Re: CoinValidation , will it work? The way to "sanitize" bitcoin !
It all started with :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/
And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0
Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.
I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full know your customer compliance suite. "
From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.
So , Walmart is announcing:
"We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"
Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,
1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.
2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins , from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"
The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"
And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are (
) not forced to enroll.
And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/
And next moment we have the reactions :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=332918.0
Well , I went to :
https://coinvalidation.com/ , downloaded the pdf, for users , saw page with 3 rows and 100 words and nothing solid.
I think that we're got the wrong impression here. I saw the word "addresses" to many times in the forbes article and then this paragraph in the pdf files:
"We have developed tools and relationships that provide Bitcoin businesses with a full know your customer compliance suite. "
From my point of view I think the word Coin is misleading. My opinion is that the project is aimed at the addresses.
And I see a way it might actually work , but first let's assume those guys have a plan , and they have an ace in their hand.
Something like a big company wanting to start accepting bitcoins but concerned about the mess around it.
So , Walmart is announcing:
"We accept bitcoins""From cointrusted addresses only"
Most of the people will jump in ,and how can I get and use a cointrusted address?
It's simple ,
1) Go to any trusted exchangers , verify your identity and buy bitcoins which will be sent to a new address you specify
The address has to have a 0 balance and no previous history.
2) Now , you can go to Walmart and buy with bitcoins , from that address , because Walmart has a white list common with those exchangers and only people on that list can make purchases.
Nothing new from "we only accept Visa and Mastercard , not AE"
The results will be something like:
-Walmart knows that you are a verified customers (they can have your id)
-People when exchanging bitcoins know that this guy has some verified papers.
-You know that you actually have some kind of ownership on that address and can prove in court that "You John , on 11/1/12013 sent to Michael 245 Bitcoins"
And on the surface everybody is happy , right?
People who don't want to enroll , are (
) not forced to enroll.And I have that BIGGGG feeling I'm missing something right?
Here's the bit you're missing. Let's say I want to buy stuff at Walmart, like you say, and I already have bitcoins. So my only option is to go to a "trusted" exchange and get their trusted bitcoins sent to my new trusted address... but will that exchange accept my (not yet) trusted bitcoins? Will they take them at all, will they charge me a premium for taking them?
Go through the same process with dollars. Let's say governments around the world institute a policy that from now on they'll only allow "clean" dollars to be transacted (for argument's sake, let's say dollars that have never touched cocaine). You have instantly created two "classes" of dollars. To shift the argument from coins to wallets is just slightly moving the goalposts.
The good news is that it's never going to work for a number of reasons:
1) There are already almost 12 million BTC out there, chances are all or some contain at least some smidgeon of taintiness.
2) There are way too many addresses.
3) There are way too many ways of getting the coins to the addresses.
4) China doesn't give a damn... Germany doesn't either... neither does Canada... or Iceland...
5) The people who are behind this impetus to "clean" Bitcoin are arguably not precisely pristine themselves... all sorts of hilarity will follow.
They don't want banking secrecy because that fuels corruption. So I actually understand the argument. How effective would an organization such as Wikileaks be if they could not follow the money? How could law enforcement actually investigate on the evidence given to them from Wikileaks if there were no money trail?
But you're right that the idea of trying to separate into clean and dirty Bitcoins is unacceptable. The coins should not be tainted. If there are bad actors then investigate the bad actors and not the coins.
But should we have to go through a security check to cross the street? I don't think so. But if we get on a plane of course we have to go through a security check. So there is a balance that is missing here. You need the ability to check and investigate without requiring people get a digital ID card to access their money.
The idea of having to identify yourself is as stupid as the whole force people to get ID to access the Internet. The Internet ID card is a horrible idea and this idea is horrible if it's implemented like that. If you're trying to do something legitimate and move a lot of money into it then there should be a background check and part of that would include verification in my opinion. But once you do get verified you should be able to attach that to any of your aliases with complete privacy. The company that verified you does not have to keep track of all your aliases to know that those aliases belong to a verified individual. That is my point. You can be verified but also have pseudo-anonymity where even the database owner doesn't know which aliases belong to whom.
Do it like that and you can have privacy while also allowing people to be verified. It's not all that different from age verification on websites. A particular forum does not have to know your identity, but once you are verified as being over 18 then all websites would accept your verified pseudo-nyms without having to know any detail about you other than you passed the verification check and were cleared to enter.