Pages:
Author

Topic: How 'Anonymous' is Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 9169 times)

full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
March 02, 2014, 01:56:34 AM
#45
...

In reality, Bitcoin only gives you a degree of anonymity.  It gets you out of the scope of the NSA casually fishing through bank records to find likely names/addresses of people, but if somebody REALLY wants to find you, sooner or later, they will.  The more you interact with or trade with people, the more traces you leave.

In short, don't depend on bitcoin to keep you out of jail if you're breaking the law.  It isn't designed for that.  It is meant to keep you out of reach of "fishing expeditions", not a concerted law enforcement effort.

Coint taint is the biggest flaw to Bitcoin fungibility.

Now imagine the government tax and law enforcement authorities crack down in the coming years (and the G20+NSA are announcing this intent) wherein they say if you can't provide the identity of whom your purchased your coins from and sold your coins to, then all tax and criminal liability from the time of mining until the future is all yours. Because there is no way for you to otherwise prove that you didn't buy the coin from yourself and sell it to yourself.

So with that very simple ruling, the governments can at-will force all anonymous coin holders (past and present) to be revealed, because nobody is going to accept a coin without identity history any more.

You could still try to find someone to accept your anonymous coins, but since most users are not anonymous, your effort to find such vendors and market for your anonymous coins will become untenable.

This is why the only way I can see to keep fungibility (without losing anonymity entirely) is to make most of the users anonymous, and that includes all their IP addresses when they transact.

CoinJoin and Dark Wallet won't do this.

And Tor is not strong enough, as it can be foiled with timing analysis by an entity that can see all packets, such as the NSA.

So the reality is that Bitcoin will be the government coin. You see how easily the U.S.A. government effectively controlled the outcome of Mt.Gox.

I think a US gov crackdown is unlikely, considering all the VC involved and positions made by hedge funds already. They'll find ways to regulate exchanges and tax capital gains, surely, but a ban seems unlikely. Cash is far more problematic for crime and that's not going away any time soon. Stay away from illegal activity the same way you would with cash and you should be fine.

The US will be more worried about foreign investors fleeing US assets and domestic investors fleeing to gold once inflation kicks up. Massive USD inflation is a foregone conclusion thanks to Fed Reserve money printing. I suspect they have printed all this money not only to temporarily prop up the falling asset bubbles but use resulting inflation to default on US gov debt, letting inflation wipe it away. They know they have no hope of ever paying it back.

The above argument about complete anonymity is more relevant to communist countries such as China and Vietnam, which are more likely to try to crack down on crypto. How users in those countries get around surveillance of ordinary use will be interesting.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
member
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
March 01, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
#43
"Live and learn"
I am embarrassed cause I haven't heard about Tor before I read this thread!
Thanks for this thread, useful for noobs like me!  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
March 01, 2014, 03:45:46 AM
#42
As I pointed out upthread even if you succeed to be anonymous (e.g. using an ISP that breaks the law as you propose), the majority of the Bitcoin users are not anonymous, so you can be compelled to provide identity else no one will transact with you. This is after the governments start cracking down. Read my post upthread please again more carefully.

On the issue of you trying to convince a judge, the law has now changed to "guilty until proven innocent":

http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secrets

I don't believe you have a prayer of winning by using "Plausible deniability" in a court-of-law, when the spend transaction was sent from your connection. Especially given the $150 trillion debt implosion and the NSA+G20 promising to hunt down all wealth. The courts are going to say, "show us your records proving that someone else sent that transaction from your connection".

Majority of bitcoin users are not anonymous?

Yes. Most users don't even try to be anonymous!

Or they do something silly like pass their coins through a mixer, which may be a honeypot and they didn't even obscure their IP address well (maybe only Tor).

Not to mention other mistakes such as browsing to other websites where they have login account of identity saved with cookies on while they are on the same connection that made spend.

You mean all Americans living and residing in the United States right? I'm all the way on the other side of the world.

Maybe you could also mean, all American citizens who live anywhere, since they must file taxes on world wide income regardless of residence.

Apparently the EU has a change of plan coming for you all too. Wink

For example France is a leading example, which even proposed tracking and taxing all internet traffic sending to outside of France.

Just wait until the core of the EU implodes from the $150 trillion debt crisis next year. Then you will see the true colors of the EU.

We've got another year or 18 months of this mirage that Europeans are living in.

My ISP is not breaking the law. They just don't keep logs long enough. So do a lot of off-shore VPNs. Or my ISP could be keeping logs, but since all packets are encrypted, they don't know what is in them, or to who they were (really) sent to.

I'm not very knowledgeable about EU laws, yet I believe your ISP is breaking the EU edicts on this. I'm aware that some VPNs for example in Romania defy this, but this apparently a legal gray area for the moment. I am aware of that small landlocked country Liechtenstein in Europe that has ISPs that offer anonymous, no logs hosting.

I expect the NSA and GCHQ are hacking into these ISPs and compromising them. Remember the USA and Germany even bribed employees to get bank records in Switzerland. These ISPs would not even know they've been rooted or otherwise hacked. These covert agencies though might save these hacks for the higher profile cases, so for the moment you might be anonymous. But remember upthread I underlined the word "reliable". My point is you don't know! So don't have peace-of-mind, unless it is ignorant bliss.

Encryption doesn't hide the IPs of source and destination.

As far as my government is concerned, (and as far as the US government too, since I've been there, and lived there for some time), I am a model citizen: paying taxes and filing records as needed. I have just barely enough records for them that I exist, just like all the other millions of other people with no bad records, no criminal records, zero traffic or driving tickets, squeaky clean police clearance, etc.

I'm no one. Or nobody. They're not interested in me.

Irrelevant isn't it? If you commit a crime, you've lost that good status.

You didn't see the GCHQ went on a fishing expedition in Yahoo Messenger and has 180,000 images.

They are doing widespread data recording. The Utah facility can process 2 Yottabytes.
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
February 28, 2014, 11:13:36 PM
#41
As I pointed out upthread even if you succeed to be anonymous (e.g. using an ISP that breaks the law as you propose), the majority of the Bitcoin users are not anonymous, so you can be compelled to provide identity else no one will transact with you. This is after the governments start cracking down. Read my post upthread please again more carefully.

On the issue of you trying to convince a judge, the law has now changed to "guilty until proven innocent":

http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secrets

I don't believe you have a prayer of winning by using "Plausible deniability" in a court-of-law, when the spend transaction was sent from your connection. Especially given the $150 trillion debt implosion and the NSA+G20 promising to hunt down all wealth. The courts are going to say, "show us your records proving that someone else sent that transaction from your connection".

Majority of bitcoin users are not anonymous? You mean all Americans living and residing in the United States right? I'm all the way on the other side of the world.

Maybe you could also mean, all American citizens who live anywhere, since they must file taxes on world wide income regardless of residence.

My ISP is not breaking the law. They just don't keep logs long enough. So do a lot of off-shore VPNs. Or my ISP could be keeping logs, but since all packets are encrypted, they don't know what is in them, or to who they were (really) sent to.

Guilty until proven innocent is unfortunate; I have actually learned to accept that kind of thinking where I live. There are ways around that, if it ever gets to court. The best scenario for you, as an individual, is to never get that far.

As far as my government is concerned, (and as far as the US government too, since I've been there, and lived there for some time), I am a model citizen: paying taxes and filing records as needed. I have just barely enough records for them that I exist, just like all the other millions of other people with no bad records, no criminal records, zero traffic or driving tickets, squeaky clean police clearance, etc.

I'm no one. Or nobody. They're not interested in me.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 28, 2014, 10:26:48 PM
#40
You may link an IP address to it, but that's not proof. The only proof is access to the private key before it gets broadcast to the entire world.

IP address means also they can get access to your ISP's logs so they can see your connection sent the data.

So you if are arguing that sending your public key to a sender which then receives BTC, or originating the send of a signed spend, is not proof that you own a coin, I think you will have a difficult time convincing a judge of that.

What would be your argument to the judge?

What if the ISP does not keep logs? Or it takes awhile to get those logs? Or the logs just show encrypted data with no way to decrypt it?

I'm not here to attempt to convince a judge. I'm just saying it is not proof.

What the judge believes, or what the jury say, or what the people understand is different. If you have a good lawyer (if you even end up in court), I'm sure they can say something.

As I pointed out upthread even if you succeed to be anonymous (e.g. using an ISP that breaks the law as you propose), the majority of the Bitcoin users are not anonymous, so you can be compelled to provide identity else no one will transact with you. This is after the governments start cracking down. Read my post upthread please again more carefully.

On the issue of you trying to convince a judge, the law has now changed to "guilty until proven innocent":

http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secrets

I don't believe you have a prayer of winning by using "Plausible deniability" in a court-of-law, when the spend transaction was sent from your connection. Especially given the $150 trillion debt implosion and the NSA+G20 promising to hunt down all wealth. The courts are going to say, "show us your records proving that someone else sent that transaction from your connection".
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
February 28, 2014, 09:55:12 PM
#39
You may link an IP address to it, but that's not proof. The only proof is access to the private key before it gets broadcast to the entire world.

IP address means also they can get access to your ISP's logs so they can see your connection sent the data.

So you if are arguing that sending your public key to a sender which then receives BTC, or originating the send of a signed spend, is not proof that you own a coin, I think you will have a difficult time convincing a judge of that.

What would be your argument to the judge?

What if the ISP does not keep logs? Or it takes awhile to get those logs? Or the logs just show encrypted data with no way to decrypt it?

I'm not here to attempt to convince a judge. I'm just saying it is not proof.

What the judge believes, or what the jury say, or what the people understand is different. If you have a good lawyer (if you even end up in court), I'm sure they can say something.
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
February 28, 2014, 09:36:54 PM
#38
Its not anonymous
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 28, 2014, 09:33:41 PM
#37
You may link an IP address to it, but that's not proof. The only proof is access to the private key before it gets broadcast to the entire world.

IP address means also they can get access to your ISP's logs so they can see your connection sent the data.

So you if are arguing that sending your public key to a sender which then receives BTC, or originating the send of a signed spend, is not proof that you own a coin, I think you will have a difficult time convincing a judge of that.

What would be your argument to the judge?
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
February 28, 2014, 09:28:07 PM
#36
You have not refuted the points of my prior post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5355485

CoinJoin is not used always by everyone, thus that  prior post applies. CoinJoin is subject to timing and pattern analysis. And even if CoinJoin was used by all, there is still a problem...

Also CoinJoin does not obscure IP addresses. And Tor is cracked by the NSA (low-latency Chaum mix-nets are subject to timing analysis by entities that can see all inter-node traffic in spite of the packets being encrypted. Also the NSA has probably compromised most of the servers on Tor).

There is no reliable anonymity possible in Bitcoin against the NSA+GCHQ+G20 tax and law enforcement. Forget it.

There is anonymity in Bitcoin against other less powerful entities.

CoinJoin exists. It doesn't have to be used by everyone.

It's similar to the small community where a portion of the population are armed. The whole community is a less desirable target for robbers or thieves.

Basically, no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you own or control a particular bitcoin address.

If the NSA is already watching you, then there is nothing you can really do, you are already on their scope. But if you've been relatively anonymous up to this point, then not even the NSA knows you are there. Oh, yes, they can probably see you. They just don't know it's you.

You are wrong. You have not read my upthread posts carefully.

Help me understand. I'm sure a lot of other people don't get it too. I may be wrong about the NSA, but I don't think I'm wrong about proving ownership of a particular bitcoin address.

You may link an IP address to it, but that's not proof. The only proof is access to the private key before it gets broadcast to the entire world.

Here's an address for you: 171KdbGvgVN9hzxXiBYYTVD9RS9RokJ959
Here's the private key: L4hmg78a2zxY7J56C423yfwwAXXqwnWGSCfJh6NZDVfABBZE1Usn

Who owns that? Not me.

What I do understand, is sometimes people do not need proof in order to crucify someone, or to hand a guilty verdict. They just all need to agree they don't want you around, so they will get rid of you.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 28, 2014, 09:06:44 PM
#35
You have not refuted the points of my prior post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5355485

CoinJoin is not used always by everyone, thus that  prior post applies. CoinJoin is subject to timing and pattern analysis. And even if CoinJoin was used by all, there is still a problem...

Also CoinJoin does not obscure IP addresses. And Tor is cracked by the NSA (low-latency Chaum mix-nets are subject to timing analysis by entities that can see all inter-node traffic in spite of the packets being encrypted. Also the NSA has probably compromised most of the servers on Tor).

There is no reliable anonymity possible in Bitcoin against the NSA+GCHQ+G20 tax and law enforcement. Forget it.

There is anonymity in Bitcoin against other less powerful entities.

CoinJoin exists. It doesn't have to be used by everyone.

It's similar to the small community where a portion of the population are armed. The whole community is a less desirable target for robbers or thieves.

Basically, no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you own or control a particular bitcoin address.

If the NSA is already watching you, then there is nothing you can really do, you are already on their scope. But if you've been relatively anonymous up to this point, then not even the NSA knows you are there. Oh, yes, they can probably see you. They just don't know it's you.

You are wrong. You have not read my upthread posts carefully.
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
February 28, 2014, 09:03:54 PM
#34
You have not refuted the points of my prior post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5355485

CoinJoin is not used always by everyone, thus that  prior post applies. CoinJoin is subject to timing and pattern analysis. And even if CoinJoin was used by all, there is still a problem...

Also CoinJoin does not obscure IP addresses. And Tor is cracked by the NSA (low-latency Chaum mix-nets are subject to timing analysis by entities that can see all inter-node traffic in spite of the packets being encrypted. Also the NSA has probably compromised most of the servers on Tor).

There is no reliable anonymity possible in Bitcoin against the NSA+GCHQ+G20 tax and law enforcement. Forget it.

There is anonymity in Bitcoin against other less powerful entities.

CoinJoin exists. It doesn't have to be used by everyone.

It's similar to the small community where a portion of the population are armed. The whole community is a less desirable target for robbers or thieves.

Basically, no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you own or control a particular bitcoin address.

If the NSA is already watching you, then there is nothing you can really do, you are already on their scope. But if you've been relatively anonymous up to this point, then not even the NSA knows you are there. Oh, yes, they can probably see you. They just don't know it's you.
newbie
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
February 28, 2014, 08:22:12 PM
#33
wear a veil
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 28, 2014, 07:36:02 PM
#32
1. Because of CoinJoin, there is now no conclusive proof that all the addresses in the same transaction belong to the same person or entities.

2. If you can't link a private key to a person or entity, you can not prove they own a particular bitcoin address.

3. Even if a person or entity publicly reveals their receiving bitcoin address, it is not proof that they own or control it.

4. Merely revealing a private key allows the prior single owner to disown it. He or she is no longer the "owner" because everyone who has access to, or has seen, or read that particular private key is now the "owner".

You have not refuted the points of my prior post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5355485

CoinJoin is not used always by everyone, thus that  prior post applies. CoinJoin is subject to timing and pattern analysis. And even if CoinJoin was used by all, there is still a problem...

Also CoinJoin does not obscure IP addresses. And Tor is cracked by the NSA (low-latency Chaum mix-nets are subject to timing analysis by entities that can see all inter-node traffic in spite of the packets being encrypted. Also the NSA has probably compromised most of the servers on Tor).

There is no reliable anonymity possible in Bitcoin against the NSA+GCHQ+G20 tax and law enforcement. Forget it.

There is anonymity in Bitcoin against other less powerful entities.
legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
February 28, 2014, 04:27:15 AM
#31
1. Because of CoinJoin, there is now no conclusive proof that all the addresses in the same transaction belong to the same person or entities.

2. If you can't link a private key to a person or entity, you can not prove they own a particular bitcoin address.

3. Even if a person or entity publicly reveals their receiving bitcoin address, it is not proof that they own or control it.

4. Merely revealing a private key allows the prior single owner to disown it. He or she is no longer the "owner" because everyone who has access to, or has seen, or read that particular private key is now the "owner".
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
February 28, 2014, 01:25:10 AM
#30
We have your opinion on BitcoinFog, but what about CoinJoin? Especially if implemented as a standard for all transactions?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
February 25, 2014, 11:09:24 PM
#29
Come on Bitards, wake up from your stupor. There is no anonymity in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the ledger from hell that will destroy all your freedom. Everything can now be tracked. Zillions times worse than cash for mankind's freedom.

I can't even find a Bitcoin mixer, tumbler, or laundry which provides anonymity for mixing smaller amounts.

For example, Bitcoinfog does not make the deposit and withdrawal amount constant, e.g. 0.5 BTC, thus one can correlate the amounts sent in and the amounts withdrawn. It is very unlikely that there is a large pool of users who are splitting their up their withdrawals in a similar level of chunk sizes as you are, unless you are mixing 10 - 100+ BTC and can employ chunk sizes over many ranges, e.g. 0.1 BTC, 0.5BTC, 1BTC, 2BTC, 4BTC, etc..

And we don't even know if the operators of the mixing service are not already compromised by a national security gag order letter. We can probably assume they are, even if they deny it (gag order can force them to deny it). Since the service centralized, they are easy prey for the NSA to track down, hack, and serve with a order.

Also the legal liability for using a mixing service is potentially severe:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mixing_service
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
February 25, 2014, 08:00:20 AM
#28
NSA can easily associate bitcoin addresses to your distinct internet fingerprint (cookies, ip, isp data, etc)
dont assume your bitcoin usage is anonymous
newbie
Activity: 35
Merit: 0
February 25, 2014, 07:44:05 AM
#27



For instance, would running behind Tor protect me?

It can be very anonymous if used right. Most people won't be able to use it right for very long though.
newbie
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
February 25, 2014, 03:25:00 AM
#26
I don't think so as If it was so than many people would do this. As far as I know Tor only make unknown your IP address.
Pages:
Jump to: