Topic: Could Bitcoin's transparency be its downfall? - page 2. (Read 478 times)

Forced? No, I don't think we are there. Not yet. At least not in my country.

I don't know. I just noticed that banknotes are processed very slowly by some Bitcoin ATMs, that's a lot faster in a typical bank ATM, where you can put a lot of cash, and everything is counted very quickly, like 10 banknotes per second. I wonder if that delay is "by design", if they check them more carefully, or are they trying to trace them by reading serial numbers? I don't know, I can only guess, but 10 times slower counting is suspicious. The currency is the same, all banknotes has the same shape, so I wonder why banks can count them faster. I wonder if banks have better hardware, or if Bitcoin ATMs use more advanced tracking, just to comply with some local law of preventing money laundry.

Really? Do you have an example (country / region) where all stores and businesses are forced by the government to check serial numbers of bank notes? The fact that it's technically possible is indisputed; in fact we bring this up to show that you could define 'taint' on fiat bills just like some entities are trying to do now with Bitcoin UTXOs, but that nobody cares about 'taint on fiat bills'. That was actually my whole argument.

If someone were to check serial numbers of bills entered into Bitcoin ATMs - why should they do this just for Bitcoin ATMs but not enforce it in any other business / store / you name it?

That's a great way to put it - I'm going to write it down!

I can consider with high certainty that most of the gold and fiat currencies are more tainted than Bitcoin will ever be, but it's not easy to track gold origin if you melt it and create new bars.
It is well know facts that dollars are mostly used for criminal activity and most of them are covered by drugs, but I don't know many people are complaining about this.
There is nothing bad in Bitcoin being more ''tainted'' over time, in fact if all bitcoin becomes ''tainted'' there will be no more reason to talk about it, and it's almost impossible to ban it globally now.

This is something unrelated with Bitcoin, there is global trend of crazy regulations, tracking and surveillance everywhere, and problem is that not enough people is complaining about that.

Talk about it, raise awareness about this problem and explain masses how important privacy really is.
Best way for governments to enslave more peopleis to start a new war, so that people can accept changes easier and be more obedient.

Ring signatures sacrifice a lot of scalability (namely having a UTXO set that's much smaller than the set of all TXO) as you no longer know when outputs are spent. This is exacerbated by the large size of the rangeproofs included for every output of confidential transactions.

As said in another post, most (or all?) fiat has traces of drugs.

"Tainted" is widely subjective. Indeed, at some point most of the circulating inputs will be tainted at some degree, if you are 100% purist. But services already consider coins tainted only if there are problems somewhere in the last few transactions back. I think that in the future this view will be adopted by everybody, there's no other choice.

Downfall? Au contraire, mon ami
Imho the fact Bitcoin transactions can be tracked on the blockchain makes them being seen as acceptable/okay by the authorities.
They will understand that it's better leave us with our bitcoin than give us ideas to move to Monero and give them even worse headaches

"What statist cucks call "tainted" are actually clean coins: with no dangerous link to your fiat identity. What they call "clean" are actually dirty coins, tainted with dangerous links that will be used against you by kidnappers, taxmen, haters, blackmailers, business competitors."

- Giacomo Zucco


If bitcoin becomes the mainstream currency used by everyone, including criminals, there will be a huge increase in the number of bitcoin transactions. Also, with the increased number of people wanting their transactions to be included in a block, there will be an increase in the fee value because people have to pay miners to incentivize them to pick a particular transaction. Miners will take the fee and convert it back to a "virgin" state by including it in the coinbase transaction, which means a small part of each "dirty" transaction will automatically become "clean" once again due to the nature of the mining process. The more transactions we have, the faster they get laundered in the miners' laundry. If governments all over the world really want to get rid of dirty coins, they should make all miners refuse to accept profitable transactions or ban mining completely, convincing everyone to switch to a different consensus algorithm that is more susceptible to government regulation, proof-of-stake, for instance.

Silent payments will do just the trick for anonymity of payments, as Taproot does to some extent (and is already erged into the protocol).

Now it's just an issue of get all the wallets to support Taproot addresses in the same way we got them to support Segwit addresses. Bitcoin Core is a good start (anyone know whether the GUI lets you create taproot addresses?)



I don't think governments will get that specific in details when trying to ban something. They will either ban the entire protocol in their country [starting from exchanges and payment processors], or just leave it alone and issue "warnings" about it.

TBH even China cannot ban nodes running in their territory (particularly if they are ran over TOR).

I guess reading serial numbers is already implemented (just because it is technically possible). Rejecting banknotes is a matter of time. Especially in Bitcoin ATMs, where there is some delay and each banknote is processed separately, one second per each or something like that. I have no proof, but I guess their serial numbers are stored somewhere, it is too slow processing to just count them, something else must be also checked somehow.

The only challenge that bitcoin has ever faced was that how it works is new and different (decentralized with a cap instead of unlimited and centralized). Newbies (that includes governments) come in and are confused about these differences so they try to treat every aspect of bitcoin differently. But the fact is that only some parts are different while others aren't.

Bitcoin is money and like any other form of money it is used by every group of people for different purposes. Now remove every "bitcoin" word in your post and replace it with fiat and your topic is still true! Why? Because there is no difference between bitcoin and money.

For example if you run a supermarket you have definitely received "tainted" money. But would you care at all about that? No. Simply because you are used to fiat system and nobody is spreading false information about an arbitrary thing such as "taint". But if you receive bitcoin and someone is spreading lies about "taint" then you suddenly are concerned!!!

This made me wonder how would the government or people or services react if someone ran a "fiat analysis" (like blockchain-analysis) service and somehow services were forced to use it, like in case of our supermarket the owner was forced to first check the serial number of the dollar bill they received with this service for "taint" then accept or reject the payment!

As more coins become "tainted", the significance of being "tainted" is reduced. Ideally, all bitcoins would become equally tainted.

Excuse me, what happened to "Verify, don't trust"?

Bitcoin's transparency is one of the main points of Bitcoin. Which is why it already has something that fiat does not: Transparency. This does not mean no anonymity though. If you wanted to buy or obtain Bitcoins anonymously, you could do so. Easily. So don't doubt Bitcoin too much, as you might miss out on chances because you have started believing your own doubts.

I am in full faith on Bitcoin. Basically because I know how it works and why its unstoppable. Feel free to try to prove Bitcoin wrong.
 

It's worth looking at fiat and cash and think about if this money is 'tainted'. You're right that all money (no matter which form of money: cash, fiat, crypto, whatever) is going to be used for some sort of activity that in some countries violates some law. This doesn't make it any worse than before this activity, so it continues to be used just the same.

For example:

Another one:

So as you alluded to, basically 'if everything's tainted, nothing's tainted'.

What we can do?
Run our own nodes, hold our keys, accept any Bitcoin and refuse any random arbitrary party's definition of 'taint'. Otherwise an economy doesn't function. Nobody checks a dollar bill's serial number or the substances found on it. Everyone just accepts it and uses it, certain that it will be accepted.
If someone were to start differentiating which bills they accept, they would be cutting themselves out of part of the economy; we should treat those who try to have this attitude on Bitcoin, the same way. Stop making business with them if they don't want our coins, instead of trying to convince them our coins are good (by sending KYC documents or whatnot) - so they understand they're cutting themselves out of part of the economy, not the other way round.

The argument is largely on whether Bitcoin is fungible or not. That is a perfectly valid concern and has been discussed thoroughly quite a while back at the height of MARA's censorship.

IMO, the solution as I see it is precisely as what you've said, all of the Bitcoins will eventually have some degree of taint. The basis of this 'taint' is often quite unfounded, without any concrete proof that the current owner of the coins is in knowledge or have any connections with the prior owner. There will be a problem of trying to determine what threshold does a service intervene and report to the government. If this were to be too low, then most of the users would determine Bitcoin to be unusable, and resulting in the services being unable to operate at all. There will be significant pushback from the community and these regulated services in this case, and only serves to further push these services to operate off the regulations and underground. It would just be a tradeoff between how much you want to regulate or not; an over-stringent policy doesn't benefit any party in this case. Regulations are okay, it just means giving Bitcoin more legitimacy, and if people don't want to comply with them, then more people would trade OTC and not rely on these regulated services.

There are of course services which has started to use taint as a basis to close accounts, but those are cases where the user have a direct and clear connection, ie. withdrawing straight from an online casino to their exchange account.

1. It is technically possible to hide things. Monero can do this, their features can be implemented by Bitcoin if needed.
2. People can mix coins. When more and more coins are mixed, then censors have to reject all coins (or accept all coins, in the same way as they accept cash).
3. Taproot can hide the number of participants. You never know, how many users are behind a Taproot address.
4. If Taproot will be banned, then we could use homomorphic encryption on verified public keys and do the same thing, by using more complicated math, but it could still work.
5. Lightning Network can mix coins by default. Many clients will give you different coins, when you close your channel, and will leave your previous channels as opened (for example Phoenix wallet).
6. If censorship will be common, then "validation as a service" will be created. You will pay someone for doing validation on your behalf, in the same way as people use fake IDs or SIM cards registered to someone else. It would be even easier than with physical items, because it can be done remotely, just by writing some software and using maths.
7. If nodes will be banned, then we will start connecting outside TCP/IP. Bitcoin Core is trying to get there by supporting more and more protocols, see changelog of version 23.0.
8. There is more. We can invent new ways when needed, some people are working on that.

So, I think we know how to protect Bitcoin from censorship. My answer is just "we should write a better code".

Serious question I am not anti Bitcoin do not get the wrong impression and I have grown a deep hatred for our fiat system that is exploitative and ill natured.

When we compare Bitcoin to fiat there are a couple of differences which I think could impact us in the future:

1. Bitcoin's will become more tainted over time

2. This pushes governments to become concerned and impose more KYC requirements

3. Eventually most Bitcoin will be tainted to a degree. If we look at this research concluded by economist Rogoff[1]:

34-39% in fiat currency is a huge of money. Bitcoin is further limited by its cap of 21 million which means that if Bitcoin becomes the mainstream currency used by everyone the share of tainted money would be higher because of the cap with fiat more money is printed in the fiat currency which reduces this amount.

We already know that governments require anti-money laundering evidence for many transactions outside of cryptocurrencies such as buying a house requires proof that the money was earned legally and not through illegal activities. Exchanging money on exchanges requires identity which they probably look at your salary reported by the government.

We have seen that in the last couple of years governments have started to require KYC more, and I believe that as the share of tainted money increases, government regulation and intervention will also increase.

I am not saying it is a problem of Bitcoin because I think it is unfair and most of us have probably touched money that has been used in criminal activities without knowing it. That is the nature of cash but cash cannot be tracked as easily. Blockchain works against us in this way, providing an easy way to discover tainted coins. The government could use this as propaganda if it wanted to and convince people that cryptocurrencies are bad because a good portion of them are used in criminal activities but not just this because they can prove it and further convince others that btc is "bad".

How do we prevent this type of propaganda attack or invasion of privacy?


[1] source: https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1289