<p>Not really, if you start doing that then chain forks and a whole load of nasty things follow. There's no real way of blacklisting a "wallet", as by design there's no way of determining exactly the extent of the keys under control by a specific party, so for the sake of this discussion we will assume we have one blacklisted "address".  </p>

<p>Even if nodes reject transactions from specific addresses, miners can still include them in blocks without them even having to be broadcast. If some nodes decide to arbitrarily invalidate blocks with transactions they don't like, you've then got a forked network. Massive double spends occur on both forks by intentional and unintentional parties, and the network collapses in the sea of mistrust. </p>

<p>Currently, some mining nodes (like mine) specifically refuse to include transactions in blocks that come from known betting site addresses, like SatoshiDice. I however don't reject blocks that contain the transactions, or I'd be very quickly become isolated from the network. </p>

<p>You'll never get all the miners to agree with any form of blacklisting, so no, it can't technically happen.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T14:51:05.347Z
You don't need all the miners, just a majority.  And currently the majority of hash capacity is controlled by just two guilds (see [here](http://blockchain.info/pools)).  If they agreed to reject all blocks containing such transactions, that's what would happen.
Nate Eldredge
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-06T03:59:36.457Z
Which is why `p2pool` is important.
Anonymous
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T08:53:16.130Z
2013-10-05T08:58:48.267Z
2013-10-05T08:58:48.267Z
Anonymous
<p>Bitcoin is supposed to be an apolitical currency, but the United States <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/how-the-feds-took-down-the-dread-pirate-roberts/">reportedly</a> gained some leverage by amassing <a href="https://blockchain.info/address/1F1tAaz5x1HUXrCNLbtMDqcw6o5GNn4xqX">over 27,000 bitcoins</a> &mdash; <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/internet-lobs-insults-at-fbis-silk-road-bitcoin-wallet/">and counting</a>. (People seem to be jumping at the possibility of turning bitcoin into the ultimate unmoderated facebook clone and the "content" there is what you'd expect.)</p>

<p>OTOH, this poses a practical problem for the community, because attempting to redeem this amount would probably destroy the currency's market value.</p>

<p>Now, in the marvellous world of atomic hat-based TF2 trading there is a de-facto authority called <a href="http://steamrep.com/">SteamRep</a>. In <a href="http://forums.steamrep.com/pages/faq/">short</a>, what they call a scammer is a scammer. Their items become scammed. Trade for scammed items and <em>you</em> become a scammer. This label shuns you from virtually all trading websites, which will be happy to take for themselves whatever items or currency of yours they hold.</p>

<p>I am not advocating for this. I do not have bitcoins. I don't <em>like</em> bitcoins. I also don't like aiding criminals in their trading and money laundering. That's just my opinion and it's worth its weight in electrons.</p>

<p>I do wonder, though, if it would be <strong>technically feasible</strong> for the bitcoin community to protect itself from a possible sudden devaluation of the currency by marking a bitcoin wallet, and all the individual fractions of bitcoins in there, as "bad, no, worthless, will not accept, will not process transactions" in an attempt to artificially limit their worth.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T08:06:24.177Z
This _might_ be a duplicate of http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9790/is-it-possible-for-the-miners-to-collude-to-blackmail-a-single-wealthy-address
badp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T11:25:22.473Z
The question here is different, but the answer explains much of what you are asking: [What can be done if Bitcoin is used for money laundering?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13215/what-can-be-done-if-bitcoin-is-used-for-money-laundering)
Murch
<governance>
Is it technically feasible to "shun" particular bitcoin wallets?
badp
# Is it technically feasible to "shun" particular bitcoin wallets?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-05)

Bitcoin is supposed to be an apolitical currency, but the United States [reportedly](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/how-the-feds-took-down-the-dread-pirate-roberts/) gained some leverage by amassing [over 27,000 bitcoins](https://blockchain.info/address/1F1tAaz5x1HUXrCNLbtMDqcw6o5GNn4xqX) — [and counting](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/internet-lobs-insults-at-fbis-silk-road-bitcoin-wallet/). (People seem to be jumping at the possibility of turning bitcoin into the ultimate unmoderated facebook clone and the "content" there is what you'd expect.)

OTOH, this poses a practical problem for the community, because attempting to redeem this amount would probably destroy the currency's market value.

Now, in the marvellous world of atomic hat-based TF2 trading there is a de-facto authority called [SteamRep](http://steamrep.com/). In [short](http://forums.steamrep.com/pages/faq/), what they call a scammer is a scammer. Their items become scammed. Trade for scammed items and *you* become a scammer. This label shuns you from virtually all trading websites, which will be happy to take for themselves whatever items or currency of yours they hold.

I am not advocating for this. I do not have bitcoins. I don't *like* bitcoins. I also don't like aiding criminals in their trading and money laundering. That's just my opinion and it's worth its weight in electrons.

I do wonder, though, if it would be **technically feasible** for the bitcoin community to protect itself from a possible sudden devaluation of the currency by marking a bitcoin wallet, and all the individual fractions of bitcoins in there, as "bad, no, worthless, will not accept, will not process transactions" in an attempt to artificially limit their worth.

**Tags:** governance

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: This _might_ be a duplicate of http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9790/is-it-possible-for-the-miners-to-collude-to-blackmail-a-single-wealthy-address  
> **username_1**: The question here is different, but the answer explains much of what you are asking: [What can be done if Bitcoin is used for money laundering?](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13215/what-can-be-done-if-bitcoin-is-used-for-money-laundering)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-10-05. Score: 4

Not really, if you start doing that then chain forks and a whole load of nasty things follow. There's no real way of blacklisting a "wallet", as by design there's no way of determining exactly the extent of the keys under control by a specific party, so for the sake of this discussion we will assume we have one blacklisted "address".

Even if nodes reject transactions from specific addresses, miners can still include them in blocks without them even having to be broadcast. If some nodes decide to arbitrarily invalidate blocks with transactions they don't like, you've then got a forked network. Massive double spends occur on both forks by intentional and unintentional parties, and the network collapses in the sea of mistrust.

Currently, some mining nodes (like mine) specifically refuse to include transactions in blocks that come from known betting site addresses, like SatoshiDice. I however don't reject blocks that contain the transactions, or I'd be very quickly become isolated from the network.

You'll never get all the miners to agree with any form of blacklisting, so no, it can't technically happen.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: You don't need all the miners, just a majority.  And currently the majority of hash capacity is controlled by just two guilds (see [here](http://blockchain.info/pools)).  If they agreed to reject all blocks containing such transactions, that's what would happen.  
> **username_2**: Which is why `p2pool` is important.  

---

