Gov must have power to reverse transactions, says co-chair of blockchain caucus

[BlackHatCoiner]

I can't express how freer I feel since the day I registered on bitcointalk. There's nothing that drains even the last drop of my privacy to advertisers and politicians. Just a bunch of intelligent folks who want to see this world changing for the better, with no scummy decisions by the government. In this place I learnt the pure truth about Bitcoin and I changed the way that I'm seeing this world.

I, myself, was a victim of the way I was associating anonymity with criminality. Unconsciously, I used to think that if you want to be hidden from the government, you're de-facto a criminal, but that's not true; that is a right.

Dear fellows, be happy for the bullshit that congressman rattled out. It's a sign that they are afraid of what they'll have to face in the next years. Let them reverse any transaction from their shitty CBDCs. It just a renaming of fiat currency that they've got sick of hearing. Reversing my Bitcoin transaction? Yeah — hold my node.


Let this post be a toast to Bitcoin(talk)ers. Not all heroes wear capes.

[aysg76]

Who cares what a congressmen who has little or no knowledge of decentralisation thinks? Even if they want btc to reverse transaction that is not possible which is worst case they are talking about.So they said btc usage is associated with criminal activities so now they want to make reverse transaction so that they can forge transaction in previous block to make some more profits but so sorry we don't do that here in bitcoin network and not possible.They can implement it in CDBC which is fully centralized.Bitcoin was built with aim to provide freedom and that's what government don't want to give it to the citizens because who will use their Infinite supply of inflationary fiat then? So they will make such Statements which have no base so don't worry about them.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Who cares what a congressmen who has little or no knowledge of decentralisation thinks? Even if they want btc to reverse transaction that is not possible which is worst case they are talking about.

As much as I absolutely hate that the things some dinosaur who doesn't understand bitcoin or cryptography in the slightest says matter to me, they do. Of course we know he can't reverse transactions as he says he wants, but he can certainly do a bunch of other things to make my life difficult, even as someone who has never used a centralized exchange and has never completed KYC. He can push to criminalize anonymous transactions altogether, instantly making me a criminal despite doing nothing wrong. He can continue to push for agencies such as the FBI and CIA to work with blockchain analysis companies to deanonymize all transactions and all bitcoin users.

The US government will quite happily spy on you, monitor your behavior, raid your property, seize your assets, all without any actual proof of a crime. If morons like this senator make privacy illegal, then such things will only get worse, regardless of the fact that they can't actually impact the bitcoin protocol.

[Vishnu.Reang]

As much as I absolutely hate that the things some dinosaur who doesn't understand bitcoin or cryptography in the slightest says matter to me, they do. Of course we know he can't reverse transactions as he says he wants, but he can certainly do a bunch of other things to make my life difficult, even as someone who has never used a centralized exchange and has never completed KYC. He can push to criminalize anonymous transactions altogether, instantly making me a criminal despite doing nothing wrong. He can continue to push for agencies such as the FBI and CIA to work with blockchain analysis companies to deanonymize all transactions and all bitcoin users.

The US government will quite happily spy on you, monitor your behavior, raid your property, seize your assets, all without any actual proof of a crime. If morons like this senator make privacy illegal, then such things will only get worse, regardless of the fact that they can't actually impact the bitcoin protocol.

If a Blockchain transaction is flagged as "suspicious", then the authorities have the right to ask for help from various blockchain analysis companies to trace down the users behind the transfer. But they can't outlaw all the anonymous transactions. That would be against the constitutional rights guaranteed to US citizens. Recently, the FBI requested a judge in California to attach all the assets they found while raiding a safe deposit box business. The judge turned down their request, saying that the FBI first need to submit evidence to prove that the assets found in such safe deposit boxes were linked to illegal business. The same would be applicable to anonymous transactions. In each case, the FBI need to prove that the transactions were linked to some sort of illegal activity.

[o_e_l_e_o]

But they can't outlaw all the anonymous transactions.

Of course they can. They can't prevent them or reverse them, but they can certainly make them illegal and pass a law requiring everyone to KYC every bitcoin address. Then all US citizens must either sacrifice their privacy or become a criminal.

That would be against the constitutional rights guaranteed to US citizens.

Our constitutional rights didn't stop them setting up mass surveillance programs and spying on millions of innocent citizens. Why would they stop them monitoring bitcoin transactions?

The same would be applicable to anonymous transactions. In each case, the FBI need to prove that the transactions were linked to some sort of illegal activity.

That's a big assumption to make, and you have absolutely no guarantee that any court would view these two scenarios as equal.

[leea-1334]

Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

What practical considerations? What the government sees as practical is not the same as what we see as practical. Bitcoin has functioned just fine for 12 years being immutable, being censorship resistant, being free of third parties, and being decentralized. Obviously the government isn't keen on any of these things, but that's a problem for them, not us. They can rant and rave all they want - at the end of the day, we do not need their permission to continue to use bitcoin as a peer to peer currency as it was designed to be.

If the government want to launch their own centralized shitcoin, taking in to account these "practical considerations", then of course they are free to do so. Just don't expect me to use it.

Practical like my grandparents who keep asking me to call the bank on their behalf because they send double or triple payments to a bill payment. Trust me,,, when you have grandparents who cannot really read English, and have only used smartphones for the last 2 years AND the government stupidly decides to close ALL the bank counters during covid and force everyone to use apps, you are going to have 50% of error transactions that need to be reversed.

This is the practical life I talk about that most of the world goes through. I know for sure this is not just my country as all my friends are angry about the same decision.

Now imagine the govt moves this all to blockchain. I agree it is a shitcoin fiat but "practical considerations" I hope you get what I mean now.

[Wind_FURY]

Back in the day immutability was a big thing but I guess practical considerations mean we have to make concessions on some of these traits. Or do we?

What practical considerations? What the government sees as practical is not the same as what we see as practical. Bitcoin has functioned just fine for 12 years being immutable, being censorship resistant, being free of third parties, and being decentralized. Obviously the government isn't keen on any of these things, but that's a problem for them, not us. They can rant and rave all they want - at the end of the day, we do not need their permission to continue to use bitcoin as a peer to peer currency as it was designed to be.

If the government want to launch their own centralized shitcoin, taking in to account these "practical considerations", then of course they are free to do so. Just don't expect me to use it.

Practical like my grandparents who keep asking me to call the bank on their behalf because they send double or triple payments to a bill payment. Trust me,,, when you have grandparents who cannot really read English, and have only used smartphones for the last 2 years AND the government stupidly decides to close ALL the bank counters during covid and force everyone to use apps, you are going to have 50% of error transactions that need to be reversed.

This is the practical life I talk about that most of the world goes through. I know for sure this is not just my country as all my friends are angry about the same decision.

Now imagine the govt moves this all to blockchain. I agree it is a shitcoin fiat but "practical considerations" I hope you get what I mean now.

What kind of “blockchain” will that be? Or does it really need a “blockchain”? Wouldn’t a MySQL darabase be enough for that, with signing entrusted to a central financial entity, and monitored under the the watchful eyes of the government?

[o_e_l_e_o]

I agree it is a shitcoin fiat but "practical considerations" I hope you get what I mean now.

Ahh, I see, and it is a fair point. Some people are just not ready to "be their own bank". Making wallets as user friendly as possible could go some way to help with such issues. If there are still concerns, then there is no reason your grandparents couldn't use some third party solution to hold their coins for them, which would prevent them making double or triple spends to the same address without additional authorization. Or you can simply contact the company in question to have them process a refund. Or you could have your grandparents appoint you or a relative as a legal guardian over their financial matters.

There are a variety of potential solutions to such issues, but I don't believe that compromising what bitcoin is by making transactions mutable or reversible in any way is the correct method of addressing such concerns.

[davis196]

The congressman also said that cryptocoins must become compliant with federal regulations and laws for them to ever become mainstream instruments for conducting transactions. Does everyone really want regulations or do those people only want a pump and thought regulations would bring it?

I cryptocoin is just a tool and cannot be "compliant with federal regulations and laws".
I guess that this congressmen is talking about companies,that operate in the cryptocurrency industry.
Most of the cryptocoins/crypto companies are already complaint with federal regulations and laws.
Only privacy coins like Monero will face some problems with the law.

There’s a significant sentiment, increasing sentiment, in Congress that if you’re participating in an anonymous crypto transaction that you’re a de-facto participant in a criminal conspiracy.

Anyone involved in anonymous crypto transactions will be suspected for criminal conspiracy.What?
This is means that everyone is guilty,until he/she proves his/her innocence.I guess that USA will throw the presumption of innocence into the garbage.This is a violation of basic human rights.

[Kittygalore]

The problem with this one is that people in the government if they are controlling and power hungry, they will probably use this reverse transaction as a means to control the business operating under the crypto umbrella. Also, it's difficult to give that kind of power to government because governments are a one big corporation too if you think about it technically.

[kryptqnick]

Because of guys like this, I think it's good when big companies (PayPal) or influential people (Musk, Soros) get involved with Bitcoin. This gives Bitcoin some credibility in the eyes of the authorities and of people who are hesitant to use cryptos, as surely, such people and companies wouldn't participate in 'criminal conspiracies', ponzis or other similar things.
As for this particular case with Foster, I think it's ridiculous he demands Bitcoin transaction reversion to become possible. If someone gives another person cash, this transaction also cannot be reversed, and people can only meet again for a new transaction that returns the money. Similarly, cash transactions are largely anonymous, as people don't provide their ID most of the time when they're using it. And yet nobody's running around and saying that KYC should be enforced every time people pay using cash or that cash should be banned altogether because it's impossible to reverse these transactions.

[masterrex]

I think these politicians were not brief about how blockchain works, Is that possible to reverse any transaction on the blockchain? I think that's not possible, anyway I'm not an expert regarding that topic I was responding only base on my limited knowledge about how blockchain works in simplicity, Politicians should invite a knowledgeable resource person if there's a hearing regarding crypto regulation so that they will know how cryptocurrency was functioned using blockchain technology.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

I cryptocoin is just a tool and cannot be "compliant with federal regulations and laws".

They have tried to make encryption illegal, or force end-to-end encrypted messaging software to build backdoors for government access. They can certainly make bitcoin, or a certain subset of transactions, illegal if they want to.

I guess that this congressmen is talking about companies,that operate in the cryptocurrency industry.

They will obviously be the first to comply or be shut down, but miners and then users will be next in their sights. We are already seeing the beginnings of miners being forced to only mine transactions which are pre-approved by the government, with pools like MARA mining blocks which they claim are "OFAC compliant".

Only privacy coins like Monero will face some problems with the law.

It is naive to think this. Bitcoin is too much of a threat to them for them to ignore it.

Is that possible to reverse any transaction on the blockchain?

The only way to do this with certainty is if you consistently control 51% or more of the hashrate.

[2double0]

What is so anonymous here? All transactions are transparent, mostly traceable and there are agencies who are capable of tracing any transaction. It had been observed that there were many crypto thefts which got identified and thieves got arrested, as well as money was retrieved whereas in fiat, there is no such point of discussing traceability. Governments are all playing with the sentiments of people to drop the idea of buying btc and it shows that they are trying to manipulate crypto markets to end it all at once.

[Nunoluck]

Honestly I don't like regulations although I think that if the use of bitcoin is regulated by governments then the adoption will be better. I just looking for something that is free from government control. I prefer like to see government don't get involved in bitcoin world, I don't want government to ban or accept bitcoin, just let people use bitcoin as they want. But unfortunately there is also negative thing in this, if government don't get involved in bitcoin world then maybe there are some people will do crime using bitcoin. I think if people who use bitcoin are only good people then it will be good.

[Cryptoshops]

I think the regulation of buying and selling crypto has all ready started here in the UK  Coinbase is regulated by the FCA in the UK to stop money laundering,  where as Binance is not because its situated in the Caymen Islands The UK  FCA has no regulatory power over it but now the banks here in the UK are stopping us from making any purchases from Binance which in itself is a form of regulation I think 5 years down the line and as more and more countries either ban it or start to use it you will see more and more regulations being put into place.

[Vaskiy]

What is so anonymous here? All transactions are transparent, mostly traceable and there are agencies who are capable of tracing any transaction. It had been observed that there were many crypto thefts which got identified and thieves got arrested, as well as money was retrieved whereas in fiat, there is no such point of discussing traceability. Governments are all playing with the sentiments of people to drop the idea of buying btc and it shows that they are trying to manipulate crypto markets to end it all at once.

Yes, there is more easy access for cryptocurrency tracking than the fiat moves. Governments say it doesn't have control over the network and the same could fund terrorism and so on. This is how the government mislead people at the beginning in my country. Later it even tried to relate some fund transaction as funding to terrorism. This made more people stay away from crypto currency usage. Now people have got the better understanding, so nothing to worry on the manipulation by government in a different approach.

[CaVO32]

Honestly I don't like regulations although I think that if the use of bitcoin is regulated by governments then the adoption will be better. I just looking for something that is free from government control. I prefer like to see government don't get involved in bitcoin world, I don't want government to ban or accept bitcoin, just let people use bitcoin as they want. But unfortunately there is also negative thing in this, if government don't get involved in bitcoin world then maybe there are some people will do crime using bitcoin. I think if people who use bitcoin are only good people then it will be good.

That's the ideal scenario however, some people will really use it to their illegal activities just like fiat. Regulation may encourage more adoption from its people but some won't like it because we are used to being free with our crypto transactions. However, if it is for the goodness of crypto, then so be it. But reversing the transactions? That is only possible if you know the people involve from end to end, otherwise, it is hard to implement this situation.

[leea-1334]

What kind of “blockchain” will that be? Or does it really need a “blockchain”? Wouldn’t a MySQL darabase be enough for that, with signing entrusted to a central financial entity, and monitored under the the watchful eyes of the government?

I totally agree with you here. But I guess systems already have similar database and it is too difficult to use and maybe not secure enough. I do not know the answer:) But blockchain should have improvements over traditional database in terms of recording accurately and timestamping I guess.

Ahh, I see, and it is a fair point. Some people are just not ready to "be their own bank". Making wallets as user friendly as possible could go some way to help with such issues. If there are still concerns, then there is no reason your grandparents couldn't use some third party solution to hold their coins for them, which would prevent them making double or triple spends to the same address without additional authorization. Or you can simply contact the company in question to have them process a refund. Or you could have your grandparents appoint you or a relative as a legal guardian over their financial matters.

There are a variety of potential solutions to such issues, but I don't believe that compromising what bitcoin is by making transactions mutable or reversible in any way is the correct method of addressing such concerns.

For sure,,, and we cannot blame them or even ask them to. In most of the world people are not even ready for digital money or digital banking,,, what more to say Bitcoin and keep your own private key safe and sign and broadcast. My grandmother writes her pin down in her wallet for her bank card which she anyway always makes sure one of her grandchildren is with her:) So yes, with her for example we already did a lot of things whenever the banks moved. Imagine teaching SMS. And telling her all those fake calls from the bank were not to be trusted. And then entering her account online. I would probably give up and cry if we had to teach her Bitcoin, even if using 3rdparty wallet (more user friendly but still not as easy. Now we need only to "give her a payment request", she taps, it opens bank app, she puts in password, paid. Instantly. Free, With no hitches.

I do agree though of course at a certain point, we do not need to change Bitcoin. There are many ways, to have 3rd parties, or us. But in this case I do think a government running its own blockchain would for sure want to have that power. Maybe not in developed countries (minus USA haha). But if you ask our leaders here,,, they would want to control the sun if they could.

[Wind_FURY]

What kind of “blockchain” will that be? Or does it really need a “blockchain”? Wouldn’t a MySQL darabase be enough for that, with signing entrusted to a central financial entity, and monitored under the the watchful eyes of the government?

I totally agree with you here. But I guess systems already have similar database and it is too difficult to use and maybe not secure enough. I do not know the answer:) But blockchain should have improvements over traditional database in terms of recording accurately and timestamping I guess.

Can you post what your definition of a blockchain is? Because you and I might have a different understanding of what a working “blockchain” is. I believe some people view it as “something secure/decentralized”, but has stopped there, and hasn’t understood how/why it is decentralized.