how to revolt against the bitcoin foundations 'taint' idea's

[franky1]

with mike hearns plans to add code that will red-list coins.

and other bitcoin foundation plans to change the blockchain to something more U.S government friendly. the solution is simple.

DO NOT upgrade your client to a newer version that contains these ridiculous idea's.

if the majority of us stick with the same version, the bitcoin sticks with us. If a fork occurs, the new versions with those ridiculous idea's will use the fork. simply let them. we/they can call their fork govcoin.. and let the 1% of foundation loving, government loving users play around with their silly fork just like any other alt coin. while we continue using bitcoin as it remains in its current state.

give it a few minutes/hours and the exchanges will see the majority wants bitcoin and not govcoin, thus leaving govcoin to die

[1715110570]

1715110570

[1715110570]

1715110570

[1715110570]

1715110570

[Coinseeker]

I'm actually going to have to agree with this one.

[knight22]

Yeah lets call the new bitcoin tainted version USAgovcoin and dump it in the altcoin section. There is no way we should accept this to be implemented in the bitcoin code.

Here is a little reminder of Satoshi's words

"We can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years" - Satoshi Nakamoto

This is not the spirit of USAgovcoin

[Rupture]

I'm worried that the word won't get out and people will update anyway.

[djalexr]

I also think the problem goes beyond just the bitcoin client. What they are talking about is some kind of centralized database for tracking these 'tainted' coins. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the bitcoin protocol. The US gov itself could decide who manages this database of clean/dirty coins and come up with all sorts of arbitrary requirements as to what constitutes clean coins. They can then make legislation that says that companies can only legally accept these clean coins. It wouldn't be too hard to do this and wouldn't require a fork. The problem is more political than technical. It's a slippery slope we need to stop ourselves going down!

[MicroGuy]

with mike hearns plans to add code that will red-list coins.

and other bitcoin foundation plans to change the blockchain to something more U.S government friendly. the solution is simple.

DO NOT upgrade your client to a newer version that contains these ridiculous idea's.

if the majority of us stick with the same version, the bitcoin sticks with us. If a fork occurs, the new versions with those ridiculous idea's will use the fork. simply let them. we/they can call their fork govcoin.. and let the 1% of foundation loving, government loving users play around with their silly fork just like any other alt coin. while we continue using bitcoin as it remains in its current state.

give it a few minutes/hours and the exchanges will see the majority wants bitcoin and not govcoin, thus leaving govcoin to die

This won't work.  

Now that Bitcoin has entered into the mainstream (and w/ Satosi's abandonment of the coin) the establishment will spin the press to such a degree that the majority will update. The best solution would be to find an altcoin that is aligned with your ideals and attitudes regarding independence and freedom.

People can turn their noses up to altcoins all they want, but I know for a 100% fact that there are developers currently working on altcoins that are equally as talented, and some even more so, as Satoshi. There are a lot of bitcoin adopters with their heads in the sands as it relates to altcoins.



It's time for these old timers to take a peak outside the Bitcoin box and get a glimpse of the future.      

[lucaspm98]

Good plan, but eventually the majority of people will probably update. But if we could get the word out fast enough maybe we can avoid GovCoin!

[spartacusrex]

What's to stop the same thing happening if the ALT-COIN you've switched to becomes the de-facto ?

The government will just go after that one.

There is, in my mind, ONLY ONE SOLUTION..

The PROTOCOL.. The thing that utterly defines the coin, CANNOT CHANGE. (You can change the client and update code etc etc.. but NOT THE UNDERLYING PROTOCOL)

You write it and launch it. Then see where the chips fall..

For me - A crypto-coin IS IT'S PROTOCOL. If you change the protocol, it's a different coin.

The fact that the bitcoin protocol is still actively being updated and changed, is where the problem lies.

Can you stop that ?

Not sure, in a p2p environment, anyone can do what they like..

BUT - if you launched a coin, and specifically said.. THAT'S IT. No more protocol changes. It works or it doesn't, then maybe that might do it.

But maybe not..  

[proudhon]

What's to stop the same thing happening if the ALT-COIN you've switched to becomes the de-facto ?

The government will just go after that one.

There is, in my mind, ONLY ONE SOLUTION..

The PROTOCOL.. The thing that utterly defines the coin, CANNOT CHANGE. (You can change the client and update code etc etc.. but NOT THE UNDERLYING PROTOCOL)

I don't understand how people are overlooking this.  Redlisting, cointracking, address monitoring, whitelisting, blacklisting, and any other term you can think of for tracking data in the blockchain does not require any change to the bitcoin protocol.  Anyone can do.  You can do.  I can do it.  

If a group of people want to setup a business that tracks coins and white/blacklists addresses/coins, they can do it...right now...exactly as the protocol exists today.  It could have been done from day 1 of bitcoin's existence.  This is possible with all distributed blockchain based cryptocurrencies.

[spartacusrex]

I don't understand how people are overlooking this.  Redlisting, cointracking, address monitoring, whitelisting, blacklisting, and any other term you can think of for tracking data in the blockchain does not require any change to the bitcoin protocol.  Anyone can do.  You can do.  I can do it. 

This is true... 

BUT - BTC development is still FAR TOO CENTRALISED.. Because protocol changes are STILL being made, so no-one but Gavin and the BTC Foundation can actually develop the bitcoin-qt client. No Disrespect intended, Gavin's cool

But, the bitcoin-qt client 'IS' The Bitcoin protocol.. for all intents and purposes.

Whereas, if the PROTOCOL was written on a piece of paper and NEVER CHANGED, there would be many IMPLEMENTATIONS, and the idea that one group could override the wishes of the many would be absurd..
 

[00null]

Support CoinJoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0
Donate to the CoinJoin bounty fund: https://blockchain.info/address/3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk

CoinJoin needs to be nicely implemented in Bitcoin-Qt before any of these ridiculous blacklist proposals take off. So for the next 30 days, I will match donations to the CoinJoin bounty fund (3M8XGFBKwkf7miBzpkU3x2DoWwAVrD1mhk), up to a maximum of 5 BTC. Just donate to that address, and in 30 days I'll donate the difference between the current received amount (16.21420773) and the received amount at that time (max 5 BTC).

[djalexr]

If a group of people want to setup a business that tracks coins and white/blacklists addresses/coins, they can do it...right now...exactly as the protocol exists today.  It could have been done from day 1 of bitcoin's existence.  This is possible with all distributed blockchain based cryptocurrencies.

+1 this is going to become a political issue, nothing to do with bitcoin clients or forks. The US gov may demand coin blacklisting and there will be some enterprising people that decide they are the right people to do it, regardless of what version of the client is in use. Any person or company can decide to do this and it looks like it's starting to happen now.

What will be really interesting is how this pans out in a global sense. Will China give a fuck about US blacklisted coins?!

[CIYAM]

What will be really interesting is how this pans out in a global sense. Will China give a fuck about US blacklisted coins?!

Agreed - also for an idea about a non-block chain coin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334576.0

[Snail2]

This is quite a bad precedence. I think the EUcrats will catch on with the idea quickly as well. BTW tainting and listing addresses is an awesome tool for most governments. (I guess the less democratic govts will be the more happy with this, as their opposition can get BTC funds but will not be able to spend it easily and "anonymously" any longer.)
Tainting could be a great opportunity for big corporations and patent trolls too for suppressing crowd funded/opensource competing products. With a little patent trolling and then tainting all BTC funds as means of intellectual property breach (therefore making it unspendable e.g. in the US) can knock down any such efforts. But maybe this is just my own paranoia . 

[igrindthis]

fuck the usa, fuck the bitcoin foundation, fuck kyc, fuck aml, fuck the rothschilds

they can whitelist redlist whatever all they want. satoshis paper is satoshis paper. if not bitcoin then litecoin worldcoin etc.

[franky1]

What's to stop the same thing happening if the ALT-COIN you've switched to becomes the de-facto ?

The government will just go after that one.

There is, in my mind, ONLY ONE SOLUTION..

The PROTOCOL.. The thing that utterly defines the coin, CANNOT CHANGE. (You can change the client and update code etc etc.. but NOT THE UNDERLYING PROTOCOL)

the bitcoin-qt IS the protocol.(well technically bitcoind.exe is the protocol) EG version 0.1-0.7 did not have a 1mb per block limit, it was smaller. that was one of the rules of the protocol. and people decided that upgrading the protocol to allow upto 1MB was a positive change to the protocol, so everyone followed suite. what mike hearn wants to do is make a change to the protocol that makes the txid be marked in some manner as to be red-listed. this would have to happen in a new version of the protocol as with any other change or update to the protocol. so we simply choose to avoid that update.

I don't understand how people are overlooking this.  Redlisting, cointracking, address monitoring, whitelisting, blacklisting, and any other term you can think of for tracking data in the blockchain does not require any change to the bitcoin protocol.  Anyone can do.  You can do.  I can do it.  

If a group of people want to setup a business that tracks coins and white/blacklists addresses/coins, they can do it...right now...exactly as the protocol exists today.  It could have been done from day 1 of bitcoin's existence.  This is possible with all distributed blockchain based cryptocurrencies.

i do not worry too much about coinvalidations "service" as its not a threat to individuals personal identity, but is 'possibly' a threat to underground businesses and the usability of blackmarket customers. and as you said its not a protocol change, its a outside service. but i do find mike hearns protocol change to make it the protocols responsibility to red-list transactions.

i personally dont do anything notorious, but what i do hate is when bureaucracy plays around with my money, either risking me losing some or costing me time in doing the simplest of tasks as sending money from one place to another. third party services can be ignored. but the important things like protocol changes cant be ignored and require people to choose. stick with bitcoinqt0.8 or allow the altered protocol of a future bitcoin-qt. if the majority population were sheep hearded into upgrading the bitcoin-qt client with the protocol change that makes coins red-listed. then imagine all the faucets filling up with red-listed coins. which then merge in with peoples clean coins. making their whole stash red-listed.

EG have 1BTC non redlisted, receive 0.0001 from a faucet that is redlisted. send the 1.0001 to someone else. their client flags up my transaction is red-listed... no thankyou!!!!

if this mike-heard protocol became the popular fork. i am moving to litecoin permenently. so lets all ensure that OUR bitcoin protocol stays the same as it is now, dont allow bitcoin updates containing mike-hearn red-listing protocol changes. and when this 'update' comes along EG if it were bitcoin 0.956(random number).. we call that client update the USGov coin.. and warn people about what they are truly downloading

[QuantumQrack]

with mike hearns plans to add code that will red-list coins.

and other bitcoin foundation plans to change the blockchain to something more U.S government friendly. the solution is simple.

DO NOT upgrade your client to a newer version that contains these ridiculous idea's.

if the majority of us stick with the same version, the bitcoin sticks with us. If a fork occurs, the new versions with those ridiculous idea's will use the fork. simply let them. we/they can call their fork govcoin.. and let the 1% of foundation loving, government loving users play around with their silly fork just like any other alt coin. while we continue using bitcoin as it remains in its current state.

give it a few minutes/hours and the exchanges will see the majority wants bitcoin and not govcoin, thus leaving govcoin to die

Can you support any of this with evidence?  Quotes, etc?  Especially your first two statements.

[wumpus]

BUT - BTC development is still FAR TOO CENTRALISED.. Because protocol changes are STILL being made, so no-one but Gavin and the BTC Foundation can actually develop the bitcoin-qt client. No Disrespect intended, Gavin's cool

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Bitcoin-qt is developed as an open source project on github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin), You do NOT need to be a Bitcoin Foundation member to contribute (just have an account on github).

And no, no changes will be merged into Bitcoin-Qt that reduce privacy. And no, Mike Hearn is not planning to do that either. And yes, we're open to privacy improvements such as CoinJoin, I look forward to pull requests implementing it.

[Piper67]

What's to stop the same thing happening if the ALT-COIN you've switched to becomes the de-facto ?

The government will just go after that one.

There is, in my mind, ONLY ONE SOLUTION..

The PROTOCOL.. The thing that utterly defines the coin, CANNOT CHANGE. (You can change the client and update code etc etc.. but NOT THE UNDERLYING PROTOCOL)

I don't understand how people are overlooking this.  Redlisting, cointracking, address monitoring, whitelisting, blacklisting, and any other term you can think of for tracking data in the blockchain does not require any change to the bitcoin protocol.  Anyone can do.  You can do.  I can do it.  

If a group of people want to setup a business that tracks coins and white/blacklists addresses/coins, they can do it...right now...exactly as the protocol exists today.  It could have been done from day 1 of bitcoin's existence.  This is possible with all distributed blockchain based cryptocurrencies.

In fact, it has been done, many times. Call it "crypto-forensics" or what have you... it's just people using the blockchain in another way.

No one in their right mind is talking about blacklisting coins... that's impossible, since anyone with one full tainted bictoin can send 100,000,000,000 satoshis across the network to 100,000,000,000 addresses, thus tainting them all.

[Arksun]

What the hells happened to this forum?!?. People making massive wild assumptions which reach the point of somehow becomming fact, then turning into a fever and all kinds of negative "BURN THE WITCHES" threads popping up.

I had hoped there would be more adults here, ones willing to , you know, actually realise its mearly at the DISCUSSION STAGE, that being an adult is looking at a situation from ALL ANGLES, to discuss, debate, and THEN start forming strategys and conclusions.

This is very very early days still, and yet people here are acting like TEH BIG CONSPIRACY TAKEOVER HAS BEGUN!!

Gimme a break....