Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 23, 2015, 11:27:18 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 22, 2015, 05:32:18 PM

i think BTC-e is temporarily deluded at best.

first, they have no clear way of proving which coins were stolen. it makes no sense that the thieves would send stolen coins directly to BTC-e for sale w/o a few intermediate hops at least. similarly, "mule" activity can only be suspected, not proved. secondly, while i agree BTC-e has the right to choose to behave as they wish (it being a free mkt), the consequences of such actions will be to destroy their own business as internet of money (Bitcoin) will choose to route around them if their behavior persists. thirdly, i doubt they're acting out of pure ethics; the behavior is suspicious as the owners have been anonymous from the beginning making this freezing of coins highly suspicious. my bet is that they had some of their own coins on Evo and they're just trying to retrieve them. thirdly, do you really think they will just freeze the coins and then destroy them? hell no, they'll eventually have to decide to return them to their rightful owners, destroy them, or turn them over to some law enforcement agency (think DOJ). in the first instance, those owners will then merrily go off and spend those coins freely as if nothing happened and recipients of those coins will do likewise. in the second instance, destroying them would be an untenable act as the rightful owners (if they can even be identified) would scream bloody foul again destroying their customer base. if they try to hold them "forever", suspicions will arise that they might eventually spend them themselves (BTC-e). in the third instance of turning them over to DOJ or some gvt (and here's the real zinger) what do you think they would do with them? Voila! we already have 3 instances of exactly what the feds would do: auction them off. and this is where the ultimate hypocrisy comes from all this moral and legal parsing going on about this tainting issue. when gvts believe they have the moral authority to do what's right for them and them only (auctioning and running off with the proceeds from "illegal activity") they undermine confidence in themselves from the viewpoint of the people. i know that when i see these auctions going off on SR coins or the auction the Aussie authorities are planning, i think hypocrisy, ie theft. this is why the Bitcoin community will ultimately give those tainted coins a pass and accept them in everyday trade. if the gvt can do it, so can they. this "pass" just takes time. in 2 wks, this Evo thing will have blown over. furthermore, if the community refuses to do this, it means the end of Bitcoin as what is paramount is the principle of fungibility.

Doc, please. Paragraphs. Because my eyes!

I agree BTC-E has painted themselves into a no-win corner (*checks popcorn supplies*). I share your suspicions w/r/t some 'self-help' going on. I agree there is no way to prove technically the taint.

The problems arise because people nevertheless believe, and vehemently insist, some coins are less legitimate than others. It's a social thing, the opposite of neatly provable/disprovable coin 'color.' That's why it's such a sticky mess.

My model here is diamonds. They are all made of blameless carbon. But social, market, and media pressure (sorry for pun) has created ex nihilo a de novo problem and furor over 'blood diamonds.'

There is no way to ask a diamond about its origin. So a whitelist, in the form of Happy Diamond Certification, is now in place and presumption is of guilt.

I agree a BTC whitelist is problematic and unenforceable for all manner of good reasons. But I also have full faith Statists and other do-gooders will ignore those fine reasons and proceed to blunder about with (un)pleasantly futile regulatory schemes.

"We have to make sure people don't use Conflict Coins from nasty dark markets; it's For The Children" they will undoubtedly say.

Today we have Know Your Custom, tomorrow it will mutate into Know Your Coinbase. BTC-E vs Evo is only a first skirmish, among the first drops in an oncoming monsoon.

Quote from: cypherdoc on March 22, 2015, 10:37:51 PM

Would you mind telling me exactly how, from a technical standpoint, you would even white or black list BTC?

Given that there is no such thing as a coin but just a series of inputs and outputs, what do you taint and how is that sustainably identifiable throughout the life of a "coin"?

It's not a 'what does the code output say' technical point. It's a subjective matter of he-said-she-said/who has the most juiced-up legal team.

IOW, nightmare stuff. Best to sidestep the entire tar pit by making claims of taint nigh-impossible to prove, even for TLAs.

except that blood diamonds are NOT critical for world trade as a form of money. Bitcoin, otoh, has the distinct possibility to enable frictionless payments across all borders with a strictly known and fixed supply. yes, a gvt can perform irrational tainting acts but they risk isolating themselves and cutting themselves off from what has the potential to fundamentally change commerce. which nation wants to risk that?

sure, i agree that anonymity could be better provided in the code. but is it good enough? maybe.