"It is not up to me to determine what level of taint is/is not acceptable. That is an indvidual's choice." Very true. It may become your problem when a major exchange doesn't accept your coins though. This is my only concern. Maybe ~40000 coins are not such a big number and it will all be dilluted and go away soon to be forgotten. Once I see more threads in the forum about "MtGox froze my account and took my coins" I'd get worried though. Not for my personal risk of ever being in that position but the long-term implications for Bitcoin's reputation. I believe for it to become more than a toy for nerds, it will have to grow slowly in popularity. I doubt it will if things get too complicated or there is even a risk to lose money for obtaining tainted coins.

Wish I had such an old gold coin  must surely be worth more than the gold alone.

You are exactly talking like the authoritarian politicians who are in charge in my country. They use all kind of excuses trying to approve remakably unconstitutional laws. Terrorism, black market, sexual aggressions. All are excuses in order to make laws to gain control over the citizens.

Of course you are free to accept one coin or another as you are free too to chose who you are selling things to. But bear in mind that I am free to fight to whoever claim that fungibility of money is over. And I will with all the forms this awesome money offers me.

Sorry if I'm not clear because english is not my native language.

The blockchain doesn't tell you much of anything as far as the "moral" history of a bitcoin.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you really haven't thought your position through very well.

Not every theft will be reported, and if "stolen" coins are treated differently, then many coins not stolen will be branded as such (remember allinvain? Did anyone ever even prove they were stolen for sure?  That was one widely publicized theft of the hundreds of thousands that have no doubt occurred).  

Who is the governing authority that makes the declaration of which coins are "dirty" or not?  What about all the other "immoral" transactions in a bitcoins history?  Who will be recording all that down so that you can devalue those coins too?  The whole thing is an exercise in futility.  At best it will be meaningless with the exception of giving you an excuse to feel morally superior.  A coin is a coin, sorry.

Really? *That* is your argument? You don’t want it to be too hard for new adopters? What about the “better security” that people have to have on their systems in order to (supposedly) prevent theft? Is that easy for new adopters?  You know what they do understand? They understand all the high profile thefts and scams that continually plague us. They understand that every time a bunch of bitcoins get stolen that the mantra is always “should’ve had better security.” They understand that not one single solitary person has ever been brought to justice for stealing or scamming bitcoins. Those are usually amongst the first things they learn about Bitcoin from the wider ‘net, long before they get to learning how to actually using it.

The absolute willingness to traffic in stolen property as well as the full throated defense against any possible action that might harm thieves or return the ill-gotten gains to their original owner is tacit approval of their actions. The continual blaming the victim mentality for all crimes also indicates approval of the criminals’ actions.


People who have adequately protected their anonymity should not be affected by enhanced scrutiny of the block chain. If they were not sufficiently protected then they should have had “better security”.
Whether or not you want to deal with purity, others will. If you choose not to perform due diligence, then you can deal with the consequences. Almost every single gas station in the US checks their bills with a counterfeit pen. Those that do not are soon out of business.


There is no centralization. Users should be free to determine if they want to deal in stolen property (and to what degree.) Transaction details of all the major thefts are widely publicized and available. There should be no central anything. The user should be the one to choose which addresses or transactions they find suspicious.
Also, Bitcoin by default is not anonymous. You have to work very hard to make it so. So hard, in fact, that you
We wouldn’t want to make it harder for new adopters now would we? That would scare them off. Or something.


Yes because they chose to get their btc stolen. Oh wait, they “should have had better security”. It’s like a Pavlovian response around here when dealing with thefts. “I feel bad and all for the victim, but really, if they just had better security, none of this would have happened.” Horseshit. There isn’t enough security out there to protect a hot wallet from a truly determined group of hackers. Not at any amount of money that normal people/businesses can afford, and probably not enough protection for those that can afford it at anything less than bank grade security (if then). So the ‘better security’ idea that continually gets pushed around here is nothing more than a canard.


As has been discussed many times, Bitcoin is not inherently anonymous. You do people a disservice by making them think so. Tracking tainted coins does not attach real names to transactions. If it did catching thieves would be easy. So please stop being disingenuous.

Perhaps services will spring up that maintain lists. The more accurate ones will largely agree with each other, inaccurate ones or ones not kept up to date will fall by the wayside. Feedback loops can be introduced for those who feel their coins are wrongly listed. In all cases the lists should be advisory with specific reasons posted for each entry, with the end user deciding whether or not they want to use the data. I have no intention of runnning such a service, but I am positive someone can make a working business model. After that, let the market decide. Will people try to spam/abuse such services? Absolutely. That's why the good ones that can effectively filter and correctly identify suspect transactions will succeed, and the other ones will fail.


Because the standard line is "Should've had more security" and then everybody goes on like nothing happened. Ho-hum, another large theft, wasn't my coins, you just should've had better security bro. It's your fault the coins were stolen, b/c you didn't have better security. Sorry about your loss. And now I will completely ignore where those coins went and look the other way as the thief sends me those stolen coins for whatever good/service I am selling.

People use the 'better security' excuse as a cop-out. It lets them place full blame on the victim while letting the thief get away scott-free. Letting the thief spend their coins wherever they want is fencing stolen goods and tacit approval of the theft. And the 'a coin is a coin' thing is also a moral cop out. If Al-Qaeda bought a backpack nuke w/ bitcoins and used it, I damn sure wouldn't use any of those coins. I can't speak for anyone else's conscience, but I can speak for mine.


You can have the same potential abuse with cash, and banks will absolutely blacklist serial #'s they know were stolen. The quick answer is only do business with trusted parties. We can sit here and make conjectures about "If x, y, and z conditions are all fulfilled, then some innocent person will get hurt." People are going to get hurt regardless of what you do or do not do. Blacklists help make sure less people overall get hurt. Removing profit incentive from thefts will greatly lower the rate of thefts. Of course thieves will attempt to find a way to make their thefts profitable even quicker, but it will help deter most large thefts (unless those are just being done maliciously).


It is this attitude that will relegate Bitcoin to being nothing more than a marginalized hacker currency. Only those who can deploy large byzantine security solutions should be able to have bitcoins without fear of them being stolen.  Any security a user can implement can be overcome by a determined enough person or group. And most security isn't going to help if someone knowledgeable has physical access to your server (*cough* datacenter employees *cough*) --but TPM looks interesting. Of course this does not mean that security should be forsaken entirely, but neither is it the end-all be-all everyone tries to make it. Good security + blacklists can do a lot to cut down on theft.

Also, precisely what advantages of Bitcoin are being given up here? Being easily stolen and fenced? I don't expect Bitcoin to ever be the world's reserve currency either, or even 1% of US GDP, but the perception out there is that Bitcoin is the currency of choice for thieves, drug dealers, gun runners, and all other sorts of ne'er do wells. I am quite frankly surprised they haven't thrown child pr0n at us yet. Every large scale theft that hits the news reinforces that opinion of us. Which sucks b/c this technology has the chance to be so much more.

to holiday and kjj, generally I think holiday is thinking along the correct path for the future of BTC and kjj has single-handedly converted me to multisig. But consider this, the largest hacks have occurred via online services and exchanges. These have shown fundamental flaws in security and their resolution has strengthened BTC. However no-one has any real idea who perpetrated these acts and there effect was to undermine confidence in BTC. If they are thieves there is nothing practical we can do if we want to maintain anonymity (I think that is essential to safeguard the individuals freedom in finance). If they are agents of an existing authoritarian agency they will be UPSET that the attack did not greatly undermine BTC prices. Adopting similar systems of control and monitoring that exist in fiat currencies plays into their hands and should be avoided.  BTC will be fine if users adopt appropriate strategies 1) do your best to secure and diversify your own BTC's. 2) avoid exchanges that control you or your funds. 3)sleep with both eyes open.  reg.

I tried that but then I was so tired I fell asleep during the day and got robbed.

I'm not saying forego personal security and rely solely on a blacklist. There is no reason you can't do both. A blacklist is also proactive in that it removes much of the profit motive from theft. As an anaolgy, an off duty cop in a bank lobby is both proactive and reactive. He will help deter most casual bank robbers, but he is there to respond against determined attackers. Security is never 100% effective, somebody will always find an exploit. And in Bitcoin world this means the victim will be blamed for not having enough personal responsibility to get better security.


They don't always know , but if they just got a shipment of new bills in, they do. Also in the event of a ransom situation they always write down the serial numbers. A better analogy would be the way the US system handles counterfeit notes. Merchants check most bills they get and any that fail the pen test are refused. If any get through and the merchant tries to deposit them, the bank confiscates them and they are a loss on the business for not doing its due dilligence. The same thing if a person tries to deposit them into their personal account. A blacklist for stolen coins would pretty much be the same thing. Failing to check for validity is not the fault of the bank(exchange), but that of the business/end user. Especially since it can be seamlessly integrated into the client. And before the peanut gallery chimes in, yes I know bitcoins can't be counterfeited.


Meaning use a system like bitcoin-otc or somesuch. While I have never been there I would be extremely shocked if SR didn't have at least some kind of informal trust system. So if you are doing business with people that have no references anywhere, then don't be surprised if those transactions don't always turn out satisfactorily. Also, how does your purchaser know that you just didn't steal the gold that you are selling to him, or that you will even send him that gold?


There is a black market for counterfeit US bills too, ones that no bank will take, drug dealers will etc etc. Not so different. I hate to keep going back to that analogy but it is pretty apt.

Is that the only reason for people to use Bitcoin? If so, then we just need to stop wasting resources on trying to get any normal users to start using Bitcoin. Because whether or not it is true, the public perception is that if you need 100% financial privacy, it is usually for something illegal.


Awesome. If it is all beta software, then there is no harm in trying out a blacklist feature. If it works, great! If not, well its just beta software and we'll drop that feature in the next revision (and yes I already use Armory)


Multi-sig is definitely a huge step in the right direction. Most users don't have access to a secure offline computer to sign all of their transactions though. Is there a solution that would have helped Slush or Zhou out? Meaning multi-sig with businesses that need to do instant payouts. And yes, I know Zhou really did need 'better security' in the 1st place.


How? Nothing new is in the block chain that wasn't already there. If this stripped anonymity then it could be used to identify thieves, but it cannot. If your transactions were private before, they still are. Enhanced scrutiny of the block chain does not change this. If your transactions cannot bear close examination via the block chain, then you never were private.