reply on: Where are the tainted sats? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

133 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby OP 12 Jul \ on: Where are the tainted sats? bitcoin

With traditional bank accounts, I suppose the answer would be the whole account is tainted.

But with bitcoin's finite supply, doesn't this mean that before too long every utxo will be in an address on ofac's sanction list?

(If one tainted input means all outputs become tainted, the percent of utxos that are tainted will continually increase. It's contagious, like a disease or something, but no one ever gets cured)

193 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Jul

taint them all

84 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 12 Jul

I was just typing this in reply to your comment above:

It would seem to be our duty then to combine tainted inputs with as many outputs as possible.

We should make something like the ordinal people use, but for finding sanctioned utxos so that we can try to spend them as widely as possible.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12 Jul

You should be more worried about the dust attacks not the "sanctioned sats". It all goes to the simple question that seems nobody ask: "Who the fuck is the gov to tell me what can I do or not with my own money?"

17 sats \ 3 replies \ @falsefaucet 13 Jul

🌀

22 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xIlmari 13 Jul

That doesn't solve the "problem", just obscures the real beneficiary of a transaction.

You can still "taint" all outputs from a CoinJoin that included a "tainted" input. In fact, mixers make the "taint" spread that much faster.

So just screw the whole concept.

17 sats \ 1 reply \ @falsefaucet 13 Jul

My point is if you Whirlpool/mix, everything becomes tainted. And then there is no 'tainted'

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 13 Jul

There is just corn