CoinDesk's reporters submission to the Australian Senate

[doof]

I post here hoping that Mr Dario Di Pardo a reporter from CoinDesk http://www.coindesk.com/author/dario-di-pardo/ might read this forum.  The submission you suggest is ridiculous and limits innovation.  What you are proposing ties all vendors of hardware terminals, invoicing software and any other wallet to one vendor.  The government.

From Document 6, page 2:

"2. Proposed scenario
Addresses will be registered/issued by an entity that is in possession of the user's verified identity.
This entity could be a governmental institution or regulated financial institution. In this proposal we choose a bank to fulfill this task, because of its expertise in the area of security and finance."

There are hundreds of reasons why this is a bad idea;  security risks, trusting the government not to store you private keys, trusting they have implemented enough entropy, no bugs in the system, no third party vendors or providers or contractors sniffing the network along the way.... we could go on.

One of my clients generate literally thousands of addresses per day.  Most of them unused.

For some who claims "Dario has been working as an IT consultant for almost ten years, mainly in the telecommunications industry. Since he first heard about bitcoin in 2013, he's been a keen follower of cryptocurrencies." you simply don't get it.  These kind of submissions only confuse government further and will aid them making rash and misinformed decisions regarding legislation.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency/Submissions
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency

[1714923823]

1714923823

[1714923823]

1714923823

[1714923823]

1714923823

[HardwareReviewer]

I post here hoping that Mr Dario Di Pardo a reporter from CoinDesk http://www.coindesk.com/author/dario-di-pardo/ might read this forum.  The submission you suggest is ridiculous and limits innovation.  What you are proposing ties all vendors of hardware terminals, invoicing software and any other wallet to one vendor.  The government.

From Document 6, page 2:

"2. Proposed scenario
Addresses will be registered/issued by an entity that is in possession of the user's verified identity.
This entity could be a governmental institution or regulated financial institution. In this proposal we choose a bank to fulfill this task, because of its expertise in the area of security and finance."

There are hundreds of reasons why this is a bad idea;  security risks, trusting the government not to store you private keys, trusting they have implemented enough entropy, no bugs in the system, no third party vendors or providers or contractors sniffing the network along the way.... we could go on.

One of my clients generate literally thousands of addresses per day.  Most of them unused.

For some who claims "Dario has been working as an IT consultant for almost ten years, mainly in the telecommunications industry. Since he first heard about bitcoin in 2013, he's been a keen follower of cryptocurrencies." you simply don't get it.  These kind of submissions only confuse government further and will aid them making rash and misinformed decisions regarding legislation.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency/Submissions
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency

Hi,

Security is addressed here: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1021-ideal-legislation-model-for-state-level/page__st__20#entry12231.

What would change with regard to your friend generating thousands of addresses per day, is that he/she would then use a different tool for this.


What is somewhat naive (or ridiculous if you prefer) though, is thinking that millions of pseudonymous bitcoin transactions per day, will be transparent without any kind of identification system.

PS: I am/was a CoinDesk contributor.

[doof]

I post here hoping that Mr Dario Di Pardo a reporter from CoinDesk http://www.coindesk.com/author/dario-di-pardo/ might read this forum.  The submission you suggest is ridiculous and limits innovation.  What you are proposing ties all vendors of hardware terminals, invoicing software and any other wallet to one vendor.  The government.

From Document 6, page 2:

"2. Proposed scenario
Addresses will be registered/issued by an entity that is in possession of the user's verified identity.
This entity could be a governmental institution or regulated financial institution. In this proposal we choose a bank to fulfill this task, because of its expertise in the area of security and finance."

There are hundreds of reasons why this is a bad idea;  security risks, trusting the government not to store you private keys, trusting they have implemented enough entropy, no bugs in the system, no third party vendors or providers or contractors sniffing the network along the way.... we could go on.

One of my clients generate literally thousands of addresses per day.  Most of them unused.

For some who claims "Dario has been working as an IT consultant for almost ten years, mainly in the telecommunications industry. Since he first heard about bitcoin in 2013, he's been a keen follower of cryptocurrencies." you simply don't get it.  These kind of submissions only confuse government further and will aid them making rash and misinformed decisions regarding legislation.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency/Submissions
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Digital_currency

Hi,

Security is addressed here: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1021-ideal-legislation-model-for-state-level/page__st__20#entry12231.

What would change with regard to your friend generating thousands of addresses per day, is that he/she would then use a different tool for this.


What is somewhat naive (or ridiculous if you prefer) though, is thinking that millions of pseudonymous bitcoin transactions per day, will be transparent without any kind of identification system.

PS: I am/was a CoinDesk contributor.

I don't really understand your position.  As you can see by the "security" diagram, the credentails are passed along the wire by a number of actors, who all have the potential to misshandle that data.

After working for a years in one of Australias banks, I can tell you their procedures and security policies arn't the best.  They have physical assets (ie cash in branches, valuts) to secure the balance

[HardwareReviewer]

Hi,

Yes, getting a login to access the 'governmental' database is somewhat similar to the procedure of applying for a new credit card.

With the difference that if someone with bad intentions would be able to compromise your login at this database, they would 'only' see your public addresses but they would not be able to retrieve any funds from them.


This would be the scenario in the end:

- Your local 'bank': in possession of your username (some random numbers) only (you'd have to change the initial password at first database login).

- The 'governmental' database where registered addresses are stored and the people operating it: can only see this random username linked to public addresses, no personally identifiable information would be stored there.


The tool that would be used for registering addresses, could be an (offline) open source application.


---

As for my position:
Actually I am quite the rebel myself, but also a realist.

I think that for bitcoin to go mainstream, this or similar kind of system would be necessary.


PS: Anyway, those are my thoughts and I'll be happy being wrong.