Quote from: niothor on November 14, 2013, 12:59:01 PM

Quote from: Piper67 on November 14, 2013, 12:50:21 PM

Quote from: niothor on November 14, 2013, 09:22:05 AM

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 ( Huh

) 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.

Of course they will accept your previously non verified bitcoins form an unknown address because you'll have to provide papers when you do the exchange ... nothing new from how thing are going

1) a paper bill was used to pay a criminal , after 20 years i'm paid with that bill , it it tainted? am i going to jail?
this kind of regulation has nothing to to with the bitcoins , but with the account

2) accept from x , deny from rest , numbers don't matter to such a system (just like the .htaccess ip filter)

3) i'm not getting what you want to say Cheesy

4) have you as asked them ?

5) that is for certain.

If the bad actor is being investigated then the people investigating the bad actor need a way to clear everyone who is not that specific bad actor. I need a way to allow them to check to see that I'm not a bad actor.

But I don't want to have to be continuously checked over and over. There should be a way for me to claim my addresses and my coins with a digital signature representing me if there is a problem. Once that digital signature is recognized as matching an identity of a person who is cleared for access then I should be left alone.

The majority of people should have no problem at all and shouldn't be flagged. The people who scammed people out of thousands of coins, honestly if they get flagged and asked to verify their identity that might be a good thing.