From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC006258 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> <20160623105632.GB19241@fedora-21-dvm> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: s7r Message-ID: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 Reply-To: s7r@sky-ip.org To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Even more proposed BIP extensions to BIP 0070 References: <20160621221347.GC10196@fedora-21-dvm> <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/ 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--