Topic: Blockchain's gift of Pseudonymity and how we lost it - page 2. (Read 282 times)

I aslso, dont think its a bad thing. and you made a good point needing to dump fiat to get bitcoin.

it is not lost just because people are trading bitcoin. it is still there for whomever wants to use it, it is just that more people are currently interested in bitcoin as a way of making money because of its price rise than people who are interested in bitcoin as a currency to benefit from its decentralization and the privacy that it offers.

and i don't think it is a bad thing. in a way it is the combination of two worlds: the decentralized world of bitcoin with the centralized world of fiat. and since we still need to dump our fiat to get bitcoin, we need that pseudo-centralization.

they WERE pro-privacy.. but that was pre-2013

also. if you look at stats pages of LN. it reveals who, how many nodes. how much value those nodes hold and if smart you can keep checking those nodes and when the values change you can log that. and then see the nodes they are connected to and log where the funds went to.

EG
A[20:10]B[30:15]C
C can find out what B has with A. because B can only send 10 to A
if A moved10 to be...
A[10:20]B[30:15]C
C can then see that B can move 20 to A so C knows that A just paid B 10

channels actually announce how much they hold and can channel. to allow people to choose who they should choose as a channel partner.. so its not private at all

i found it funny how LN was proposed as a tool to be more private. and yet i can find out mor about a user of LN than i can find out by a mainnet bitcoin user

again privacy is being eroded. especially when LN is moving to a factory/watchtower model which will then require AML KYC and having them watchtowers/factories register as 'custodians' to then require KYCing their channeled users

if only back in 2013 we didnt not rally/lobby for rgulation of businesses (they police and KYC users) but instead rally/lobbied for consumer protction (users police and KYC businesses)

The goal is that eventually people buy goods with BTC.

I'm not to tell that the people behind bitcoin & the blockchain was anti-government and central control, but i'm pretty sure they are pro-privacy.

Thus, we were gifted a wonderful treat of pseudonymity where transactions are public yet remained disconnected from our real world identities.  Yes, the world may know the origin (sending wallet), the amount that was transacted and even the destination (receiving wallet).  But that's all there is to it.

Pseudonymous transactions are actual safeguards for us not to be under anyone's surveillance (for whatever purpose it may serve).  The reality of our personal welfare being compromised by watchful eyes that has been proven mischievous over time is evident.

Take for example the "cache & cookies disclaimer" that you have to often agree to when you go online. Disguised as helpful tools to make your browsing experience more relevant but in reality, records your every move, your every activity. And only the gods would know how these information can be used for or against you. Nonetheless, your privacy was breached.

Breach of privacy was a problem of great concern, and great minds understood that it has to be addressed. And as many of us loved the Incognito Mode of Google Chrome, Blockchain brought us pseudonymity for crypto transactions.

The original design was for transactions to remain pseudonymous from end to end, and the public records remained as such until you cash-out.  It is here that we lost the pro-privacy gift of the blockchain.

The moment you cash-out your bitcoin to a bank or an exchange or to any other means that requires a real world identity, pseudonymity is lost. Satoshi's rally for privacy goes down the drain. Your identity is uncovered. They can already trace your bitcoin wallet address and all other wallet addresses you transacted with.

The effort of pseudonymity is lost. But is there really a way out? Can we really remain pseudonymous to continue the blockchain's rally for privacy?