It would be funnier if the bitcoin exchanges blocked those blockchains as having been permanently compromised.
It would prevent the feds from having an incentive to seize bitcoins.
It would prevent the feds from having an incentive to seize bitcoins.
No it wouldn't. Law enforcement seizes to deprive criminals of gain from illicit activities, not to make a profit. They sell because they can.
It also wouldn't be funny. The US Marshall's service is doing what it is supposed to. If you have problems with federal law enforcement try a country that lacks a professional police force.
Genius statements like these are why I read HN!
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...
Luckily a fork of Bitcoin that included these filter mechanism is unlikely to succeed. Let's keep law enforcement on a separate layer, we didn't put it into TCP either.
Just, the exchange voluntarily deciding whether or not to accept the trade?
Or did they mean that if the coins were tracked regardless of who they were passed to or through how many people?
I don't see how a person deciding not to trade with a given address(govt), or any address that traded directly with that address(person who bought from govt), is creating any sort of infrastructure.
It could be worked around with by additional transfers of course, or just used directly to purchase things,
But in at least one similar type of thing I don't think it would inherently cause or require any harmful infrastructure/modification to infrastructure, even if it would be pointless.
Downvote all you want but you don't seem that sharp.