Every transaction is visible/traceable (assuming we are talking about transactions actually posted to the Bitcoin network), but the graph, as it were, is not so trivial as you have to take into account cases like a single transaction with multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
FWIW there are not discrete “coins” as in certain other cryptocurrencies where you charge up your smartcard or phone with tokens. (though that type of “coin” is also designed to be untraceable in a specific sense)
The point is that this would make any bitcoins acquired through crime worthless, because when you go to spend them no one will take them. Even if you’re buying something from someone else on the black market, eventually the goal is to redeem at least some of your bitcoins into USD or another currency so you can eat; so the arms dealer on the black net won’t take your tainted bitcoins either, because he can’t use them anywhere. And under this scheme, tainted bitcoins would he impossible to launder (because laundering relies on mixing illegally acquired money with legitimate money, and every bitcoin is tracked… it can’t just be mixed with other bitcoins and presented as legitimate). It would be like putting sacs of ink in stacks of bills at the bank to disincentivise robbery, if those sacks of ink were totally foolproof.
I said “enforced by publishing the illegal transactions”, which may or may not be practical, but is possible. For better or worse, the English language uses the term “bitcoin” in a very imprecise way. For example:
This is nonsense because there’s no such thing as bitcoins. Except it’s not because English uses the term bitcoin that way.
There’s no reason why the check shouldn’t be automatic, and it could be mandated by law that all transaction merchants who deal with Bitcoin must have this check in place.
What you COULD probably do is create a malicious merchant gateway that appears legitimate but in fact passes tainted bitcoins as clear, then try to fool a vendor into using that gateway, and accepting bad bitcoins in payment? I’m not sure how you’d go about doing that though. You’d need to scam the vendor into implementing your gateway, then trick them into accepting bad bitcoins.
What if someone trolled you by sending “tainted” bitcoins to your wallet, to Coinbase’s wallet, etc.? Not to mention that, according to posters above, some of this activity may be perfectly “legal” in Russia, China, who knows where.
ETA you would really have to much more specific about how your algorithm distinguishes good from bad transactions, keeping in mind the traceability problems (and eventual complicated transactions) which are under discussion in this thread.
In a process similar to personification, I think Pleonast is not speaking literally here. The point isn’t to say “Bitcoin 123456 is tainted”, not literally, because yes, there is no “Bitcoin 123456”. The point is to say “this transaction was illegal; so any transaction whose input relies on the output of this transaction is also illegal, and cannot be redeemed at any legitimate business.”
The English language may be imprecise, but I assure you that English-language legislation is very precise about terms like “possession” and “transaction”. So you’re walking back entirely from possession and leaning into “transaction”, is that the case?
If you want to kneel down in the dirt and pick semantics, notice that I did not say “Bitcoins” as a plural noun, but “22 million Bitcoin” as a collective noun. Collective nouns are referred to in the aggregate and not individually, as is my habit when speaking of Bitcoin.
However you want to slice it, there’s no logical concept of “possession of illegal Bitcoin” any more than there’s “possession of illegal dollar.” You can get in trouble for receiving illegal funds. This is not possession, because you don’t get out of trouble just by transferring the funds somewhere else. So we’ll agree that you misused the word “possession” and move on.
I’d actually call blockchain the protocol under which bitcoins are traded.
And yeah, a bitcoin is not uniquely identified. Kinda like having a pile of pennies. Each penny is not uniquely identified. What is identified is the transaction where I give a penny to you so now my pile of pennies has one less and yours has one more and the whole world agrees that it is so. Each transaction is unique and recorded and agreed upon by the network as legitimate.
I could almost buy that, except here they wrote:
Here they’re referring to Bitcoin as a singular, enduring entity, making the error of stating that they are “forever traceable”, further compounded by proposing the existence of “an illegal bitcoin.” Really sounds like they’re making the very common same mistake as multiple other people in this thread, and papering it over by saying “when I said possession I actually meant transaction.”
If that’s what we’re pretending, fine, as long as we’re finished discussing “possession of an illegal bitcoin” as a distinct thing that can be legislated.
If everyone tried to convert them to other currency all at once (let’s assume that took place over a short, but measurable span of time, rather than instantaneously), bitcoin value would crash - converting them is just selling a thing for dollars or whatever - so the first people to sell them would make the most money, and as the event rolled out, and the market reacted to the huge surplus of bitcoins for sale, the value of bitcoin would plummet to the point where it wasn’t worth selling them any more.
I think more properly stated it is possession of an illegally obtained bitcoin. Just like robbing a bank has you in possession of illegally obtained currency.
Receiving stolen goods is a crime that can encompass money, sure. There’s no reason to think existing law doesn’t classify Bitcoin as stolen goods. But here I need to note… maybe someone can correct me, but I believe US law does not prosecute mere possession of stolen money. Receiving, concealing, yes… that requires intent to be demonstrated. But AFAIK there’s no case when (for example) a pickpocket pays you $20 for your Craiglist bicycle, and then you get popped for illegal possession of $20, unless they can prove you knew it was likely stolen. Mere possession isn’t enough. It’s the act of knowingly accepting illegally gotten funds.
That’s why I take issue with “possession of a stolen Bitcoin” or for that matter “possession of a stolen dollar.” We need money-laundering statutes to prosecute the erasure of transaction history, precisely because funds themselves carry no taint. Commingling the funds makes it very difficult to prove crimes, therefore we have laws to discourage doing that. True for dollars, true for bitcoin.
Right…you “illegally obtained” the thing in question.
If you rob someone of $50 in $10 bills and then later give me change and hand me one of those $10 bills I have not illegally obtained that $10.
However, if the police find me in the process of their investigation they will take that $10 from me and return it to the original owner. I am SOL. I won’t go to jail or be prosecuted but I can lose that money even though I had nothing to do with it being stolen.
How this would be managed with bitcoin I have no idea. That could be tricky.
Hm. If the entire US debt was printed out in $100 bills, it would weigh on the order of 2,500 blue whales.
I’m honestly surprised it is not more.
As long as we’re done talking about prosecuting people for “illlegal possession of money” we can talk about whatever you want.
I actually don’t know how existing law works in that regard, but I don’t see why Bitcoin needs to be any trickier than dollars.
“Sir, through no fault of your own, you were given [thing of value] which turns out to be stolen. You now owe the injured party [a satisfactory equivalent]”
That does seem tricky, but it shouldn’t be any trickier for Bitcoin than dollars.
“I forgot my bitcoin password officer.”
Can they make me write a check to cover it instead of returning the bitcoin? No clue. And since bitcoin is volatile how much would I have to write the check for?
Like I said, tricky.
How is this any trickier than “I’m sorry, I simply spent the 20 dollars, as one does with dollars.”
I guess we can claim any amount of trickiness in a scenario where neither of us actually knows what the law is.
I propose that whatever the hook is, money is money, you’re equally on the hook no matter what form it takes.
And if somebody paid the US in real money (ones and zeros) for those bills, I guess we wouldn’t have a debt anymore?
It gets pretty philosophical if you think about it too much. A house of cards.
The tricky part is if they find where the money/bitcoin went and try to get it back from that person.
Like you stole a TV and sold it to Joe Schmo. Joe Schmo has to return the TV if the police find him. He is (for this) not guilty of anything but he has to return the TV. If Schmo wants his money back he has to sue the person who sold it to him.
At least with cash there is a physical form and/or a bank account where it resides that police can get it back from. Bitcoin can be seized but not returned unless the person who has it hands over their wallet key.