A theft solution?

[cafucafucafu]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

[Gleb Gamow]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

Great idea! I'm heading to the gas station to inform them to no longer accept fiat script having the following serial numbers due to how said fiat coinage was used in the past:

<numbers forthcoming>

[cafucafucafu]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

Great idea! I'm heading to the gas station to inform them to no longer accept fiat script having the following serial numbers due to how said fiat coinage was used in the past:

<numbers forthcoming>

You are not the law.

[jonald_fyookball]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

Only if its self regulation.

Regulation from authorities is bad because once you
start down that path, who is going to regulate the regulators?
Then you're starting to lose fungibility.

[cafucafucafu]

Fungibility returns after seizure, e.g.  Silk Road.

[pozmu]

Someone already built website that marks some coins as "bad", but to make it work all bitcoin merchants would have to follow its decision.
Not to mention it would undermine the core idea of bitcoin - it wouldn't be longer decentralised, that person/ organization which decide that some coins are "bad" would work like central bank.
Bitcoins should be treated similar to gold, there is no "bad" gold as long it's real, pure gold 

[DannyHamilton]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

This idea is presented every time there is a well publicized theft.

This idea is shot down and ignored by knowledgeable people every time it is presented.

This is not the first time we've heard someone suggest this, and it won't be the last.

Tagging unspent outputs as "bad" and trying to associate any future transactions that make use of some portion of those outputs destroys fungiblity  and is impossible to enforce.

Lets imagine for a moment that the thief randomly chooses one of your addresses from the blockchain, and sends you 0.001 BTC.  Should we now consider all of your bitcoins to be tainted too and refuse to accept any bitcoins from you in the future?  How do you prevent the thief from creating his own mixer and mixing the bitcoins?

There are MANY reasons this is a bad idea.  If you want to read about more of them, take some time to search through old posts here at bitcoin talk.

[Snipe85]

Imagine receiving coins for a legit deal and later finding out they are tainted and can't be used. Now the con man has swindled 2 people, the person he stole the coins from before they became tainted and you.

[haploid23]

OP, you mean for the better, but you haven't though about the other implications. A few has been brought up already. Another one is accountability. Any time some BTC are hacked or stolen, someone has to be held accountable for them and eat the loss, whether it's the exchanges or the depositors. You can't just "burn" the coins and call them useless.

[jonald_fyookball]

Then you're starting to lose fungibility.

Fungibility returns after seizure, e.g.  Silk Road.

seizure isn't the same as regulating non acceptance of coins.  not at all.

[homo homini lupus]

What evidence do you have the coins are actually stolen and not just stamp claiming it would be so?
Just because someone claims to have been "hacked" doesn't mean they automatically were.

[botany]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

Fungibility of coins is essential. There should be no blackmarking of specific coins. The money trail may be used to catch the robbers, though.

[1Referee]

If that's the address of the thief, then he most likely will mix the coins at some point before spending them.

Banning certain mixers won't help as there are exchanges/services/sites, etc, that can help you to get rid of dirty coins and get clean coins or fiat in return.

[Elwar]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

No regulations please.

[GermanGiant]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

Great idea! I'm heading to the gas station to inform them to no longer accept fiat script having the following serial numbers due to how said fiat coinage was used in the past:

<numbers forthcoming>

You are not the law.

Neither r u...

[gjgjg]

maybe im missing some aspect here (very likely considering my tech knowledge depth of btc;), but in theory couldnt btc devs impliment an update for the blockchain to have a wallet lockout feature?

so say if bitstamp call up the btc wallet police and say: all my coins are being stolen and going to address x, then that address is blocked out from interacting with the bchain until such a time as the wallet holder can be caught? basically freezing assets as they do in the fiat world?

not talking about tagging the coins themselves directly (or looking to get into discussing the morals of the logisitc here; who would police the police etc), but interested in knowing if its technically possible to 'ban' a wallet per se.

?

[DannyHamilton]

maybe im missing some aspect here (very likely considering my tech knowledge depth of btc;),

Almost certainly.

but in theory couldnt btc devs impliment an update for the blockchain to have a wallet lockout feature?

No.  There is no way to force the thief to use the wallet created by the devs.  The thief could just create their own wallet software.

so say if bitstamp call up the btc wallet police

I don't think there is such a thing as a "BTC Wallet Police".

and say: all my coins are being stolen and going to address x, then that address is blocked out from interacting with the bchain until such a time as the wallet holder can be caught? basically freezing assets as they do in the fiat world?

And if I get angry at you, can I call up "the bitcoin police" and lie and say "all my coins are stolen and have gone to your_addresses_here", and then they can freeze your funds without your permission? 

not talking about tagging the coins themselves directly (or looking to get into discussing the morals of the logisitc here; who would police the police etc), but interested in knowing if its technically possible to 'ban' a wallet per se.

?

Not without the consensus of all the users, and you aren't going to get that.

[bitllionaire]

the best theft solution is to have more protection
if you use good wallets like trezor or ledger wallet and you have your bitcoins safe you won't have to worry

[bigcrypto]

The only theft solution is to increase the security of proccesses
and even that way you can't be 100% secure

[Bitware]

We know the the address of the Bitstamp robber. Is it feasible for future regulations to ban merchants from accepting coins from a specific address? This means also banning bitcoin mixers from doing the same.

All we know is what a human at Bitstamp told us.