5 ms·

I used https://electrum.org/ https://electrum.org/ for accepting btc payments and it worked fine. The bigger issues I had that I am skeptical any self-hosted o

by itake 5y ago

I used https://electrum.org/ https://electrum.org/ for accepting btc payments and it worked fine. The bigger issues I had that I am skeptical any self-hosted options have is protecting your wallets from being poisoned by 'black' bitcoin. Coinbase (and maybe others?) keeps a blacklist of banned wallets (stolen or associated with crime or gambling[0]). If a customer pays you from a black address, you may end up poisoning your entire crypto wallet and get flagged when you try to cash out. [0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/onlinegambling/comments/kpel7x/so_i_was_just_banned_from_coinbase_now_what/ https://www.reddit.com/r/onlinegambling/comments/kpel7x/so_i...

hda2 5y ago
> poisoned by 'black' bitcoin. Can you expand further on this? Is there a public list of blacklisted addresses we can download/query? How far does the association extend for an address to be blacklisted by other entities?
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  There are not public lists, with exception of official government sanctioned addresses. Only the chain analysis companies have the (valuable) data so the future seems to be that businesses will need to pay for a subscription and share data with them, if you want to transact BTC. The algorithms are not clear either, because that information could be used by adversaries with tainted coins to try to evade detection For this reason I would suggest using btcpayserver to only accept monero, since it is fungible like cash; for other cryptocurrencies I just don't know how to check if you're dealing with sanctioned entities etc without a middleman
  - folli 5y ago
    so much for decentralization...
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      1 BTC = 1 BTC, how much USD each one is worth varies due to its inherent lack of fungibility. 1 BTC is better thought of as a booster pack of 100,000,000 NFTs.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Curious the downvotes, the thread is discussing how the prior history of a bitcoin can cause it to be worth less in some contexts. The different value of the same asset based on its history is the definition of non-fungible in the classical sense. If one satoshi can be "tainted" by its history it is not equivalent to any other satoshi. Lack of equivalence = non-fungible. Now Zcash and Monero would be fungible.
        mousepilot 5y ago
        Glad it was still dark enough to read, I had no idea some lumps of bitcoin are worth less because of a wallet they touched. Thats an incredible flaw, and really a big downside of bitcoin.
  - joshmarlow 5y ago
    I'm still wrapping my head around the concept of Coin Mixing, but I wonder how helpful that would be - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coinjoin.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coinjoin.asp
    - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
      If you accidentally accept funds linked to a sanctioned terrorist address or something, and then mix the money... I hope you have a good lawyer
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > Can you expand further on this? The bitcoin blockchain is public. This means the transaction history of every single bitcoin can be traced. It also means bitcoins are not fungible, you can tell bitcoins apart from each other. If your bitcoin has ever touched a criminal wallet, chances are it will be blacklisted. Exchanges will refuse to accept it. > Is there a public list of blacklisted addresses we can download/query? Yes. https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt It's also interesting how the US treasury tried to blacklist a Monero wallet and ended up sanctioning a transaction hash instead. > Digital Currency Address - XMR 5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320; Note the lack of a 0x prefix. Here's the transaction on a block explorer: https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320 https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207... > How far does the association extend for an address to be blacklisted by other entities? I don't know. I've seen some exchanges refuse to accept bitcoins from "unhosted" wallets, meaning they consider all non-exchange wallets to be tainted.
- Geee 5y ago
  Some exchanges have been known to blacklist addresses, because they might have to follow certain AML/ATF orders. That's also why they don't accept completely anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero at all. Legitimate merchants and users in bitcoin ecosystem should push back against overreaching censorship, and treat bitcoins as fungible commodity. Merchants and users shouldn't start censoring transactions themselves. If there's a problem at an exchange, it should be boycotted and forced out of business. Also, if you're using Bitcoin with Lightning Network only, it's not possible to become associated with blacklisted addresses.
  - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
    >Also, if you're using Bitcoin with Lightning Network only, it's not possible to become associated with blacklisted addresses. This is not true, there are many ways to gain information on those transactions. > Some exchanges have been known to blacklist addresses, because they might have to follow certain AML/ATF orders. That's also why they don't accept completely anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero at all. It is necessary to react when you receive funds linked to illegal activity. Pretending that BTC is fungible when it is not can't change that. Accepting fungible goods like monero, cash, gold is generally legal though. So exchanges like Kraken do trade Monero but still do their due diligence on BTC transactions
foepys 5y ago
Is this for real? Do merchants really rely on some opaque third-party service to determine which accounts are able to pay? Is this third-party able to essentially blacklist aka unbank accounts at their will, without a legal appeal process? How can a system that supports this be considered better than USD or EUR?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > Is this for real? Yes. Bitcoins are not fungible. If they've been tainted by criminal transactions, they might as well be worthless. There are better coins out there that do not have this problem. Monero, for example. > Do merchants really rely on some opaque third-party service to determine which accounts are able to pay? Not if they use Monero where transaction details are simply not made public. Even if they managed to blacklist some Monero addresses, it wouldn't matter since you can just make more addresses. > Is this third-party able to essentially blacklist aka unbank accounts at their will, without a legal appeal process? Yeah. The US treasury will place some address into a database and everyone holding bitcoins that passed through that address will instantly be made poorer. https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt Monero is apparently able to subvert these sanctions. The link above also shows the US treasury failing to sanction a Monero address. > Digital Currency Address - XMR 5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320; Note the lack of a 0x prefix. That's not a wallet. It's a transaction identifier. Here's the transaction on a block explorer: https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320 https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207... Pretty awesome. > How can a system that supports this be considered better than USD or EUR? It can't. Bitcoin is a failure. The fact it's still number one in the market is proof of how irrational it is.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  because it s not better. it's overrun by speculators who failed in fiat-world. Unless we see a breakthrough implementation or application that solves the problem of financialization of crypto progress will be stunted
krageon 5y ago
> poisoning Did something apocalyptic happen to the many coin mixing services around?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Yes. They don't work. The fact you used them at all is used as evidence against you. If your coins ever touch a mixing service, exchanges will assume you're a money launderer and refuse your coins. You can't cash out. Privacy cannot ever be optional. If it is, most people will not take that option simply because it's not the default. Then everyone who does will stand out.
  - krageon 5y ago
    It's possible that this has changed very recently, but this has not been my experience so far.

by itake 5y ago

hda2 5y ago

> poisoned by 'black' bitcoin. Can you expand further on this? Is there a public list of blacklisted addresses we can download/query? How far does the association extend for an address to be blacklisted by other entities?

ajkdhcb2 5y ago
There are not public lists, with exception of official government sanctioned addresses. Only the chain analysis companies have the (valuable) data so the future seems to be that businesses will need to pay for a subscription and share data with them, if you want to transact BTC. The algorithms are not clear either, because that information could be used by adversaries with tainted coins to try to evade detection For this reason I would suggest using btcpayserver to only accept monero, since it is fungible like cash; for other cryptocurrencies I just don't know how to check if you're dealing with sanctioned entities etc without a middleman
- folli 5y ago
  so much for decentralization...
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    1 BTC = 1 BTC, how much USD each one is worth varies due to its inherent lack of fungibility. 1 BTC is better thought of as a booster pack of 100,000,000 NFTs.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Curious the downvotes, the thread is discussing how the prior history of a bitcoin can cause it to be worth less in some contexts. The different value of the same asset based on its history is the definition of non-fungible in the classical sense. If one satoshi can be "tainted" by its history it is not equivalent to any other satoshi. Lack of equivalence = non-fungible. Now Zcash and Monero would be fungible.
      - mousepilot 5y ago
        Glad it was still dark enough to read, I had no idea some lumps of bitcoin are worth less because of a wallet they touched. Thats an incredible flaw, and really a big downside of bitcoin.
- joshmarlow 5y ago
  I'm still wrapping my head around the concept of Coin Mixing, but I wonder how helpful that would be - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coinjoin.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coinjoin.asp
  - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
    If you accidentally accept funds linked to a sanctioned terrorist address or something, and then mix the money... I hope you have a good lawyer
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Can you expand further on this? The bitcoin blockchain is public. This means the transaction history of every single bitcoin can be traced. It also means bitcoins are not fungible, you can tell bitcoins apart from each other. If your bitcoin has ever touched a criminal wallet, chances are it will be blacklisted. Exchanges will refuse to accept it. > Is there a public list of blacklisted addresses we can download/query? Yes. https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt It's also interesting how the US treasury tried to blacklist a Monero wallet and ended up sanctioning a transaction hash instead. > Digital Currency Address - XMR 5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320; Note the lack of a 0x prefix. Here's the transaction on a block explorer: https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320 https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207... > How far does the association extend for an address to be blacklisted by other entities? I don't know. I've seen some exchanges refuse to accept bitcoins from "unhosted" wallets, meaning they consider all non-exchange wallets to be tainted.
Geee 5y ago
Some exchanges have been known to blacklist addresses, because they might have to follow certain AML/ATF orders. That's also why they don't accept completely anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero at all. Legitimate merchants and users in bitcoin ecosystem should push back against overreaching censorship, and treat bitcoins as fungible commodity. Merchants and users shouldn't start censoring transactions themselves. If there's a problem at an exchange, it should be boycotted and forced out of business. Also, if you're using Bitcoin with Lightning Network only, it's not possible to become associated with blacklisted addresses.
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  >Also, if you're using Bitcoin with Lightning Network only, it's not possible to become associated with blacklisted addresses. This is not true, there are many ways to gain information on those transactions. > Some exchanges have been known to blacklist addresses, because they might have to follow certain AML/ATF orders. That's also why they don't accept completely anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero at all. It is necessary to react when you receive funds linked to illegal activity. Pretending that BTC is fungible when it is not can't change that. Accepting fungible goods like monero, cash, gold is generally legal though. So exchanges like Kraken do trade Monero but still do their due diligence on BTC transactions

foepys 5y ago

Is this for real? Do merchants really rely on some opaque third-party service to determine which accounts are able to pay? Is this third-party able to essentially blacklist aka unbank accounts at their will, without a legal appeal process? How can a system that supports this be considered better than USD or EUR?

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Is this for real? Yes. Bitcoins are not fungible. If they've been tainted by criminal transactions, they might as well be worthless. There are better coins out there that do not have this problem. Monero, for example. > Do merchants really rely on some opaque third-party service to determine which accounts are able to pay? Not if they use Monero where transaction details are simply not made public. Even if they managed to blacklist some Monero addresses, it wouldn't matter since you can just make more addresses. > Is this third-party able to essentially blacklist aka unbank accounts at their will, without a legal appeal process? Yeah. The US treasury will place some address into a database and everyone holding bitcoins that passed through that address will instantly be made poorer. https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt Monero is apparently able to subvert these sanctions. The link above also shows the US treasury failing to sanction a Monero address. > Digital Currency Address - XMR 5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320; Note the lack of a 0x prefix. That's not a wallet. It's a transaction identifier. Here's the transaction on a block explorer: https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207887e2af87322c651ea1a873c5b25b7ffae456c320 https://localmonero.co/blocks/search/5be5543ff73456ab9f2d207... Pretty awesome. > How can a system that supports this be considered better than USD or EUR? It can't. Bitcoin is a failure. The fact it's still number one in the market is proof of how irrational it is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cblconfederate 5y ago
because it s not better. it's overrun by speculators who failed in fiat-world. Unless we see a breakthrough implementation or application that solves the problem of financialization of crypto progress will be stunted

krageon 5y ago

> poisoning Did something apocalyptic happen to the many coin mixing services around?

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yes. They don't work. The fact you used them at all is used as evidence against you. If your coins ever touch a mixing service, exchanges will assume you're a money launderer and refuse your coins. You can't cash out. Privacy cannot ever be optional. If it is, most people will not take that option simply because it's not the default. Then everyone who does will stand out.
- krageon 5y ago
  It's possible that this has changed very recently, but this has not been my experience so far.