As we can see each and every transaction for bitcoin is publicly registered to the blockchain where in all of us have access, so I am just thinking if anonymity or providing privacy will be the next move for bitcoin. Just my thoughts, you can add yours here and let's discuss it.
At the beginning of the formation that blockchain is indeed anonymous, it can be seen from various transactions that do not store the personal data that we have. indeed, the transaction history will always be stored. basically that using bitcoin is very safe because we don't embrace identity in making transactions. things like this have positive values and negative values. it all depends on our purpose in using bitcoin. 
Topic: Is anonymity the future for bitcoin??? - page 7. (Read 1119 times)
Anonymity is the least of bitcoin's concern in the future. It needs to handle large numbers of transactions per second first to have its place in the future. There's also concern for it being an investment. So I think out of these all, the future of bitcoin is the amount of tps it can handle to let it compete with banks.
Anonymity for bitcoin in my opinion is good, because anonymity is very useful to maintain the confidentiality of all identities in a transaction, because if bitcoin is not anonymous, it is very vulnerable to be hacked or misused.
it's true that in the world of bitcoin it must be the one whose name hides our bitcoin so it can't be read by hackers. because now there are so many bitcoin hackers everywhere
If you think Bitcoin has no value , then gold, diamond and pearls should not have any value too. Its the humans who give a value to an asset. The only difference is that Bitcoin is virtual and the others are physica
As we can see each and every transaction for bitcoin is publicly registered to the blockchain where in all of us have access, so I am just thinking if anonymity or providing privacy will be the next move for bitcoin. Just my thoughts, you can add yours here and let's discuss it.
I think it is the reverse. As bitcoin and cryptocurrency is getting known in the world, you can see that things such as KYCs are also developing. Though I am against this, I really don't know where that information is going to be used. Some say that KYC is used to protect the customer. But I also hope that the blockchain where you can see your transaction can also go private in order to prevent some hackers.
Anonymity will keep rule in the cryptocurrency business for sure in the future. But the anonymity gives bad people to gain lots of money too. The scammers and the terror people can use cryptocurrency easly. I really like to being anonymous in this crypto world but we should find a cure for the scammer who makes money with cryptos.
in my opinion, anonymity in the crypto system is made to safeguard the data security of the wallet owner, if it isn't made anonymous, then the data is prone to be misused by irresponsible parties
Yes. 
As we can see each and every transaction for bitcoin is publicly registered to the blockchain where in all of us have access, so I am just thinking if anonymity or providing privacy will be the next move for bitcoin. Just my thoughts, you can add yours here and let's discuss it.
No.FullAnonymity could not be provided for bitcoin as it has been programmed to be pseudo anonymous.Anonymity would not help bitcoin to progress as already we have seen Monero and zcash which were fully pseudo anonymous to have failed while once they were expected to surpass bitcoin due to their anonymous nature.
Anonymity for bitcoin in my opinion is good, because anonymity is very useful to maintain the confidentiality of all identities in a transaction, because if bitcoin is not anonymous, it is very vulnerable to be hacked or misused.
As we can see each and every transaction for bitcoin is publicly registered to the blockchain where in all of us have access, so I am just thinking if anonymity or providing privacy will be the next move for bitcoin. Just my thoughts, you can add yours here and let's discuss it.
We are still trading anonymously and others can not find the IP and where we live. This is a very special point and attracts many criminals to this market. But this is really a great technology and it helps a lot of businesses work better. As we can see each and every transaction for bitcoin is publicly registered to the blockchain where in all of us have access, so I am just thinking if anonymity or providing privacy will be the next move for bitcoin. Just my thoughts, you can add yours here and let's discuss it.
No, the future lies in transparency and tracebility. You may like it or not, but this is where it goes. BTC has no place in future.
it seems that bitcoin will indeed become an anonym even for the future, I am very sure that cryptocurrency needs to be improvised so that it can be adopted en masse by governments around the world
maybe we should wait for creative developers in the future, so that bitcoin is more familiar in public
even though they must be anonymous
maybe we should wait for creative developers in the future, so that bitcoin is more familiar in public
even though they must be anonymous
As we can see each and every transaction for bitcoin is publicly registered to the blockchain where in all of us have access, so I am just thinking if anonymity or providing privacy will be the next move for bitcoin. Just my thoughts, you can add yours here and let's discuss it.
Based on this, anonymity is different from transparency. Being able to see every transaction on the blockchain is transparency and the moment that is available it becomes impossible to forge. If this is applied to every human endeavor, the issue of corruption would be a thing of the past with its influence reduced to the minimum level compared to what we have now because the whole of corruption happens when some things are shrouded in secrecy.
Total anonymity for bitcoin won't be there for long judging by recent happenings and developments. Although, there would still be element of doing your transaction across borders without interference but doing it illegally could mean the anonymity would be lifted due to information provided for KYCs purposes and the ability for one bitcoin address to the linked to another no matter the number of addresses it touched.
Firstly, I think there is no such thing as a complete anonymity in the web
Secondly, Bitcoin will face huge legal problems which will decrease a demand
Secondly, Bitcoin will face huge legal problems which will decrease a demand
NO, it`s already impossible to keep Your identity. KYC is the main gate to the BTC road nowadays.
OP, I believe not, not for a network as mature as Bitcoin. Changing the rules now to make it more "anonymous" and "private" would have consequences.
The Bitcoin blockchain's transparency has its advantages too. It proves, with our own eyes, and without trusting that some privacy technology "simply works", that the ledger is balanced and auditable.
Adding more anonymity and privacy might also attract government agencies to discourage it more, or make more unfavorable laws against using it.
Plus if the Core developers truly wanted a more "private Bitcoin", then maybe do it off-chain, in the Lightning Network. But leave the blockchain alone.
The Bitcoin blockchain's transparency has its advantages too. It proves, with our own eyes, and without trusting that some privacy technology "simply works", that the ledger is balanced and auditable.
Adding more anonymity and privacy might also attract government agencies to discourage it more, or make more unfavorable laws against using it.
Plus if the Core developers truly wanted a more "private Bitcoin", then maybe do it off-chain, in the Lightning Network. But leave the blockchain alone.
these privacy codes actually add bytes of data to a transaction
Plus it also causes the blocks to be bigger that would cause the network to "scale down" instead of "scale up", and make it more centralized.
Bitcoin's regulated block size limit is there for technical reasons. But I believe it will help Bitcoin out-live every altcoin.
We at Bitssa.com believe that anonymity will create a trust deficit in Bitcoin as a viable investment option and a value storing digital currency. The only reason why there is so much confidence in the market for Bitcoin is that all the transactions are available in the public domain in real time. This is why people have trust in Bitcoin. We all know that Bitcoin is based on the highly secured, sophisticated and advanced Blockchain Technology. As every transaction on the block needs approval from various sources on the network, it makes Bitcoin trading a transparent and accountable process. Therefore, to do away with the 'public character' of Bitcoin and bringing in anonymity will compromise with its security feature and further create suspicion in the public's eyes. And most importantly, adding anonymity will also facilitate terror-funding, illegal transactions, and black money laundering, etc. Hence, it is extremely important that Bitcoin should retain its essential character as a highly secured, transparent and accountable value storing virtual commodity rather than becoming a dangerous instrument in the hands of a few mischief-mongers willing to commit financial crimes if anonymity is granted to it.
As much as I see the points in anonymity possibly challenging the existing Bitcoin blockchain's recognised value as an auditable, verifiable method of payment, I don't know about this trust deficit in it being viable investment.
I feel that people are confident in Bitcoin because it works, it continues to get better at working, and survives threats all the time - more and more people are accepting it for payment, more and more are using it properly. All these investors and people who use it to store value don't really care about the inner workings, not when majority owners probably never signed a transaction themselves, much less know their private keys.
Transactions will still be verifiable for the parties involved, though maybe true not auditable externally without permissions, if anonymisation features were to be implemented.
After all, the "public character" of Bitcoin is still - wrongly - that of a private and anonymous money. Started out like that, and somehow still has that tag (just check the media headlines). This is the false logic that if you make something better at protecting personal freedoms, you do so at the cost of facilitating all that bad terrorist shit. States use it pretty well, let's not help them sell the kool-aid.
Quote
as for the "attack", don't forget that any block that used this vulnerability would have been an invalid block. the problem was simply that certain versions of bitcoin core nodes were not verifying blocks for detecting this particular problem so they accepted it as valid. but that doesn't make the supply inflate, it just made those nodes go on a fork and start an altcoin.
But how many nodes were running the version that would accept the "attacking blocks" as valid? Thousands more than the versions that would reject them and crash from what I read. I believe there are more Bitcoin Core versions running with the bug in 0.15.0 to 0.16.2 than the versions that don't have the bug.
But I also believe that because of Bitcoin's transparent and auditable blockchain, the discrepancy can immediately be found. The community, the miners, the merchants, and the developers can then react quickly and deploy a fix.
Non-transparent blockchains might not have the same ease in that situation.
all i'm saying is that it wouldn't have inflated the supply. we already had a bug like this many years ago with an overflow bug which i believe some miner by accident created a block that created a gigantic amount of new coins instead of giving him 50BTC+fees! the bug was caught and since there was an alert system in place back then and the network was small everyone was alerted fast and the bug was fixed while invalidating that block.
I agree, and if it would inflate the supply, honest miners would notice it early. But I am not debating that.
Quote
as for "anon" coins which i believe that is what you mean by "private or non-transparent" blockchains they also have certain consensus rules checking these things. it wouldn't be impossible to detect invalid blocks like this in an anon coin like Monero for instance. otherwise they wouldn't have worked at all in first place. which is why i said this is off-topic.
The topic is, "Is anonymity the future for bitcoin?", which I answered, "no". The reasons I already said in this post, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45928287
Now that you get the context, let's make a hypothetical scenario where there was a bug that could inflate the coin supply in an anon coin like Monero. A bug so bad that the nodes would relay those blocks containing invalid transactions as true.
I know it will be detected, and I know that it will be fixed, but how can it be audited that 1 coin or 1 billion coins were inflated in the total supply, and in what block height did the attacks start?
We at Bitssa.com believe that anonymity will create a trust deficit in Bitcoin as a viable investment option and a value storing digital currency. The only reason why there is so much confidence in the market for Bitcoin is that all the transactions are available in the public domain in real time. This is why people have trust in Bitcoin. We all know that Bitcoin is based on the highly secured, sophisticated and advanced Blockchain Technology. As every transaction on the block needs approval from various sources on the network, it makes Bitcoin trading a transparent and accountable process. Therefore, to do away with the 'public character' of Bitcoin and bringing in anonymity will compromise with its security feature and further create suspicion in the public's eyes. And most importantly, adding anonymity will also facilitate terror-funding, illegal transactions, and black money laundering, etc. Hence, it is extremely important that Bitcoin should retain its essential character as a highly secured, transparent and accountable value storing virtual commodity rather than becoming a dangerous instrument in the hands of a few mischief-mongers willing to commit financial crimes if anonymity is granted to it.
Jump to: