On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

--On Friday, December 13, 2013 7:31 PM -0800 Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> So, I tried to create an account at bitcointalk.org and got this "Due to abuse, registration through Tor is not permitted. " That's got to be a joke, right? right?

In the context that Bitcoin needs an anonymizing layer to be anonymous, yes, it's rather silly.

...

I doubt it - abuse through Tor is a legitimate problem.

Abuse through the plain old internet is likely far more of a problem regarding volume of tickets generated.

Not sure what that means. At any rate, there seems to be something wrong with the bitcoin forum blocking anonymous(sort-of) access, no?

There is this https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/projects/DontBlockMe

...

There are ideas for solving this though, and it would be cool to see more ideas, and more fleshing out of them. Mike Hearn has talked about having people make a bitcoin deposit for an account, and after so much time of legitimate use, the deposit is refunded.

...

Before that, if it's used for abuse, the deposit is kept by the service.

That's cool. So, say something those idiots don't like, and they 'keep' (steal) your money.

That's why you should only use services that send such deposit defaults to established third party 'charities' you preselect when creating your account. The Bitcoin blockchain could be used to prove your default was sent to such third party by posting the txid to your account that you are now otherwise locked from using (at least until some future deposit/appeal is made). A service provider that has this charity policy, cancels an account, and then chooses to steal the money for themselves would quickly develop a painfully public reputation issue. Some say service providers really shouldn't cancel accounts except as matter of Law, not their own policy whim, but that's another issue altogether.