1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
|
Return-Path: <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC006258
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:55:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:40 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com
[162.222.225.12])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 207FB306
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:55:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (unknown [178.162.216.42])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: s7r@sky-ip.org)
by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A03581A1490
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:46:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky-ip.org;
s=20110108; t=1466714814;
bh=HceJa1mEJSkS32EbNI7yLmLdHlGbsNIi/JROXdy7So4=;
h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To;
b=RjicYOugd9kvcQAQNafE87/PL+3I0WKRp+w80VXlS5K5Ge8u521wjrrtqtp3jLdsU
0sReSrVr+aFheELlo4VV1w9lGo8xdb1/i4men29ItOiB8zhsWxrIWWMrEfT8mx35fI
cLNm0U9pwrDrzAkjW/oiDtVxysZ6hTDvY777RNDE=
Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
<CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
<20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Message-ID: <ebfa5034-827d-00a6-c285-dab30aa3e9c8@sky-ip.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:46:46 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="ktSsH94OaJo4H9QcUmBHqom39MLwUQx5G"
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=fql8HAMf c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=Hb/ANcmb7BuxME6Ychsu1w==:117 a=Hb/ANcmb7BuxME6Ychsu1w==:17
a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10
a=13zjGPudsaEWiJwPRgMA:9 a=WbPmnYzAfxEA:10 a=VskRkhX-lmy15iqzw8YA:9
a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=4YXU7rBLmdnSP09HmHoA:9
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:55:40 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ktSsH94OaJo4H9QcUmBHqom39MLwUQx5G
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="L2CDINbqVelmrhQCEqbAp7q5UHNWe1OEb"
From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org>
Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <ebfa5034-827d-00a6-c285-dab30aa3e9c8@sky-ip.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
<CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
<20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
In-Reply-To: <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
--L2CDINbqVelmrhQCEqbAp7q5UHNWe1OEb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 6/23/2016 1:56 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> I don=92t know if you are opposed to organizations that have AML requi=
rements
>> from using the bitcoin blockchain, but if you aren=92t, why wouldn=92t=
you
>> prefer an open source, open standards based solution to exclusionary,
>> proprietary ones?
>=20
> In some (most?) countries, it is illegal to offer telecoms services wit=
hout
> wiretap facilities. Does that mean Tor builds into its software "open s=
ource"
> "open standards" wiretapping functionality? No. And interestingly, peop=
le
> trying to add support for that stuff is actually a thing that keeps hap=
pening
> in the Tor community...
>=20
> In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips repo=
sitory,
> and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin de=
velopers
> to willingly participate in AML/KYC, just the same way as it's bad for =
Tor to
> add wiretapping functionality, and W3C to support DRM tech. The minor t=
actical
> wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.
>=20
Exactly!
Totally agree with Peter Todd. There's absolutely no gain for Bitcoin to
willingly participate in AML/KYC. Plus this might come with strings
attached: for example when running a Tor relay in some countries if you
interfere with the traffic (censor, limit, filter, etc.) you become
responsible for it, while when you only relay anonymous traffic without
interfering or having the possibility to do so (installing certain
tools, using a modified Tor which allows you to do so, etc.) you cannot
be held responsible for the traffic.
Any kind of built-in AML/KYC tools in Bitcoin is bad, and might draw
expectations from _all_ users from authorities. Companies or individuals
who want and/or need AML/KYC can find ways and do it at their side
isolated from the entire network, and the solutions shouldn't come from
upstream. AML/KYC/<insert other regulation here> differ from country to
country and will be hard to implement in a global consensus network even
if it would be worth it.
--L2CDINbqVelmrhQCEqbAp7q5UHNWe1OEb--
--ktSsH94OaJo4H9QcUmBHqom39MLwUQx5G
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXbEq5AAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRfm0H/i7T3c87zdrnw+u37Dvgf4Nx
Bkr4G8dNYjjtpzw0VvCXDiu56OCfyqoPxf8rqaS5qemaulZyfIKIB78CTD8bckoI
dG6smB+Tl28Oh4UMtFQ9DmNtNCbn2jme5F3JtXCsrchPaVX8HxFMiJZf/sciqwYt
e7Es2C5pdV4QyLg13B3bowl4HPoTuUT6rzEta8FDHG5B8egcpF8aFxOL/VE1VLRo
ielunSl/4rpyy1MFZ0vz4VxKrT7aEOBBFRhVvyjwQtbny4+ZWB3+pgEnJx6PImon
KH2Rbbdrr/ZAi9Vqsfuz+W8hNu9pnbCO0hDjQPoXY4swWV527OPOBDOo94rjex4=
=mCom
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ktSsH94OaJo4H9QcUmBHqom39MLwUQx5G--
|
