121–126 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if OP_CHECKDATASIG is beneficial btc can implement it
With Bitcoin's history of extreme hardfork aversion, it's not that simple. In theory you're right, but in practice it's much harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Bitcoin's history of extreme hardfork aversion, it's not that simple. In theory you're right, but in practice it's much harder.
You should be able to add an optional functionality w/o a hardfork yes?
There already is such tracking going on, exchanges do freeze balances sometimes. The problem is that if the stolen coin gets traded before exchanges can freeze them you wind up with a lot of innocent people holding those coins and it's not practical to freeze those later. Consider these two scenarios: A stolen bike vs a stolen sack of coffee. In the case of the bike, if you can find it you can take it back from someo…
You said "Bitcoin works like the coffee example not the bike." after "Now you can't identify your distinct stolen coffee anymore." But you can identify distinct stolen/tainted Bitcoin. Just like you can identify distinct stolen banknotes. The difference (according to the article) is that banknotes have special legal status meaning that they're effectively fungible after being spent.
Not at all. You can merge stolen bitcoin with "clean" bitcoin. You can not do that with banknotes.
If you give someone two $10 bills those don't magically turn into a $20. That does happen with Bitcoin though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said "Bitcoin works like the coffee example not the bike." after "Now you can't identify your distinct stolen coffee anymore." But you can identify distinct stolen/tainted Bitcoin. Just like you can identify distinct stolen banknotes. The difference (according to the article) is that banknotes have special legal status meaning that they're effectively fungible after being spent.
We should also carefully distinguish: * Bitcoin proponents desire that bitcoin work like the earlier currency example, where an innocent actor who receives stolen currency at part of some transaction for a good or service is protected from having to return those bitcoin. * Whether an innocent actor in that position is in fact liable or protected in that scenario is fundamentally up to the state(s) involved and their…
>I postulate that few if any states will see any advantage in granting that kind of protection to bitcoin transactions, as states have incentives to ensure their own currencies can be transacted without rigorous detective work, and do not have these same incentives with bitcoin.
Usually these principles apply to all currency, not just the states "own" currency. Why would states need to grant such protection to bitcoin transactions, as opposed to taking away such protection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pawn shops hold the goods they purchased for 30 days to give time for someone to make a claim against them as property that was stolen from them. (This is my experience in Canada anyway.) In theory, exchanges could do the same thing for deposits above a certain amount, but this would presumably hurt their business the way things work right now.
Don't pawn shops hold items because they are essentially lending money with the item as collateral. They don't sell the items right away because the person that sold them to the pawn shop has the right to repay the loan and reclaim the item within a certain period of time.
There already is such tracking going on, exchanges do freeze balances sometimes. The problem is that if the stolen coin gets traded before exchanges can freeze them you wind up with a lot of innocent people holding those coins and it's not practical to freeze those later. Consider these two scenarios: A stolen bike vs a stolen sack of coffee. In the case of the bike, if you can find it you can take it back from someo…