Red list = legitimised Ransom Bandits: perverse incentive to taint coins

[Carlton Banks]

If the Red list Authorities, as proposed for discussion by Mike Hearn, become reality, they will need to fund themselves somehow (private worldwide currency regulators aren't going to get state local public money). So what happens if they start charging fees to de-list your tainted coins? They will have to fund themselves somehow.

Suddenly, they have a perverse incentive to surreptitiously red-list as many coins as they can fabricate the faked evidence to do so. And the bigger they become, the more resources they can use to do it. The more faked taint they spread around, the more Bitcoin gets dragged into the mud.

Great work Mike.

[1714245408]

1714245408

[1714245408]

1714245408

[1714245408]

1714245408

[tutkarz]

they also can clean them for a fee

[Carlton Banks]

they also can clean them for a fee

That's exactly what I'm saying, apologies if that's not clear.

[DeathAndTaxes]

This is the reality of red lists.  They are much like DRM.  They only entity which profits is the entity pushing the broken technology (redlist or DRM).  If they can't get enough money by misinformation well they will just legislate it.  Things like DMCA could be done which makes a US company not using the services of an approved (think kickback to govt) redlist provider a criminal act.  Like the DMCA they could make non compliance ITSELF a criminal act (subject to fines, seizure of profit, redlists of all assets, and incarceration) even if the non-compliant entity didn't even accept redlisted funds or break any other laws.

Yes in the US breaking DRM even for legal reasons (research, legal backups, penetration testing, etc) is itself a crime under the DMCA.

[Carlton Banks]

Pretty ironic that Mike Hearn's justification for redlisting agencies is to clamp down on ransomware. It seems we'll be swapping overt ransomware for covert, government authorised ransoms instead. That could be used to gently drive trust in Bitcoin into dust.

[safeminer]

please someone tell me this will be stopped.
Bitcoin will essentialy be dead if something as retarded as black/redlisting would be implemented

[DeathAndTaxes]

please someone tell me this will be stopped.
Bitcoin will essentialy be dead if something as retarded as black/redlisting would be implemented

The price of freedom is eternal viligence.  Stupid people will never stop trying to do stupid reckless things.  It will be a never ending struggle. 

[safeminer]

That is so true.

Is there anything we can do to stop this ?

[Akka]

1. Black- (Red  ) list and tomorrow I will have to white list my coins by reporting my private informations to a central authority.

This is the worst incentive I have seen in Bitcoin so far. 

But hey, everyone who complies will have more expensive coins, remember lost coins are a donation to everyone. The more we get out of the System the better. I would start by Black Redlisting the coins of this satoshi guy   Not that he would come out and white list them anyway.

[Carlton Banks]

That is so true.

Is there anything we can do to stop this ?

Short term, promote a culture of non-compliance. Don't just accept red/black coin, don't even check the colour lists. Don't do business with businesses that do check. Don't re-use addresses. Use anonymity enhancing tools like CoinJoin and CoinSwap. These are only possible right now on an ad hoc basis, you've gotta write the transaction script yourself (as well as recruit people to do the transacting with). Automated tools, wallets and services for CJ and CS will arrive with time.

Long term, there is already discussions of adding further cryptographic features to Bitcoin so that addresses (and maybe transactions too) are secret, but the blockchain is still public. Another more extreme option would be fully secret blockchain, but still provably non-inflationary and proof-of-payment capable. Don't ask how this contradiction can be resolved, but it apparently could. Nothing better than a "what if" right now, the expert developers confirm it can be done, but the details probably haven't even been considered yet.


I don't know, we've had a long run of pretty much exclusively positive ground gained, and we've built up a huge amount of utility, value, understanding, and consequently, belief. This could evolve into the first significant setback, but only if people comply. It hasn't even happened yet. Everyone at the main hubs of the Bitcoin community really dislike this, we're not being "protected", we're being subjected to a protection racket. I expect significant resistance from the majority, in all the forms outlined as in my proposed short term solutions. That will help to buy time to come up with a something to help kill the tainting and listings dead.

This really is a great endorsement for the strength of the Satoshi model; in 4 years, the best attempt at coming up with a way to put the reins on Bitcoin could take many, many more months to start to bite. And this will be US centric, easily the least popular political force on the planet in the 21st Century. I think this is bad news mainly for America and Americans, nearly every country on every other continent will provide for those that want to resist the lists.