There is no requirement that SSL use standard public CAs. There's no reason applications can't be configured to use CAs based on WoT.
Also, Haplo, you mention policing the entire bitcoin economy. *sigh* that's what this is not about. though I suppose as I wrote it up I realized people would think it's about policing tainted coins and refusing those.
I'm not sure I'm against people trying to do that. I'm pretty sure I'd be all for a major client that had a built-in coin tumbler to defeat such crap, too. (I'm a big fan of having LE have something to investigate, and I'm also a big fan of there being no way to find much, either)
kjj, you couldn't think of a reason to accept an incoming transaction ever? Someone offers you money that you know you shouldn't take on the street, what do you do? you always take money from strangers? (and by stranger, I don't mean anonymous or pseudonomous acquaintance) do think this is always safe, and always a good idea? what if someone started mailing you cash? I'm sure you'd keep the first one, but the second? third? or after a few might you wonder "wtf, why is this happening?" if it's A LOT of money, maybe you might get nervous. maybe not.
How about someone sends you the exact denomination of coin that was lost in a recent robbery, and you happen to know that number? Maybe you'd want to not receive that? Let's say that was worth 10x more in USD than it was in the recent actual robbery? 100x? Still want that hot potato?
I definitely think there are reasons to not accept a TX. I also think there are reasons to "refuse"/return a TX. I don't think anyone should ever reverse one. I think I am being clear about the difference (one happens via the network, one is a conscious action by the receiving client) Internetwide we may refuse to accept many types of incoming network traffic, why should a client be forced to accept all incoming financial traffic?
- There may be a valid answer to the above question. If there is I will abandon this pursuit. If there is not, then a client should be free to refuse incoming connections by it's own choice of criteria.
The taint argument is strong.
LE wants stuff to investigate and seize.
Bitcoin wants to be able to be investigated but not seized.
IMO, the taint list argument is simply a point in favor of those who professionally launder money. "Dirty money" isn't new to bitcoin, and needs laundry today.
Laundering dollars means to obfuscate the identity of the transferring party or parties, and the source of the funds.
Since the parties are obfuscated in bitcoin, laundering bitcoin means to dilute the taint to the point of untraceability of the source of the funds.
I'm sure that there is some complaint that taint lists will result in the laundry services producing more blockchain bloat. Seems to me this is the original design - more or less, business as usual
Cops gotta chase, crooks gotta launder, "banks" are in the middle and gotta help seize what they might get caught helping to launder. <<< Nothing new happening, and I don't see what's the deal. This is a huge reason (IMO) why bitcoin will be accepted and acceptable.
So, again, MUST a client accept all incoming transactions? Or SHOULD a client accept all incoming transactions?