Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 03:21:04 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 [1213] 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011844 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:16:11 PM
 #24241

The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.


The coins are traceable, but the link between the coins and to whom they belong is less so.

That's irrelevant to the extent that blacklisting or whitelisting (or the prospect of such) impair the value of those coins.

Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:20:20 PM
 #24242

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

No you're not because if all coins are bad then all coins have the same value. You can't overpay and be left holding the bag.

That is the definition of fungibility. Again, you are confusing privacy with fungibility. Without regard for the merits of either/both.

I don't think so, it seems to be that you've confused them. I think my prior posts (that weren't quoted) explained why. Fungibility is an innate property, privacy is a question of usage. You're free to disagree but I'll still think that these arguments that a coin needs privacy to be built in or off the mark.

Fungibility also doesn't mean how I think you are using it. Even in your black/white coin scenario, Bitcoin coins are still 100% fungible, the bitcoin network will treat 1 BTC as 1 unit and 0.5 BTC as half a unit in all cases (i.e. to the network 1 BTC blacklist = 1 BTC whitelist), that is perfect fungibility.

Things such as dimonds are not fungible, different people will value 2 different one caret diamonds differently. That is an example of something not fungible. Not black/white market coins where a government might try to force different values for them, but the network would treat them identically.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:21:52 PM
 #24243

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop.
Part of the consideration that went into the payment code proposal was finding a way to make analysis of transactions impossible beyond one hop.

Even if they want to do multi-hop analysis, it's possible to make that unfeasible.

I don't think you understand what Coinbase is doing. For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.

As long as these things remain associated with the coins themselves, fungibility is impaired.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:25:06 PM
 #24244

We don't know that Coinbase limits their tracking of "bad" activity to "one hop." In fact I'm pretty sure at least one of the reported cases was more than one hop.
Part of the consideration that went into the payment code proposal was finding a way to make analysis of transactions impossible beyond one hop.

Even if they want to do multi-hop analysis, it's possible to make that unfeasible.

I don't think you understand what Coinbase is doing. For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.

As long as these things remain associated with the coins themselves, fungibility is impaired.

This is where we are disagreeing then.

To the bitcoin network 1 BTC blacklist or low score coin = 1 BTC whitelist coin. They are perfectly the same to the network itself, that is fungibility. This is very different from the diamond example a post up.

You can argue that for gold you could melt it down and recast in new coins to recover all privacy, but I'd argue that advanced mixing could do the same in time.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:26:02 PM
 #24245

Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

The only reason you would ever be worried about receiving "bad" coins would be because of some legal framework that makes such coins possibility "bad". The exact same legal framework could make 100% of Monero's coins "bad". And you're back to square one.

No you're not because if all coins are bad then all coins have the same value. You can't overpay and be left holding the bag.

That is the definition of fungibility. Again, you are confusing privacy with fungibility. Without regard for the merits of either/both.

I don't think so, it seems to be that you've confused them. I think my prior posts (that weren't quoted) explained why. Fungibility is an innate property, privacy is a question of usage. You're free to disagree but I'll still think that these arguments that a coin needs privacy to be built in or off the mark.

Fungibility also doesn't mean how I think you are using it. Even in your black/white coin scenario, Bitcoin coins are still 100% fungible, the bitcoin network will treat 1 BTC as 1 unit and 0.5 BTC as half a unit in all cases, that is perfect fungibility.

Things such as dimonds are not fungible, different people will value 2 different one caret diamonds differently. That is an example of something not fungible. Not black/white market coins where a government might try to force different values for them, but the network would treat them identically.

Correct about diamonds. Incorrect about cryptocurrncies. Fungibility means that units are interchangeable. Bitcoins are not interchangeable as long as they have an identifiable history. And in practice participants such as Coinbase are taking that history into account in evaluating coins and users.

Take a look at that post from a long time ago about "Bitcoin Island". If Bitcoins (really satoshis) are plots of land, which is in many ways a reasonable analogy, then they are not interchangeable. They become interchangeable with a pervasive mixing process, but at present in Bitcoin that doesn't exist, and may or may not ever exist (the greater the role of participants who are invested in AML/KYC processes, the less likely it is that will ever exist).

Fungibility isn't totally an inherent property either, there is a social context. Paper currency has serial numbers so in a technical sense it isn't totally fungible. However, the extent to which people pay attention to those serial numbers is every limited. If the social context changed so serial number scanners became widely used, paper currency would not be fungible by its nature.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:26:45 PM
 #24246

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:35:09 PM
 #24247

Paper currency has serial numbers so in a techical sense it isn't totally fungible. However, the extent to which people pay attention to those serial numbers is every limited. If the social context changed so serial number scanners became widely used, paper currency would not be fungible by its nature.

Apparently, the serial numbers on Euro notes dispensed in a given official Euro country can be used to identify which country they were produced for (although they're intended to be equally accepted). Irrational as it may be, some people will ostensibly reject notes thought to come from the PIIGS countries.

Vires in numeris
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 18, 2015, 11:44:43 PM
 #24248

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

I think it is important to determine what you "have" to have in a money instrument vs. what is "nice" to have vs. what "derives" from other properties. When arguments on which altcoin might be better start, the differences in opinion seem to often come down to this. I don't think the properties of ideal money have changed just because we are using a digital medium now. I also think with the right "have to have" properties, that you can layer on top of that the "nice to have" aspects. Anyway the market will decide.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 12:06:06 AM
 #24249

The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.


The coins are traceable, but the link between the coins and to whom they belong is less so.

That's irrelevant to the extent that blacklisting or whitelisting (or the prospect of such) impair the value of those coins.



Not true. There have been numerous attempts to blacklist and track coins from every failed exchange in Bitcoin's history all the way back to MyBitcoin. Yet we all probably have those coins in our wallets to various degrees.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 12:10:29 AM
 #24250

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

I think it is important to determine what you "have" to have in a money instrument vs. what is "nice" to have vs. what "derives" from other properties. When arguments on which altcoin might be better start, the differences in opinion seem to often come down to this. I don't think the properties of ideal money have changed just because we are using a digital medium now. I also think with the right "have to have" properties, that you can layer on top of that the "nice to have" aspects. Anyway the market will decide.


So, new innovations in anti-money tools don't change the fundamental characteristics of money itself?

Vires in numeris
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 12:31:23 AM
 #24251

The coins remain traceable on the blockchain.


The coins are traceable, but the link between the coins and to whom they belong is less so.

That's irrelevant to the extent that blacklisting or whitelisting (or the prospect of such) impair the value of those coins.



Not true. There have been numerous attempts to blacklist and track coins from every failed exchange in Bitcoin's history all the way back to MyBitcoin. Yet we all probably have those coins in our wallets to various degrees.

Do you live under a rock? Cheesy BTC-e already showed Bitcoin has no fungibility and coins can be blacklisted.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 12:31:58 AM
 #24252

For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.
This is not sustainable in the long term.

All that's required is that users put one non-reporting entity between every transaction between reporting entities. A non-reporting entity could be anyone or any business.

Coinbase et al. may attempt to keep their users inside a walled garden that is only allowed to transact with other people in the same walled garden, but they won't get away with it in the long term.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 12:36:01 AM
 #24253

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

I think it is important to determine what you "have" to have in a money instrument vs. what is "nice" to have vs. what "derives" from other properties. When arguments on which altcoin might be better start, the differences in opinion seem to often come down to this. I don't think the properties of ideal money have changed just because we are using a digital medium now. I also think with the right "have to have" properties, that you can layer on top of that the "nice to have" aspects. Anyway the market will decide.


So, new innovations in anti-money tools don't change the fundamental characteristics of money itself?


My personal view is I do not believe so.

The reason is I have not seen any anti-money tools that are not defeated by the six main properties working together.

Gold was attacked by anti-money tools (bank notes) because it was not very portable, and as a result people stopped using it directly and governments were able to circumvent gold over time. Bitcoin is very portable and perfectly fungible, this makes anti-money tools harder to deploy. For anything I can imagine they will throw at Bitcoin, it seems trivial to layer additional usage mechanisms on top of the protocol as needed. If bitcoin wasn't portable, fungible, divisible, etc this wouldn't be the case.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 12:44:51 AM
 #24254

Correct about diamonds. Incorrect about cryptocurrncies. Fungibility means that units are interchangeable. Bitcoins are not interchangeable as long as they have an identifiable history. And in practice participants such as Coinbase are taking that history into account in evaluating coins and users.

If Coinbase was the processor of BTC, then I would agree with you. But Coinbase is not.

The P2P and mining network is the processor of BTC. The P2P and mining network will always consider BTC to be perfectly interchangeable, 1 BTC is always equal to 1 BTC regardless of history, law or anything else. The P2P and mining network will always consider 1 whitelist BTC to be of equal value to 1 blacklist BTC, and process transactions accordingly. This maintains perfect fungibility.

If you argument is that entities (goverments) will try to make individuals value certain coins (whitelist) more over other coins (blacklist). However if they can dictate usage of bitcoin, they can dictate usage of anything, including Monero. Either way it does not matter though, to the P2P network BTC are all still identical, this is fungibility.

If Bitcoin was not perfectly fungible, then you'd have a situation were the P2P network and the blockchain processes 1 blacklist BTC as somehow equaling less than 1 whitelist BTC. That is impossible with the current network and would require a hard fork.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 01:01:18 AM
 #24255

The 6-7 properties of money were written thousands of years ago, people. Technology, including "anti-money" technology, has come on a little since then. Privacy is a property of money since at least some point in the 20th century.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency brings a whole new set of (so far) necessary properties. There's no need to compartmentalise "classical money" properties from those which have been added during it's subsequent evolution.

I think it is important to determine what you "have" to have in a money instrument vs. what is "nice" to have vs. what "derives" from other properties. When arguments on which altcoin might be better start, the differences in opinion seem to often come down to this. I don't think the properties of ideal money have changed just because we are using a digital medium now. I also think with the right "have to have" properties, that you can layer on top of that the "nice to have" aspects. Anyway the market will decide.


So, new innovations in anti-money tools don't change the fundamental characteristics of money itself?


My personal view is I do not believe so.

The reason is I have not seen any anti-money tools that are not defeated by the six main properties working together.

Gold was attacked by anti-money tools (bank notes) because it was not very portable, and as a result people stopped using it directly and governments were able to circumvent gold over time. Bitcoin is very portable and perfectly fungible, this makes anti-money tools harder to deploy. For anything I can imagine they will throw at Bitcoin, it seems trivial to layer additional usage mechanisms on top of the protocol as needed. If bitcoin wasn't portable, fungible, divisible, etc this wouldn't be the case.

@ bolded: I would argue that intangibility and being cryptographically driven are far more important properties for cryptocurrencies to counter anti-money technology. Intangibility is definitely a new development in money (people remembering doesn't necessarily count, figuratively and literally Tongue), and it is not derived from the original 7 at all.

It will be interesting to see how the opinions of monetary theorists of this century will eventually settle on this issue (I have no doubt it will become a relevant debate, even if the conclusion is against an expanded group of properties)

Vires in numeris
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 01:21:08 AM
 #24256

Bitcoins are not interchangeable as long as they have an identifiable history.

Bitcoins are not interchangeable if a recipient decides not to accept them, whether because of an identifiable history or some other reason.  Monero is not interchangeable if a recipient decides not to accept them, whether because of a lack of identifiable history or some other reason.  It all boils down to which currency will be the most widely accepted, but I will concede that monero is technically more fungible. 

As far as gold being an example, American Eagle gold coins are considered legal tender in the United States and guaranteed by the US government.  As a result, they sell for a slight premium to other gold coins, effectively making gold not completely fungible. 

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 01:23:24 AM
 #24257

Bitcoins are not interchangeable as long as they have an identifiable history.

Bitcoins are not interchangeable if a recipient decides not to accept them, whether because of an identifiable history or some other reason.  Monero is not interchangeable if a recipient decides not to accept them, whether because of a lack of identifiable history or some other reason.  It all boils down to which currency will be the most widely accepted, but I will concede that monero is technically more fungible. 

Of course. All I was talking about is fungibility, not other merit.

Quote
As far as gold being an example, American Eagle gold coins are considered legal tender in the United States and guaranteed by the US government.  As a result, they sell for a slight premium to other gold coins, effectively making gold not completely fungible. 

Gold items that trade at a premium for whoever reason are certainly not fungible with other gold. Same for fine handmade jewlery, antiques, etc. Just being gold doesn't make it fungible.



smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 01:26:43 AM
 #24258

Correct about diamonds. Incorrect about cryptocurrncies. Fungibility means that units are interchangeable. Bitcoins are not interchangeable as long as they have an identifiable history. And in practice participants such as Coinbase are taking that history into account in evaluating coins and users.

If Coinbase was the processor of BTC, then I would agree with you. But Coinbase is not.

The P2P and mining network is the processor of BTC. The P2P and mining network will always consider BTC to be perfectly interchangeable, 1 BTC is always equal to 1 BTC regardless of history, law or anything else. The P2P and mining network will always consider 1 whitelist BTC to be of equal value to 1 blacklist BTC, and process transactions accordingly. This maintains perfect fungibility.

If you argument is that entities (goverments) will try to make individuals value certain coins (whitelist) more over other coins (blacklist). However if they can dictate usage of bitcoin, they can dictate usage of anything, including Monero. Either way it does not matter though, to the P2P network BTC are all still identical, this is fungibility.

If Bitcoin was not perfectly fungible, then you'd have a situation were the P2P network and the blockchain processes 1 blacklist BTC as somehow equaling less than 1 whitelist BTC. That is impossible with the current network and would require a hard fork.

Well I disagree with your definition, as I explained earlier. Fungibility exists within a social context. If nobody cares about the history of Bitcoins, then they're fungible, but if people do care, they aren't. I have some Bitcoins that were mined by me. I'm not interested in trading them for Bitcoins that for all I know might have been stolen from bitstamp and blacklisted by btc-e or others, or might otherwise cause me problems in the future. Not even for a small premium. That's not fungibility by the accurate definition.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 01:30:12 AM
 #24259

For example, even with non-reused addresses, compliant participants may report their addresses to a risk-scoring service. If you go outside that "system", boom your coins risk score goes way up.
This is not sustainable in the long term.

All that's required is that users put one non-reporting entity between every transaction between reporting entities. A non-reporting entity could be anyone or any business.

How are you going to get people to do that? Joe Sixpack either buys coins from Coinbase or gets paid in those coins by his employer using a compliant payroll service, those coins go into his coinbase or circle or other compliant wallet. He spends those coins at Overstock or some other retailer using a compliant payment processors.

There is zero incentive for any of these parties to put a non-reporting entity in the middle of their transactions. At best it adds inconvenience and extra cost for no gain. At worst it impairs the acceptability and therefore the value of their coins, which is actually an incentive to not do it.

Quote
Coinbase et al. may attempt to keep their users inside a walled garden that is only allowed to transact with other people in the same walled garden, but they won't get away with it in the long term.

I'm not so sure. That's certainly now how things are going now.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 01:36:39 AM
 #24260

to me, Bitcoin is fungible when you think in terms of UTXO's.  

which half of 1BTC is tainted from joining 0.5BTC taint with 0.5BTC pure from 2 UTXO's?  when you then split that 1BTC into two 0.5BTC payments, are they both uniformly tainted or is there a discrete 0.5BTC that is tainted?  how do you distinguish?

yes, an address can be tainted if identified with a drug dealer.  but that's not the same as UTXO's, which is where the real action is.

I think the mixing of UTXOs that occur during each transaction makes white- or black-listing unworkable in practice.  Each transaction, the taint from the input coins mixes and spreads evenly across the outputs. Taint slowly diffuses across the UTXO set such that nearly every coin--even a freshly minted coin--becomes a certain shade of gray.  

But then what are the rules for accepting "gray" coins?  I don't think it's possible to implement a 100% "white coin only" policy without simultaneously killing the currency.  The reason is that coins are always blacklisted in retrospect.  By the time the coins are blacklisted, taint will have already diffused across previously-white coins.  If these coins are suddenly un-spendable, then the currency system is pretty useless.  

So that means that there will be some threshold for how gray your coins can be before they are unacceptable for certain purposes.  And if that happens, this just creates a market for "coin whitening."  Say, some of my coins are whiter than the minimum…well my wallet can add in a bit of black coins for a slight profit!  Or someone wants to pay for something and only has dark gray coins?  Well, they could use a service like xmr.to except instead of converting moneroj to bitcoins, it converts dark gray coins to light gray coins for a small fee.  

I think it would be so easy to work around any tainting initiative that tainting would be ignored, abandoned, or never attempted in the first place.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 [1213] 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!