporting this idea, just so I can talk to them about it? LOL.

When the Foundation releases a statement saying that are opposed to these lists and they start writing proposals on how to combat black-white-red-listing I'll consider becoming a paying member. ;)

You got cause and effect the wrong way round. I coughed up the money and became a member precisely *because* we need the BF on our side with this one. Don't sign up if you don't want to, but on the other hand, don't complain if an organization that you can join (and influence, to a degree) doesn't do what you want it to do. (well, actually, complain away. I just mean it's more fun to do so when you're actually part of it :P)

[BitcoinAshley]

Honestly, if they could blacklist ('redlist') only coins that came from that cryptolocker virus, I would support it.

But it would NEVER stop there, and you know it. I don't even NEED to give examples of how governments and businesses just take this shit and RUN with it, once you give them the permission. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile before you even notice. Be vigilant. No emotional exceptions. "Oh, I oppose the death penalty... except for THIS particular convict who did THESE bad things." Next thing you know you're sitting on death row innocent because of a DNA lab fuckup that they'll discover after you're long dead.

[An amorous cow-herder]

We don't do that with cash dollars, why do it with bitcoins? How many cash dollars have coke residue on them?

Marked bills? Following serial numbers after a bank robbery? You think a blockchain wouldnt be used if it were available for paper money?

If a user in one jurisdiction uses a bitcoin for illegal means, then 10 users later it ends up in a user's wallet who lives in a different area where the original owner's "crime" is not illegal, then do businesses still blacklist those coins?

Ever heard of Statute of limitations?

[piramida]

But it would NEVER stop there, and you know it.

Absolutely, it also seems the government right now does not have a law that would be convenient enough to put arbitrary bitcoin user behind bars if needed. So tainted coins might be helpful for them - since mechanism taints every coin that was mixed with stolen coins once - soon most of circulated coins become toxic, limiting acceptance. This should never happen and therefore it would never happen - especially since it will *not* solve the problem it is allegedly designed to solve - cryptolock author could switch to litecoin, making this effort completely useless.

In short, again, silly proposal, most people on the board understand that it is a completely wrong direction, it will never pass, I am surprised we even have to discuss it, but that is the nature of opensource, everyone can have a say

[Morbid]

so those who talk to the government on behalf of bitcoin users (foundation) - how do we know they dont get corrupted eventually? government might have extremely sophisticated people working for them that could literally influence front line bitcoin representatives once they spend too much time communicating.

[antimattercrusader]

Honestly, if they could blacklist ('redlist') only coins that came from that cryptolocker virus, I would support it.

But it would NEVER stop there, and you know it. I don't even NEED to give examples of how governments and businesses just take this shit and RUN with it, once you give them the permission. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile before you even notice. Be vigilant. No emotional exceptions. "Oh, I oppose the death penalty... except for THIS particular convict who did THESE bad things." Next thing you know you're sitting on death row innocent because of a DNA lab fuckup that they'll discover after you're long dead.

BitcoinAshley, a-mother-fucking-men. +1

If this bullshit actually happens (and is supported by the community/code etc), I will loose my support for my beloved bitcoin.

[Morbid]

how about expanding noobies section and creating a well written sticky guide on how to keep coins safely, password protect, backup, different geographical location etc.. then we can overcome certain dangers that can overspill into epidemic forcing foundation to react or create excuses for centralisation.

[amencon]

It's encouraging to see the majority of bitcoin forum and reddit users speak out against coin taint and realize the danger the loss of fungibility poses.  Hopefully as Holliday said we all practice what we preach and starve out businesses that use these methods.

One thing I worry about is that we are working towards mainstream adoption.  Coin taint might just sound like a good idea to all the average joes out there we are trying to get on board.  Or at the very least I doubt most of them would stand up to stop it.  The more forcefully the idea is rejected now before more followers adopt bitcoin the better.

Personally I think the idea is plainly awful in concept.  If you are in support for blacklisting at all in any form then you are supporting a threat to bitcoin and I believe you should re-think your position.

While I doubt "redlists" will gain much traction for now I do see it as a legitimate threat to bitcoin moving into the future that this community needs to stay on top of.  Hopefully this plan gets bounced out so hard it won't be tried again for a long time, enough for coded solutions to be put in place to render this topic obsolete.

Also I'm anxious to see cheap and feature rich hardware wallets with offsite paper or encrypted "cloud" backups that will help prevent these thefts that provide the "moral" motivation for those that are misguided enough to believe redlists are a good idea.  This of course won't do anything to deter the idea being pushed by those with ulterior motives unfortunately.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Personally I think the idea is plainly awful in concept.  If you are in support for blacklisting at all in any form then you are supporting a threat to bitcoin and I believe you should re-think your position.

Do you really think it even matters?
What do you think will happen? Hmm, lets say BTC actually gets mainstream adoption. IRS will want to know the bitcoin adress every legit business uses. Law enforcement sees BTC from a suspect being spent on legit online-shop and goes there to collect the shipment address. No changes needed on protocol level. Just normal regulations. Just wait till the exchanges are required use verified adresses and a transaction number instead of one use adresses. Or do you doubt that will happen?

[amencon]

Personally I think the idea is plainly awful in concept.  If you are in support for blacklisting at all in any form then you are supporting a threat to bitcoin and I believe you should re-think your position.

Do you really think it even matters?
What do you think will happen? Hmm, lets say BTC actually gets mainstream adoption. IRS will want to know the bitcoin adress every legit business uses. Law enforcement sees BTC from a suspect being spent on legit online-shop and goes there to collect the shipment address. No changes needed on protocol level. Just normal regulations. Just wait till the exchanges are required use verified adresses and a transaction number instead of one use adresses. Or do you doubt that will happen?

In your scenario I think bitcoins are still an improved system over transacting in USD, so in that sense I suppose it doesn't matter.  I don't know what will happen, it might be inevitable but I don't see any reason why we should lie down for it.

[scribe]

I'm confused.

If you're an exploited granny then this doesn't stop you being exploited. There's a possibility you could track "coerced" bitcoins back to owner, but the mechanics of proving that require another level of usability and tracking.

If you're a criminal then you work around it by avoiding passing tainted coins into networks which check and/or set up your own laundering/mixing service, probably exploiting more unsuspecting receivers.

If you're receiving tainted coins, your choice is to somehow report them/return them, or use them in places which don't check, which encourages the same criminal laundering/mixing behaviour above.

Only makes sense at a law enforcement/controlling Bitcoin level.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Do you really think it even matters?
What do you think will happen? Hmm, lets say BTC actually gets mainstream adoption. IRS will want to know the bitcoin adress every legit business uses. Law enforcement sees BTC from a suspect being spent on legit online-shop and goes there to collect the shipment address. No changes needed on protocol level. Just normal regulations. Just wait till the exchanges are required use verified adresses and a transaction number instead of one use adresses. Or do you doubt that will happen?

In your scenario I think bitcoins are still an improved system over transacting in USD, so in that sense I suppose it doesn't matter.  I don't know what will happen, it might be inevitable but I don't see any reason why we should lie down for it.

Actually its part of the reason i think bitcoin will be adopted more widely.
As for liying down, there is an old quote.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."
The blockchain is publicly available, obviously, and thats as opposite to bank secrecy as you can get. That implies both possibilities and dangers or, more simply, opportunities.

[amencon]

Do you really think it even matters?
What do you think will happen? Hmm, lets say BTC actually gets mainstream adoption. IRS will want to know the bitcoin adress every legit business uses. Law enforcement sees BTC from a suspect being spent on legit online-shop and goes there to collect the shipment address. No changes needed on protocol level. Just normal regulations. Just wait till the exchanges are required use verified adresses and a transaction number instead of one use adresses. Or do you doubt that will happen?

In your scenario I think bitcoins are still an improved system over transacting in USD, so in that sense I suppose it doesn't matter.  I don't know what will happen, it might be inevitable but I don't see any reason why we should lie down for it.

Actually its part of the reason i think bitcoin will be adopted more widely.
As for liying down, there is an old quote.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."
The blockchain is publicly available, obviously, and thats as opposite to bank secrecy as you can get. That implies both possibilities and dangers or, more simply, opportunities.

I think bitcoin's potential to be disruptive to our current monetary system is an interesting factor.  Of course it will only be disruptive and interesting if it is more widely used in the future.  I suppose I'm just not as positive coin taint use is as inevitable as you seem to assume it is.  I accept that given main stream adoption coin taint, at least on some level, may be inevitable, I don't accept that either are yet a foregone conclusion.  I'd rather use bitcoin in a manner that attempts to retain it's full utility until I can't any more or it becomes too costly.  I'll let others pretend there is wisdom in their decision to not put even a basic effort in fighting for their ideology.

[rocks]

Actually its part of the reason i think bitcoin will be adopted more widely.
As for liying down, there is an old quote.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."
The blockchain is publicly available, obviously, and thats as opposite to bank secrecy as you can get. That implies both possibilities and dangers or, more simply, opportunities.

I used to like that quote, but it is important to remember that just 5 years ago the global central bank fiat monetary system fell into the bucket of "accept the things I cannot change".

Then along came a billiant individual who decided to not accept this, and he/she created an opportunity to change the most fundamental aspect of our global economy and sources of wealth/control.

Then a few people saw Bitcoin's possiblities and decided that maybe this now fell into the "courage to change the things I can" category, and was worth significant time and effort and code development and ecosystem building.

My point is numerous times in history someone has decided enough is enough and changed a fundamental problem that previously everyone thought you just had to live with. With this understanding I've now come to dislike that quote and believe it encourages people to just give up.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Of course it will only be disruptive and interesting if it is more widely used in the future.

Well, why do you think the price is as high as it is? Why didnt the take of the "major" bitcoin site silkroad have any impact? Can you tell me any other conclusion other an uptake in mainstream usage is what the "investors" believe?

I suppose I'm just not as positive coin taint use is as inevitable as you seem to assume it is.  I accept that given main stream adoption coin taint, at least on some level, may be inevitable, I don't accept that either are yet a foregone conclusion.

I´m fairly sure the mixing pools, which basicly are laundering services, take the first hit. Without those tracing becomes easy. Might still take a couple of years, but i think the "wild west" days nearing an end.

[An amorous cow-herder]

Then along came a billiant individual who decided to not accept this, and he/she created an opportunity to change the most fundamental aspect of our global economy and sources of wealth/control.

Then a few people saw Bitcoin's possiblities and decided that maybe this now fell into the "courage to change the things I can" category, and was worth significant time and effort and code development and ecosystem building.

My point is numerous times in history someone has decided enough is enough and changed a fundamental problem that previously everyone thought you just had to live with. With this understanding I've now come to dislike that quote and believe it encourages people to just give up.

To tell the truth, you may call me a twit. I knew about bitcoin for quite a while, when only a couple of crypto nerds heard about it and i laughed. Later i heard people actually used it to buy drugs and stuff, with a blockchain saving all transactions for all eternity and laughed again. Well, since i didnt buy a couple of BTC back then or at least mine a couple of blocks the laughs on me i guess.
Anyway, i dont see how BTC is going to change anything on a different scale than, lets say, PayPal. PayPal used to be a big thing back then, easily move money around the internet. For business it may be PayPal 2.0, possibly lower transaction fees, no chance of invoices fizzling. The "transaction tokens" are basicly "shares" in a distributed network. Not a bad state to be in imho.

[amencon]

Of course it will only be disruptive and interesting if it is more widely used in the future.

Well, why do you think the price is as high as it is? Why didnt the take of the "major" bitcoin site silkroad have any impact? Can you tell me any other conclusion other an uptake in mainstream usage is what the "investors" believe?

I suppose I'm just not as positive coin taint use is as inevitable as you seem to assume it is.  I accept that given main stream adoption coin taint, at least on some level, may be inevitable, I don't accept that either are yet a foregone conclusion.

I´m fairly sure the mixing pools, which basicly are laundering services, take the first hit. Without those tracing becomes easy. Might still take a couple of years, but i think the "wild west" days nearing an end.

I'm confused, in one sentence you make the claim the closure of Silk Road didn't have "any impact", then in the next you seem to be making the case that the recent price hike was due solely or mostly to it.  I'll assume your point is that you think closure of Silk Road made price go up instead of down.

Correct me if I'm wrong about your position but I believe you are making the assumption that for bitcoin to exist in any interesting way at all it must be able to be regulated and controlled through redlists.  You then go on to make the assumption that closing Silk Road had the impact of making investors believe mainstream adoption was more likely and that this was the primary reason for the recent climb in bitcoin valuation against other currencies AND that this bolsters the credibility of your redlists assumption.

It's very possible you aren't wrong but I think there are too many unknowns and assumptions in your argument to consider it a forgone conclusion.  3 years ago I didn't know anything like bitcoin would exist.  Through bitcoin things are possible that were never possible before.  Let's not stifle it right out of the gate.  Let's adopt the same attitude that allowed bitcoin's creation in the first place and do what we can to make it the currency we want and not the one we are stuck with.  Remember we are forced to use our respective government issued currency, bitcoin is voluntary, I choose not to volunteer to put power and control of bitcoin in the hands of a few that want to make authoritative redlists.

[AndrewWilliams]

They just had a big story with Max Keiser on RT television interviewing a developer for Dark Wallet who discussed coin join and other stuff.


Good to see people fighting back against this madness!

[btc4ever]

I think that if darkwallet implements coinjoin (or similar) and bitcoin-qt does not, then we need to begin promoting darkwallet as the defacto client.

Ideally, all wallets would support maximal mixing/privacy.  Until that is the case though, lets support those that do.

In other words, vote with our feet, and withdraw support from non private wallet solutions.

[AndrewWilliams]

I think that if darkwallet implements coinjoin (or similar) and bitcoin-qt does not, then we need to begin promoting darkwallet as the defacto client.

Ideally, all wallets would support maximal mixing/privacy.  Until that is the case though, lets support those that do.

In other words, vote with our feet, and withdraw support from non private wallet solutions.

Exactly.

How do we defund or disolve the Bitcoin Foundation? It's obvious they have become shills for the US government.

[F-bernanke]

I liked the quote I saw somewhere on this forum: Bitcoin is a human rights movement.

$= Slavery
€= Slavery

[AndrewWilliams]

I liked the quote I saw somewhere on this forum: Bitcoin is a human rights movement.

$= Slavery
€= Slavery

Free yourself of your chains, for today, you cease to be a debt slave.