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
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABC7B486
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:56:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148098.authsmtp.com (outmail148098.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.98])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1B712E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:56:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NAucRd034946;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:56:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5NAuX9h076142
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:56:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83DA54010E;
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:54:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 6C30520217; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:56:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:56:32 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Justin Newton <justin@netki.com>
Message-ID: <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAJowKg+zYtUnHv+ea--srehVa5K46sjpWbHVcVGRY5x0w5XRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm>
<CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABqynxJCiXL0djx+xt9i=HJqC=0=5sZ9ecL7k1_a_XHiJ8qibw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 27080f68-3931-11e6-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAEUEkAaAgsB AmAbWlVeVVt7WmY7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQAWcFlp D0YeVR9zcwcIeXpz ZkIsXHdbVEQsc05g
QUdXFHAHZDJmdTJM BBVFdwNVdQJNeEwU a1l3GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYAlL TwdFKFUITA4TBDkk QAsPEX0FPHVNSjUv
Iho9K1kaBw4NNQ0Y EGNpAQpHa3c8
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 10:56:40 -0000
--8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:14:31PM -0700, Justin Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> Hi Peter,
> Certainly AML/KYC compliance is one of the use cases that BIP 75 and o=
ur
> certificates can support. As a quick summary,
>=20
> There are individuals and entities that would like to buy, sell, and use
> bitcoin, and other public blockchains, but that have compliance
> requirements that they need to meet before they can do so. Similarly,
> companies and entrepreneurs in the space suffer under the potential threat
> of fines, or in extreme cases, jail time, also for not meeting AML or
> sanctions list compliance. We wanted to build tools that allowed
> entrepreneurs to breathe easy, while at the same time allow more people a=
nd
> companies to enter the ecosystem. We also believe that the solution we a=
re
> using has the characteristics that you want in such a solution, for examp=
le:
>=20
> 1> Only the counterparties (and possibly their service providers in the
> case of hosted services) in a transaction can see the identity data,
> protecting user privacy.
>=20
> 2> The counterparties themselves (and possibly their service providers in
> the case of hosted services) decide whether identity information is
> required for any given transaction.
>=20
> 3> No trace is left on the blockchain or anywhere else (other than with t=
he
> counterparties) that identity information was even exchanged, protecting
> fungibility
>=20
> 4> The solution is based on open source and open standards, allowing open
> permissionless innovation, versus parties building closed networks based =
on
> closed standards. The very fact that this solution went through the BIP
> process and was adapted based on feedback is an example of how this is
> better for users than the inevitable closed solution that would arise if
> the open source, community vetted version didn=E2=80=99t already exist.
>=20
> I don=E2=80=99t know if you are opposed to organizations that have AML re=
quirements
> from using the bitcoin blockchain, but if you aren=E2=80=99t, why wouldn=
=E2=80=99t you
> prefer an open source, open standards based solution to exclusionary,
> proprietary ones?
In some (most?) countries, it is illegal to offer telecoms services without
wiretap facilities. Does that mean Tor builds into its software "open sourc=
e"
"open standards" wiretapping functionality? No. And interestingly, people
trying to add support for that stuff is actually a thing that keeps happeni=
ng
in the Tor community...
In any case, I'd strongly argue that we remove BIP75 from the bips reposito=
ry,
and boycott wallets that implement it. It's bad strategy for Bitcoin develo=
pers
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 tacti=
cal
wins you'll get our of this aren't worth it.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXa8BdAAoJEGOZARBE6K+yvo4H/05eb599DjPEuI8XHMoQkWFO
97jeVUmb2z1VNAb99nM2uff/Wu3759b9jhtVAEz6PfztPQZGVq+sZNf+m7+XlNL7
BqFK+psWGXbNinsXfuYoYHc62P92vePb0l7X1uHaS8A4vlm6igCDm+rYiUCovCq5
vt+c2GrPfjgi1h9MYHEhApP3kzWegTejEW1Ud9y0iF+B/z9HGEyR/foCEybAhGH8
ckveWW9DgSeN25SsCG2uEUFyySv7KAk+NQpA82f/k7gt64rusCzWAZzQa5KwMlFM
20JYMu6jw0TpIgla8Sn/hfHeHm8zhzb8IODh2rOHSzHCCkb5ORms9pz2kLE+HXk=
=JNhK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ--
|
