[LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump)

[ffssixtynine]

That's ya lot! I've read all the pages and all I can find is a couple of people very, very upset that this is even being discussed. They're absolutely wrong, not in their views but in their reaction to discussion. I feel they have badly misread the situation and misunderstood how important it is. It's vital that these issues are discussed, including technical solutions and their problems.

Virtually everyone on those threads was vehemently against black listing et al.

There was also a lot of agreement that the Foundation needed to go through this in order to deal with regulators when questions got asked, else some company somewhere (as we saw yesterday) can swan in with a supposed solution and fuck us all.

To the Bitcoin community on this forum, I implore you to understand what's going on and to stop this witch hunt. It's massively destructive and become very personal against an important person in our community, Mike Hearn. He asked for a discussion on a forum, he did not make a public or private statement in favour of any of the things he has been accused of and I think it's terrible the way some people have behaved.

To counter that, the Foundation has made more than one misstep over this and they feel too private. They've allowed this problem to grow and grow and this has now exploded in their faces. They also have issues with certain key members which need to be addressed urgently. I've seen the very same problems destroy the IGDA (indie game developer assoc). If you claim to represent a community, you need to be whiter than white, and you need to clearly represent that community.

At present, the Foundation's communication strategy is seriously flawed and their membership rules have nurtured discontent elsewhere.

I opted not to join because of these issues and because I experienced the IGDA scandals. This is frustrating as I feel I have lots to add, as others will do, but I think there may be some reorganisation required (also as a result of these leaks and the hysteria).

I may have missed an important post or two - feel free to add but try and suggest the context with reference to my posts.

[btcdrak]

I think you people are mixing up a whole bunch of stuff leaked and I think you are having an emotional reaction that is blurring your vision.
Calm down and read again. You might also want to read the bitcoin-dev list

The bitcoin devs are not going to add stuff that hurts bitcoin. It's not gonna happen, and a bunch have already said so on Reddit.

Coin taintchecking/redlisting etc can already be done, by any third party at all. It's just a matter of creating a database. If you think the NSA aren't already collecting data on bitcoin transactions, you have another thing coming - especially with the idiots at Coinbase and a bunch of other online wallets sending details of you bitcoin transaction, with the address in emails thus allowing the NSA to build a database of btc addresses linked to emails. Given how easily an email address can then be linked to a real identity - there are clearly bigger problems we have to deal with.

The bitcoin devs have already started talking about accelerating efforts to reinstate some of Satoshi's original vision. The problem is, BIP32 for example, just isnt being implemented - that solves a of problems relating to privacy.

You also forget that bitcoin is now at a point where it cant be stopped. No amount of banning is going to stop it. It will just drive it into more friendly countries. the USA is royally screwed. They are giving free publicity, the kind that gets bitcoin in the major national press all over the globe and further drives adoption. Yet, they can't repress Bitcoin. If they do, it will just give advantage to other countries and the USA will get left behind.

Bitcoin is public, the entire ledger is public, so any privacy fears you have are already there. If you really want to start a lobby, go for the likes of Blockchain.info who STILL have not implemented BIP32. Cause an avalanche of email requests and a ton of Reddit pressure. Make them implement it asap. And the same goes for the exchanges, the bitstamp, gox, bitfinex, btce etc. Go put pressure on them now rather than waste energy with these over emotional outbursts. TRUST THE TECHNOLOGY.

[JaSK]

imho any amount of backlash against such ridiculous ideas is justified, to show that this is a no-no.
otherwise it will be like ACTA that is brought up again and again under different names.

and discovering that lobbyists are infiltrating the bitcoin foundation is worth a shitstorm of massive proportions too.
I'm glad if the devs refuse to implement such things into bitcoin, but they won't be around forever and not everyone can resist bribes.

[ffssixtynine]

imho any amount of backlash against such ridiculous ideas is justified, to show that this is a no-no.
otherwise it will be like ACTA that is brought up again and again under different names.

and discovering that lobbyists are infiltrating the bitcoin foundation is worth a shitstorm of massive proportions too.

Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence.

[Peter Todd]

The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture.

Proof-of-sacrifice has nothing to do with asset forfeiture. It's an idea I came up with last year, which was subsequently developed further by myself and Mike Hearn among others for various applications. It's just a way of making a (potentially) anonymous crypto-identity expensive to obtain, which is useful for things like controlling spam on (pseudo-)anonymous discussion forums or making it possible to have anonymous financial services. For instance BitMessage could have used it in favor of direct proof-of-work.

OP: Please correct your post.

[btcdrak]

The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture.

Proof-of-sacrifice has nothing to do with asset forfeiture. It's an idea I came up with last year, which was subsequently developed further by myself and Mike Hearn for various applications. It's just a way of making a (potentially) anonymous crypto-identity expensive to obtain, which is useful for things like controlling spam on (pseudo-)anonymous discussion forums. For instance BitMessage could have used it in favor of direct proof-of-work.

OP: Please correct your post.

Yup... and it's a brilliant idea. I love it. How OP linked this to asset forfeiture is anyone's guess. Too much wacky baccy? I suggest everyone read the article at medium: https://medium.com/p/d3f9f299f729 (it was published 5 weeks ago btw).

[lolstate]

I agree with ffssixtynine that while this might be a very bad idea, the discussion should not be off-limits. The only way to advance a controversial subject area, and hopefully come to a satisfactory resolution, is to discuss it openly and explore all angles. I believe when rehearsing for an adversarial encounter such as in a court of law, it is common for key players to role-play different sides, thereby building a greater appreciation of the predicament they are in.

That said, I can think of many reasons why redlisting and warning recipients of suspect coins is a terrible idea. Ironically, there may be legal and political reasons why this proposal is unacceptable. Here's a few:

- We all know a large percentage of our bank notes are tainted with illicit substances. This is a consequence of the high prevalence of drug crime which many law-abiding citizens think of as something unconnected to their world and mostly the domain of TV shows. I'm not so sure the governments of the world want their citizens who have just adopted BTC to be constantly reminded their incoming coins have a suspect history connected to the War on Drugs.

- A brick and mortar business operating in a high crime area will receive redlisted coins more frequently than those based in more genteel parts. If a business suffers reputational damage as a result, it may very well break EU competition rules. In the eyes of the EU Commission, this business may be victim of an unfair advantage held by business in lower-crime locales or based in countries where local laws are less strict.

- Unless you have ignored the news for the last few years, you cannot have missed the many crimes committed by banks, financial institutions and even politicians that are often so egregious as to go unpunished. The excuse is typically that prosecution would result in systemic damage that cannot be absorbed, a twist on the TBTF logic. Well, what is good for the goose is good the gander. If these entities are drawn to BTC and appreciate its benefits over traditional fiat, will they be happy with redlisted coins moseying through their wallets? As Father Ted once said: "That money was just resting in my account!"

[ffssixtynine]

The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture.

Proof-of-sacrifice has nothing to do with asset forfeiture. It's an idea I came up with last year, which was subsequently developed further by myself and Mike Hearn among others for various applications. It's just a way of making a (potentially) anonymous crypto-identity expensive to obtain, which is useful for things like controlling spam on (pseudo-)anonymous discussion forums or making it possible to have anonymous financial services. For instance BitMessage could have used it in favor of direct proof-of-work.

Absolutely, I've been intrigued about this in various forms. Lots of potential and nothing do with the firestorm.

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

... and this is how the first war in Bitcoin started ... foundation vs bitcoin community  

[DoomDumas]

Reversing Tx    WTF.. Come on, this would kill BTC right away.. 

The power of BTC is a lot in this concept that a Tx cannot be reversed.. BTC are based on trust and reputation.. Please dont kill the revolution that BTC is !

[btcdrak]

Reversing Tx   WTF.. Come on, this would kill BTC right away..  

The power of BTC is a lot in this concept that a Tx cannot be reversed.. BTC are based on trust and reputation.. Please dont kill the revolution that BTC is !

You've been mislead. There is no talk of this. Mike Hearn is explaining his responses to the Senate explaining that BTC payments are irreversible, but users can enter into escrow. He frames it in a way regulators can understand. This is in response to the fact that regulators are concerned with the lack of chargeback facility. He says, by default it is off, but you can "turn it on" by having a 3rd party mediator. He calls it a "suspended payment".

Really, go read the documents. There is nothing evil, going on, just some interesting discussions - discussions that will have to be had at some point anyhow.

Bitcoin is safe, the devs are not planning to do anything evil, in fact, they are now providing the case as to why wallets should implement BIP32 finally...

[JaSK]

Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence.

Maybe it is a fabrication, maybe not, I don't care much. I don't think blacklists will go anywhere because people are mixing their coins for privacy reasons anyway to avoid data mining by vendors, so coins connected to crime already spread through everyone's hands.

I'm just saying that it's actually a good sign when the community shows clearly what they think about such ideas.
Developers and entrepreneurs should not see this as an attack against themselves, but rather against the idea itself.
After all, if no one plans anything evil it means that this is just a misunderstanding and all attacks are directed against foundation members in a parallel universe.

And if such discussions didn't have to get leaked, people wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that something shady is going on.

And if those leaks weren't in .zip format people would be able to check for themselves much easier.

[btcdrak]

Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence.

Maybe it is a fabrication, maybe not, I don't care much. I don't think blacklists will go anywhere because people are mixing their coins for privacy reasons anyway to avoid data mining by vendors, so coins connected to crime already spread through everyone's hands.

You miss a fundamental point. Nothing stops anyone from making blacklists, redlists. The US government could build their own and pass a law that you have to do KYC on any payments received from a listed address. Nothing stops that at all.

[btcdrak]

I'd like to draw your attention to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.0 as something positive. See how the bitcoin devs are actually responding to potential threats? With forward thinking solutions. We need to force BIP32 to be adopted - that is a clever way.

[Ipsum]

imho any amount of backlash against such ridiculous ideas is justified, to show that this is a no-no.
otherwise it will be like ACTA that is brought up again and again under different names.

and discovering that lobbyists are infiltrating the bitcoin foundation is worth a shitstorm of massive proportions too.

Have you read anything at all that I just posted? And if you didn't believe me, have you read through all the posts in the leak? What you just said is a complete fabrication supported by zero evidence.

It's like arguing with someone who watches fox news. No interest in understanding the issues involved, at all. They just want to scream at the tv.

[btcdrak]

@btcdrak, did you meant to say exactly this (I empfased the words)?:

I corrected the post - thanks!

[anarchy]

If you can see through the fudge, there is just 1 thing to conclude from this.  People are DESPERATE for clear principles from the bitcoin foundation.  It's pretty normal they are in a panic, because they don't really have any principles.  I will tell you 1 thing.  If tomorrow someone starts a new foundation, with clear principles 1) 21 million 2) Total privacy 3) Decentralisation ; then pretty much everyone will rally behind it.  The fact that the chair is even discussing this, is grounds for a complete violation.  The root cause is not Mike and not coin taint, it's: not having clear principles and standing behind them.  You touched on the holy trinity/essence of bitcoin.  Since the foundation is seen as a political organisation, which is supposed to protect the bitcoin essence, there is huge backlash.  

[qwk]

The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture.

It is VERY important that you understand what is going on behind closed doors of the Bitcoin Foundation. I am absolutely disgusted by the approach the foundation is taking to make Bitcoin no longer an open payments system, but rather a restricted, locked down platform with central control in the form of the current certificate authority structure, blacklisting of Bitcoins, reversing transactions and much more.

First of all, thank you for not respecting my privacy by "leaking" "what is going on behind closed doors".
Those doors are wide open to anyone who's willing to come up with a negligible fee for access. That's why I personally fail to see the need for "leaking" private discussions of this particular closed user group. I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't approve of copy-and-pasting my intellectual property somewhere where it necessarily will be taken out of context (because the context is just not available outside of the Foundation's forums).

Also, I'd like to congratulate you on "finding" something that's been discussed publicly right here at bitcointalk.org more than half a year ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130.0
You didn't think it was appropriate to at least look for a minute at what you're "leaking" and wether or not it was already available here?

[ffssixtynine]

If you can see through the fudge, there is just 1 thing to conclude from this.  People are DESPERATE for clear principles from the bitcoin foundation.  It's pretty normal they are in a panic, because they don't really have any principles.  I will tell you 1 thing.  If tomorrow someone starts a new foundation, with clear principles 1) 21 million 2) Total privacy 3) Decentralisation ; then pretty much everyone will rally behind it.  The fact that the chair is even discussing this, is grounds for a complete violation.  The root cause is not Mike and not coin taint, it's: not having clear principles and standing behind them.  You touched on the holy trinity/essence of bitcoin.  Since the foundation is seen as a political organisation, which is supposed to protect the bitcoin essence, there is huge backlash.  

You ruined a good post by saying that the chair discussing it is grounds for a violation. That's the whole problem here. It's absolutely required for him to discuss it in order to know all the argument for an against, and the likely ways it could be implemented technically and their implications.

That has nothing to do with being completely against it in principle.

You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat.

Also, this:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/

Our mission is to help people exchange resources and ideas more freely.
We approach that mission with Bitcoin’s technology and community as our focus. There is tremendous potential in Bitcoin—from the opportunities it creates for entrepreneurs to the purchasing power it provides for citizens of countries large and small. Our goal is to help Bitcoin deliver on that potential.

Bitcoin Foundation has chosen three primary objectives for fulfilling its mission. We believe that these activities will be of the greatest benefit to the Bitcoin community:

Standardizing Bitcoin

As a non-political online money, Bitcoin is backed exclusively by code. This means that—ultimately—it is only as good as its software design. By funding the Bitcoin infrastructure, including a core development team, we can make Bitcoin more respected, trusted and useful to people worldwide.

Protecting Bitcoin

Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin’s success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal Bitcoins. If Bitcoin is to be a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we need to maintain, improve and legally protect the integrity of the protocol.

Promoting Bitcoin

In the context of public misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, Bitcoin needs to be clearer about its purpose and technology. Allowing the community to speak through a single source will enable Bitcoin to improve its reputation.

And yeah, they need to do a better job of communication and members need to be more careful about their behaviour (top and bottom). I'm sure they realise this now.

Note: I went to look at signing up for the foundation but it appeared that forum access was $1000. Is that true? Can regular members not access the forum? It's a little hard to tell. EDIT: I'm told all members can, so it's hardly private if that's the case. $20 if so.

[Raize]

Reading this is disappointing for a number of other reasons...

Taint tracking is precisely why we need ZeroCoin or CoinJoin or whatever. Do it now.

I am NOT joking. Bitcoin is useless without fungibility. Tracking taint programmatically or with regulatory intent is a clear attack on Bitcoin in perhaps the only way that it can presently be attempted since theres no way anyone can get mining superiority anymore. The Bitcoin Foundation should be renamed the Fiat Foundation if they aren't going to take this seriously. Besides, the miners aren't going to let anything get changed to track taint anyway, so why would the devs even talk about this.

I like how in one breath, kjj both says that "these forums aren't elitist" and then goes on to brag that he's an "early lifetime member" and no one calls him out on it.

Yah, those forums aren't elitist or anything... They purposely feel a need to hide their posts from the public? No publicly accessible posts whatsoever? I mean, for Christ's sake, people had to provide us with copies of html files so we could see the discussion that apparently we're "misinterpreting to be support for tracking taint". What is the intent of not having that discussion here if not to *avoid* having an actual discussion about it?

No one even took the fungibility issue seriously there till someone linked to Adam Back's comment, which was, not surprisingly, here on the forums:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333882.msg3585877#msg3585877

Today on Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/

I don't see this quality of comment in any of the HTMLs provided... I think its pretty clear the discussion was had in the wrong location. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it was INTENTIONALLY had there, but they have to realize talking about controversial stuff isn't going to be done any more eloquently amongst a group that actually desires to be elitist than the community as a whole.

Seriously guys, what is the purpose of the Bitcoin Foundation other than to boost your egos and "work with government"? Your messages to government officials should be singular in intent and broad in scope: The US will lose it's best and brightest to China, Canada, Germany, etc. if they intend to control Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is exploding in popularity among the young here in the US. I spoke to a dozen teenagers about future job opportunities in technology the other day expecting to have to explain Bitcoin. Every single one of them knew what it was and about half of them said they already do video game (some sort of game card) transactions nearly daily in it and make some money that way. These were just random kids I didn't even know, they probably have forum accounts. Bitcoin has taken off in ways I don't even understand yet, and I've been around now for a while.

Does the US government really want to take the gamble that Bitcoin supporters, adopters, users aren't going to leave the country and eventually take the smartest up-and-comers out of it? I'd almost imagine this would be an issue of national security to start getting serious about building a better Bitcoin infrastructure in finance and government to actually start accepting Bitcoins for taxes, fees, and payments. That seems to me to be the real conversation they should be having with you, how to accept it for "services rendered" to the taxpayer. They should want the US adopting it faster than elsewhere in the world. Are they seriously going to sit idle while the Chinese population obtains most of the coin? China is running roughshod all over the Western world with their superior populace interest and support. Bitcoin is a direct threat to the petrodollar and the government is sitting on their assess. If they don't adopt and start accepting it now, they lose.

It's too fricking late to even be having these stupid discussions about regulating or modifying or controlling. Now it's adopt or die. That should be your message to Western government officials...