The beginning of the end?

[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.