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

[TraderTimm]

@ffssixtynine

I see you like government involvement, or at the very least - you think that there's no use in resisting it. With your little crafted example of Bin retard, for instance. Fear as a tactic? Its working for the DHS rather well, isn't it? So naturally you adopt this stance and say "Well, look - we can catch bad people if we do X, Y and Z" without stopping for one second and looking at the principles being violated.

Personal freedom and financial freedom are worthwhile, no matter how many horrible counter-examples you can give. For every system there are positives and negatives, and I'm not going to give up this fight just because someone is scared the "bad guys" will abuse it.

As for the "Bitcoin Foundation", all they've done is raise Bitcoin's visibility towards the very forces that can cause us harm (Depending on where you live, I guess.). Thanks a load, guys, you're really pals. Entertaining or "just discussing" these issues with government aren't helping anyone, at all.

All they'll end up achieving is crippling U.S. involvement with Bitcoin, and then other countries will take the torch and leave them in the dust.

This is simply idiocy.

[btcdrak]

No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents.

Clearly you lack any education in debating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8#t=6m42s watch George Galloway run rings around a US Senator. THAT is being prepared, and THAT is how to debate - I suggest you watch it. This is what Bitcoin is up against: to be unprepared would be the most foolish thing in the world.

I find it medieval that you would censor any discussion of debates. Seriously - watch that video and get some clear idea of how debating works before you open your mouth again.

[Lauda]

So, Redlists / Blacklists and Cointaining is OUT ! Got it...

So what can we do about stolen coins being used... because lets imagine you have 100 BTC stolen from you.. you can see it in the blockchain and want to catch this guy right ? Thats the idea behind the cointainting.. except, the coin tainting only creates more issues... So whats the solution ?

Blockchain Analysis Police
So, let us propose that a company [from MIT because why not? lol] who have developed some really cool algorithms for analysing the blockchain really fast and finding common connections.

Now, with the new merchant style address, ie: IF you pay for something in BTC you just pay the same BTC address as everyone else only include some meta data like order ref for example.. this company could quite quickly build up a list (from google and more) of commonly known addresses.

When I get my 100 BTC stolen, I go to this company website and plugin the transaction id(s) of the theft, maybe upload some documents (such as previous proof of addresss payment, police report, id..etc?)  and this company then logs this theft and begins watching the coins.

Now imagine is doing it with loads of stolen coin thefts over a long period..  

Eventually, these coins would find there way into a publically known address.. at which point, the question can be asked, 'who did you get the coins off ? ' . .they might tell, you, they might not - this email could be automated to a form on the site ?

Over time this goes on and on and on until eventually a profile is made to a certain degree of certainty as to who the criminal is.

--

Now, I'm not saying this idea is how it would / should / could work, I'm just saying it's an idea of how I could possibly see coin thefts being resolved in the future..  feel free to add / amend / change / improve / bash idea as much as possible.

While the idea is good, wouldn't it harm the anonymity of bitcoin?

[BigJohn]

No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents.

Clearly you lack any education in debating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8#t=6m42s watch George Galloway run rings around a US Senator. THAT is being prepared, and THAT is how to debate - I suggest you watch it. This is what Bitcoin is up against: to be unprepared would be the most foolish thing in the world.

I find it medieval that you would censor any discussion of debates. Seriously - watch that video and get some clear idea of how debating works before you open your mouth again.

You find it medieval? How old are you?

What does debating have to do with this? I'm not trying to win some debate, and I don't want to debate you. I'm just saying that you guys are saying the outrage is uncalled for, and I disagree. If the Foundation's sole purpose is to debate regulators, then fuck it, we don't need it. Or at least I don't need or want it. The whole thing should be about finding solutions. Not debating the two-bit whores in congress.

[btcdrak]

What does debating have to do with this? I'm not trying to win some debate, and I don't want to debate you. I'm just saying that you guys are saying the outrage is uncalled for, and I disagree. If the Foundation's sole purpose is to debate regulators, then fuck it, we don't need it. Or at least I don't need or want it. The whole thing should be about finding solutions. Not debating the two-bit whores in congress.

Because people are clearly not even reading what has actually been said.
If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool.
if you think the regulators understand bitcoin, you are a fool.
If you think meeting the government and openly discussing the issues in a way that they can understand is unhelp, you are a fool.
If you think discussing some of the possibilities (even though none of them are feasible anyhow) is somehow a crime, you are a fool.

What urks me more than anything is that people are jumping up and down and getting all heated over stuff they a) have not read, and b) don't seem to understand and c) are just jumping on the bandwagon like a bunch of medieval villagers with pitchforks to go burn down the next village.

It's not possible to have intelligent conversation with such people. 

[BigJohn]

None of what you said has anything to do with what I said. Talk about someone not reading...

I'm just saying I came here looking for a solution for this CoinValidation business. I got none. And not only that, but the foundation is actually talking about its merits.

Regulators, debates, meeting the government... cool story bro. But it's off topic. I'm just talking about how I'm not seeing any solutions to the CoinValidation issue coming from the Foundation.

[archangel689]

Utility in bitcoin derived from popularity had to be established before someone proposed centralized influence in the name of social "justice." People prefer freedom to coercion.
 
The implementation of taint means groups would wage an endless struggle for privileges. Everyone would want to have direct access to this power of forcing their subjective view of what actions ought result in a tainted coin and what ought not. The system should wash it's hands of such judgements of morality.

If such interventions are imposed, the utility derived from liquidity and popularity will be outweighed by the loss of utility from being "tagged and tracked"--especially if for taxation purposes. I can see the code base being forked and more robust systems created.

[Sopap]

It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers

[justusranvier]

If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool.

Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links.

Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed.

You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies.

The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt.

[CanaryInTheMine]

This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream.

Or an alternative, true, foundation?

Yes, I don't see  any reason why they should have the final say on anything.  We could form a new Bitcoin Guidance Council to keep Bitcoin in line with its original principles.

Aaaaaaaaaand that's how we create a breeding ground for a new state of rulers.

No. You just defund them. Make them pay for their bullshit themselves. Educate people.

I don't see any past, present or future foundations as rulers of anything.  they are funded to promote Bitcoin and it's adoption, not to influence it.  so this all could be flak or is going to be a rude awakening for the board members (IFF any of this is true) to stick to the mission only.

[virtualmaster]

They are very serious issues what you have posted.
The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts.
On depositfiles doesn't work the download.

The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread.

The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things.

Heavily misrepresented ?
But how is your representation ?

So far what I'm reading is a very adult conversation about serious issues Bitcoin faces as it grows up. I'm not seeing the sort of thread that would happen here or Reddit.

It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why:

Imagine Bin Laden is still around.

We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it.

We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident.

What do you think is going to happen? Media outrage and congressional outrage. "We must ban this worldwide!". It's exactly what will happen. Bitcoin being so public is a double-edged sword.

Oh you forget some small details:
www.veteranstoday.com/ 2013/ 04/ 20/ the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/
And not only Americans like to live.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256
BBC News - Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000
For what did they died ? For a non existent nuclear program ?
This is what happened and not a fictive scenario like yours.
Killing people with pushing buttons in sovereign countries:
news.yahoo.com/ blogs/ ticket/ drones-killed-4-700-u-senator-says-141143752--politics.html
Who is financing this and with what money ?
Do you want to rollback the money which would come in the hands of those who are killing thousands and would you give it in the hands of those who are killing millions ?

I don't want anything that's been proposed but I can see the need for a good digital identity system.

Here I must give you right. But Namecoin ID is exactly the proper solution for it.
A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need.

[justusranvier]

A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need.

Actually, no.

A pseudonymous reputation is one of those things that's possible in theory, but utterly fails in practise because humans are involved.

We need to make trade between anonymous parties so safe that reputation (thus, identity) is not needed at all.

[Lauda]

It looks like the foundation is attracting a lot of wanna-be central bankers

That is also a possibility.

[btcdrak]

If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool.

Google met You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies.

Rubbish: The United Kingdom had a real problem with terrorism back in the 1980 and 90's, called the IRA. Google it. Domestic terrorism, bombs going of every week.
Meeting them and resolving their issues solved it, not guns, not bombs, not wars waged in other countries that just incite more hatred. They brought them to the table and worked to resolve the conflict. Result, people, kids not getting blown up (weekly for years).
Nepal too, how did they resolve the civil war of 10 years? Oh my, not with guns... by negotiation. History proves you wrong.

So don't say talking cant end in positive results.

You are just looking for a fight. Be civil. Work with the situation - we all know that bitcoin, like bittorrent is unstoppable, short of turning of the internet. Aint gonna happen... and even if they do, peer to peer meshnets using mobile devices is the next step. Now you have networks that function so long as there are people, and electricity (which you can get free from the sun).

Maybe you don't really trust the technology. If you did, you wouldn't be so worried.

[btcdrak]

I don't want anything that's been proposed but I can see the need for a good digital identity system.

Here I must give you right. But Namecoin ID is exactly the proper solution for it.
A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need.

Cryptography gives us is the ability to have identity without the need to reveal who we are. The tech started in the 1970s but the missing link was decentralization.

[tkbx]

I cannot formulate the words to adequately express my anger about this. I consider Bitcoin to be revolutionary. It could completely free people from the failing fiat system. It could completely free the people from the restrictions of credit card payments. It combines the best qualities of cash and plastic, AND it's impossible to steal (assuming the proper precautions are taken). And now, as with everything great that's happened since 1920, the US government and some multinational corporations have to find some way to stomp it to the ground for a few kickbacks and maybe a few years in office.

If I could find a person who knowingly allowed this to happen, and I were in the same room as him with a gun in my hand, I would have a very difficult time not pulling the trigger.

Some people might argue that "compromise is the only way to keep Bitcoin legal". If Bitcoin becomes popular enough, this may be true. I say, why gives a fuck? I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I believe that in the modern world, which revolves around the Internet, free software (especially free software infrastructures such as Bitcoin) is the greatest tool we have against authoritarianism. I believe that freedom from governmental and corporate control is a human right. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin has even a small number of users, it is my moral duty to do my best to keep the Bitcoin ecosystem alive, regardless of the consequences. If everyone shared this same philosophy, Bitcoin would be literally unstoppable.

1. Reject all closed source Bitcoin software, including web wallets, and, God forbid it comes to this, the official client.
2. Reject all Bitcoin software that contradicts Satoshi's paper. This paper is the Constitution of Bitcoin. This includes any software which blacklists addresses, reverses transactions, or has ANY central point of failure, especially a central authority. The difference between Bitcoin and Paypal is that Bitcion is decentralized.
3. Governments exist to catch proverbial murderers. They do not exist to prevent the purchase of proverbial weapons. No matter what governments say, control of currency (Bitcoin or otherwise) does nothing but control innocent people.
4. Corporations exist to serve customers. They do not exist to control customers. Boycott companies that place any restrictions other than the price of their goods or services.

[tvbcof]

You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid.
...

Ya, that kind of sucks.

I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies.  gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind.

Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation.  Until they didn't.

[justusranvier]

I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time.

I agree with this.

On a related note, there's nothing wrong with feeling and expressing anger but escalating it to hypothetical acts of violence isn't cool.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I cannot formulate the words to adequately express my anger about this. I consider Bitcoin to be revolutionary. It could completely free people from the failing fiat system. It could completely free the people from the restrictions of credit card payments. It combines the best qualities of cash and plastic, AND it's impossible to steal (assuming the proper precautions are taken). And now, as with everything great that's happened since 1920, the US government and some multinational corporations have to find some way to stomp it to the ground for a few kickbacks and maybe a few years in office.

If I could find a person who knowingly allowed this to happen, and I were in the same room as him with a gun in my hand, I would have a very difficult time not pulling the trigger.

Some people might argue that "compromise is the only way to keep Bitcoin legal". If Bitcoin becomes popular enough, this may be true. I say, why gives a fuck? I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I believe that in the modern world, which revolves around the Internet, free software (especially free software infrastructures such as Bitcoin) is the greatest tool we have against authoritarianism. I believe that freedom from governmental and corporate control is a human right. Therefore, I believe that as long as Bitcoin has even a small number of users, it is my moral duty to do my best to keep the Bitcoin ecosystem alive, regardless of the consequences. If everyone shared this same philosophy, Bitcoin would be literally unstoppable.

1. Reject all closed source Bitcoin software, including web wallets, and, God forbid it comes to this, the official client.
2. Reject all Bitcoin software that contradicts Satoshi's paper. This paper is the Constitution of Bitcoin. This includes any software which blacklists addresses, reverses transactions, or has ANY central point of failure, especially a central authority. The difference between Bitcoin and Paypal is that Bitcion is decentralized.
3. Governments exist to catch proverbial murderers. They do not exist to prevent the purchase of proverbial weapons. No matter what governments say, control of currency (Bitcoin or otherwise) does nothing but control innocent people.
4. Corporations exist to serve customers. They do not exist to control customers. Boycott companies that place any restrictions other than the price of their goods or services.

Quoted For Awesomness.

Well said, sir.

[Rez]

I will be the lowest, laziest form of scum you can imagine. I.e., I will pretend to be "poor" even though I'm not.

So you will become everything you claim you despise. If you can find it in you to live a life like this, you should perhaps pursue what may be your calling.

..we will essentially all become higher order beggars and criminals.

Please don't speak for me.