Topic: Bitcoin should never become fully anonymous- don't fool yourself - page 4. (Read 1527 times)

One thing I often hear is how bitcoin should become a fully anonymous cryptocurrency.  No, it shouldn't.  If people want bitcoin to truly become mainstream then making bitcoin fully anonymous would destroy that goal.  I believe in these types of currencies, such as with Monero whom I support fully.

Here's why- the governments wont allow it.  Right now the U.S. government is working on bitcoin/cryptocurrency legislation that Steve Mnuchin (Secretary of the US Treasury) is putting together and recently said should release soon. I'm fearful of what's to come and bitcoin isn't even anonymous at the moment.  Governments can kill the exchanges.  Sure there's always over the counter, but that's not going to bring this to the heights we all hope it's headed.

Think of it this way.  How many countries still don't allow for women to vote or even show their face in public, how many countries don't allow for freedom of speech, how many countries still don't allow freedom of press...and you think they'l be okay with a massive global currency they can't control what so ever?  Not a chance.

I hope LN is something that stays on another layer and is used for anonymous transaction or something else is created so that bitcoin has both options..but making it fully anonymous wont work out well.  As a financial advisor this is something seemingly obvious to me after spending over a decade in finance and seeing how this kind of stuff is received by governments. 

Would love to be wrong or hear how it could still work. 

I doubt it was a conscious decision by Satoshi. He probably did know how to implement privacy similar to what XMR did later, or more likely just did think it would be a problem, because he assumed that addresses won't be reused much and that chain analysis will be difficult. And maybe he is still right to some extent, because chain analysis is difficult if mixing is involved, which is why criminals go unpunished, despite Bitcoin's supposed weak privacy.

In my opinion, it was a very clever decision to make bitcoin not fully anonymous by default. The reason why that was so is because it helps bitcoin to be money of people. When we talk about cryptocurrency, we often mention that it helps to provide financial sovereignety and freedom. Freedom itself means people should have a choice. People should make transactions and control their money in a way they want. People's money belongs only to people. If they want transact in an open manner, they can do that without additional actions. If they want some anonymity (bitcoin can provide a decent level of anonymity if properly used) they can do that as well. It is merely matter of freedom and choice. I want to use my money as freely as possible. Everything that takes out that  variability makes money very ineffective in terms of freedom of choice.

In my opinion, it was a very clever decision to make bitcoin not fully anonymous by default.

Otherwise, you could actually develop a fully anonymous currency which is going to be banned and will never ever reach full adoption for being such or try to tone down the feature a bit and perhaps gain acceptance.

~ would destroy that goal.
Here's why- the governments wont allow it.

I don't disagree, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It effectively means Bitcoin's development is going to be limited by what governments dictate. Sure some of us can live with just a pseudonymus Bitcoin, but what if they go after something else? With this reasoning, lawmakers are going to be able to mold Bitcoin into what they want with legislation, and we all lose out for it.

I mean, it's cool in this case because there are workarounds in mixers, layers, it was never designed to be fully anonymous to begin with, etc., but IMO future laws should never be a consideration in mapping out development.

The network itself is still quite good for privacy to some extent. It is impossible to expect the government would allow any asset or any exchange to accept users without any KYC, they're doing some business and need to hold some responsibility. The AML thing and so on is almost guaranteed to be mandatory when you use a centralized service. So, the solution would be don't use them. It's your call.

Here's why- the governments wont allow it.  Right now the U.S. government is working on bitcoin/cryptocurrency legislation that Steve Mnuchin (Secretary of the US Treasury) is putting together and recently said should release soon. I'm fearful of what's to come and bitcoin isn't even anonymous at the moment.  Governments can kill the exchanges.  Sure there's always over the counter, but that's not going to bring this to the heights we all hope it's headed.

And ten years after, Bitcoin is at the heel of government, they are now enforcing exchanges for KYC and anything that can identify us.

When you send to a bitcoin address, you don't connect to the recipient.  You send the transaction to the network the same way you relay transactions.  There's no distinction between a transaction you originated and one you received from another node that you're relaying in a broadcast.  With a very small network though, someone might still figure it out by process of elimination.  It'll be better when the network is larger.

If you send by IP, the recipient sees you because you connect to their IP.  You could use TOR to mask that.

You could use TOR if you don't want anyone to know you're even using Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is still very new and has not been independently analysed.  If you're serious about privacy, TOR is an advisable precaution.

One thing I often hear is how bitcoin should become a fully anonymous cryptocurrency.  No, it shouldn't.  If people want bitcoin to truly become mainstream then making bitcoin fully anonymous would destroy that goal.  I believe in these types of currencies, such as with Monero whom I support fully.

Think of it this way.  How many countries still don't allow for women to vote or even show their face in public, how many countries don't allow for freedom of speech, how many countries still don't allow freedom of press...and you think they'l be okay with a massive global currency they can't control what so ever?  Not a chance.