I still have not yet read the code but my first reaction is to laugh.

The MIT people are not idiots and although they have to speak in terms
of monotonous regulatory compliance, I suspect that the bitcoin exchanges
dream of a better tomorrow. In my analysis, the government people who are
too fearful and shortsighted to recognize the ugly and obsolete mess of a
system they administer will also fail to recognize the coming together of
all the pieces necessary for a self-governing world without them.

Keep howling so they don't get too suspicious but ready the popcorn


On 10/24/2014 02:13 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> yeah from the way they're talking in that text, they even want to help
> make this possible "for the greater good" (to use their words).
>
> On 10/24/2014 11:01 AM, Kyle Torpey wrote:
>> We definitely still need to remain vigilant when it comes to how
>> governments will try to use these new identity systems in an Orwellian
>> way. There is no doubt in my mind that politicians will soon be
>> claiming that merchants may only accept payments from verified
>> addresses. In fact, a softer version of this is already implemented at
>> Coinbase and Circle. I imagine they'll eventually be forced to block
>> transactions from unverified bitcoin addresses. In fact, Coinbase
>> blocks Tor, which means you cannot use their services anonymously.
>>
>> This is why supporting open-source bitcoin projects is a much better
>> course of action than supporting bitcoin companies. This is why I
>> think you guys are doing an awesome service to humanity with Dark
>> Wallet. Also a great reason for Monetas to be based in Switzerland :)
>>
>> Anyway, as I alluded to above, it seems that the real battleground
>> will be how often governments try to force people to use PII-connected
>> digital identities. For now, it seems that regulators in the US are
>> sticking with forcing KYC/AML on exchanges. bitcoin banks, etc.
>> Definitely need to watch for the point where they want to force
>> merchants to only accepted payments from validated bitcoin addresses.
>>
>> -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
>>
>> On 10/23/2014 11:38 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>> Thanks Kyle, an identity system is indeed very useful and an
>>> important component to have for future Bitcoin. My concern is the
>>> type of reasoning they are employing for their decision making, and
>>> the talk of self-regulating gatekeepers.
>>
>>> On 10/23/2014 07:37 PM, Kyle Torpey wrote:
>>>> I've reached out to a few of the entities listed as supporters of
>>>> the Windhover Principles for clarification on the AML/KYC points.
>>>> The original guidelines actually seem quite good:
>>>> https://idcubed.org/home_page_feature/the-windhover-transition/
>>>>
>>>> It seems that they're interested in creating a general online
>>>> identity/reputation system. This isn't bad at all. We're using
>>>> digital identities in this mailing list right now. Obviously,
>>>> governments can use this system to tack a social security number
>>>> or some other sort of PII to a digital ID. Having said that,
>>>> there's nothing to prevent from individuals also having
>>>> pseudonymous IDs in the same system.
>>>>
>>>> I'm reaching out to ID3 for further clarification, but it really
>>>> just seems like the inevitable blockchain reputation system that
>>>> was going to be created by someone someday anyway. Seems quite
>>>> similar to Namecoin. Any online reputation system would
>>>> eventually be corrupted by governments for the purposes of tying
>>>> real-world identities to IDs in certain situations.
>>>>
>>>> -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2014 07:17 PM, odinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Julia Tourianski wrote:
>>>>>> can someone please use ripple's code to build something
>>>>>> sinister. then the regulators or banks wont want anything to
>>>>>> do with them.
>>>>
>>>>> Julia, and everyone else Unsystem: This identity bit is
>>>>> clearly something that's been silently in the works for a while
>>>>> - and I believe those companies have been pressured to adopt
>>>>> something like the Windhover proposal for some time (and in
>>>>> light of TISA and FATCA deadlines coming up, some of the
>>>>> companies may have agreed to comply with identity-oriented
>>>>> regulation for fear of having their domains seized, which has
>>>>> happened before).
>>>>
>>>>> We must deal with this like the community dealt with
>>>>> CoinValidation - (which we defeated successfully, by garnering
>>>>> support for CoinJoin):
>>>>
>>>>> [[[ We must kill the Windhover Principles with fire ~ ]]]
>>>>
>>>>> [[[ by creating software-based solutions which ensure that
>>>>> there will be an alternative rooted in anonymity and to ensure
>>>>> that there will never be consensus favoring Windhover proposals
>>>>> (whether amongst miners, end users, and anyone else). ]]]
>>>>
>>>>> This is part of why I make such a big noise about migrating
>>>>> business models away from websites and getting it really
>>>>> decentralized (or if remaining with server-and-website model,
>>>>> implementing zero knowledge privacy so that you know nothing
>>>>> about the person using your service). Unfortunately, very few
>>>>> companies even grasp what zero knowledge privacy is, and fewer
>>>>> still are willing to implement it.
>>>>
>>>>> But perhaps I was wrong to suggest that this
>>>>> regulation-coupled-with-decentralized-identity thing has been
>>>>> altogether a silent and secretive effort -- for as I've
>>>>> pointed out recently on a different list, the three letter
>>>>> agencies and their corporate shills have been trying very hard
>>>>> to keep certain types of crypto from being used in WebCrypto -
>>>>> namely, a curve used in bitcoin, and another that is used in
>>>>> BCN (schnorr ring sig, etc) called curve25519, which is also
>>>>> used in a nearly uncountable number of software applications
>>>>> already (even in Apple and Chromium worldwide distributions):
>>>>> https://cpunks.org//pipermail/cypherpunks/2014-October/005721.html
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> This matter of the WebCrypto bit that I brought up on cypherpunks
>>>>> has not only implications for the use of crypto that is common
>>>>> in decentralized systems, but as well I believe that the
>>>>> attempt of some people in the working groups to carry it to
>>>>> last call without bringing the curves into definitions, was
>>>>> timed to try to frustrate implementation of decentralized
>>>>> identity that would not be tied to regulatory proposals.
>>>>> However, the WebCrypto issue (thanks to eyes on it from
>>>>> @puellavulnerate and others, has largely been resolved as of
>>>>> today: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618#c62
>>>>> (with some minor details left to be worked out). The main thing
>>>>> was to keep NSA people from delaying incorporation of needed
>>>>> curves in WebCrypto API and to raise the issue about the NSA's
>>>>> presence at CFRG. That's all done. I don't feel a need to
>>>>> shove that back into the socmedia sphere again, personally.
>>>>
>>>>> One of the first things we need to do is resolve to close our
>>>>> accounts for any companies that back the Windhover Principles,
>>>>> as I've suggested here:
>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/525051241286475776
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've also pointed out in recent days that FATCA and TISA alone
>>>>> are reason enough to bail out of web-based wallets and
>>>>> exchanges that are subject to influence from institutions that
>>>>> have to deal with these extremely oppressive laws:
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524786163916087296
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524787141084061696 "You
>>>>> Have Been Warned:"
>>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524792838723104768
>>>>
>>>>> (I should note that I did get a favorable response back from
>>>>> Coinkite's CEO on the matter...)
>>>>> https://twitter.com/nvk/status/524664009434619904
>>>>
>>>>> I realize that Windhover Principles are backed at this point
>>>>> over 21 organizations and growing, including BitPay(!). I was
>>>>> pleased with BitPay's decision to develop CoPay, a multisig
>>>>> wallet one could have direct control over and run from browser,
>>>>> and I am stoked about 37Coins approach of bringing bitcoin to
>>>>> the masses through text-based solution on not-smart phones, but
>>>>> these companies and others have chosen a course that we cannot
>>>>> follow - they have chosen to back Windhover. I cannot support
>>>>> them in any way in their endeavor, but I do suggest that to the
>>>>> extent they have open source code (as both above examples do)
>>>>> that we use their code to do better things with than they can.
>>>>> For example, we can use 37coins' code to make lightweight
>>>>> versions of things that will have greater privacy protections
>>>>> and that won't ever require that identities you use in tandem
>>>>> with the applications/implementations be "lawful" or
>>>>> "compliant."
>>>>
>>>>> I can't accept any regulatory organization serving whether
>>>>> directly or indirectly as some kind of Sharia court over our
>>>>> identities or regulating what they are or how data will be
>>>>> managed in the context of my authentication with sites or in
>>>>> fact with anything at all. Not even slightly. We're supposed
>>>>> to be building a way out of the corporation-state controlled ID
>>>>> morass - identifying us in any way, shape or form within the
>>>>> context of regulation is the whole basis for how societies have
>>>>> been enslaved. We have a better way now, and a chance to build
>>>>> something new that serves all facets of identity while freeing
>>>>> them from any regulatory controls or mandates whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>> I have a discussion started around this topic here:
>>>>
>>>>> https://forum.unsystem.net/t/interoperability-and-trans-identical-identity-decentralization-proposals-thoughts-for-review/333
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> If you would like, please add your thoughts there for further
>>>>> technical development of alternative, trans-identical
>>>>> proposals. I must state, however, that while I do have an open
>>>>> mind on the subject of how people manage their identities, I do
>>>>> not want to be part of anything that would involve regulation
>>>>> or law in the context of bit-identity or trans-identical
>>>>> proposals. I have chosen a fork in the road.
>>>>
>>>>> "Two paths diverged in a wood, and I... I took the one less
>>>>> traveled by... and that has made all the difference."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Respect, Odinn
>>>>
>>>>> https://keybase.io/odinn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
>>>>>> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Julia Tourianski <
>>>>>> juliatourianski@???> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gifford added that the project, if successful, could
>>>>>>> demonstrate how regulators and innovators can
>>>>>>> collaboratively address issues for the greater global
>>>>>>> good."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.coindesk.com/20-bitcoin-companies-backing-new-deal-digital-identity/?utm_content=buffer9043b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> :|
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
>>>>>>> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization
>>>>> and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
>>>>> https://keybase.io/odinn
>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>>> list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>