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.