I agree with Snowden. Loth though I am to say this, Bitcoin has a problem: Privacy is Bitcoin’s Achilles’ heel.
To say that “Bitcoin goes far beyond privacy” is like saying that a tower goes far beyond its foundations. Privacy is a fundamental characteristic, it is an economic necessity insofar as it affects fungibility, and it needs to be built-in: It is a part of the foundation, not a roof ornament.
[...]
I also like that Snowden tweet about gold being a non-networked form of Bitcoin. Quotable. He apparently has quite a high regard for Bitcoin. If he offers some constructive criticism of it (as I do often), that is for the good of Bitcoin.
There is one area where BTC's current restraints in terms of privacy , is sort of a good thing. Regulation. (try not to vomit)
I wonder if BTC would be where it is today if it was a privacy coin...... I mean it opens up an attack vector for tptb/regulators....
I have debated that with myself for years. My conclusion is to the contrary: The way that Bitcoin made decentralized, permissionless money an
accomplished fact before governments could react, it could have done the same for privacy. If only the technology had existed—which it didn’t, because the necessary technological developments were motivated by Bitcoin’s existence. (One of the principal inventors of modern zero-knowledge proof systems now runs a company building Ethereum L2 stuff.)
Flip this around. Imagine that we are now in 2008, and some guy who calls himself Natoshi Sakamoto proposes a new centralized, permissioned digital money system. Would you suppose that we need to accept that, to avoid opening an attack vector for TPTB/regulators? Or would you say: No, let’s go instead with Satoshi Nakamoto’s idea for decentralized, permissionless money, which you can use with no KYC by generating a keypair on your computer. You know how much TPTB/regulators love that!
Accomplished facts are powerful. Now, regulators have been in the
reactionary position of responding to the accomplished facts of “decentralized” and “permissionless”. They have needed to adapt. But now, Bitcoin is in the reactionary position of fighting accomplished facts of a transparent blockchain, Chainalysis, “tainted” coins, etc.
The precedent is set—one way for better, the other way for worse.
Feel like BTC has walked that tightrope pretty well......
Not to discuss altcoins in WO, but as raw data for contemplating the hypothetical of a Bitcoin with strong privacy: Gemini supports Zcash shielded withdrawals. That is a NY Bitlicensed, notoriously
ultra-KYC exchange, under one of the most onerous regulatory regimes in the world. They started support for shielded withdrawals, after Zcash was hit with some high-profile exchange delistings during a FUDstorm;
Tyler Winklevoss made Gemini’s position quite clear. The Rock Trading in Europe is another regulated KYC exchange that supports Zcash shielded.
The exchanges have users’ KYC dox. Police, tax enforcers, et al. can tell targeted persons, “Give us your view keys,
or else”; view keys permit viewing, but not spending of shielded money that is otherwise entirely invisible on the blockchain. Gemini or The Rock Trading users who withdraw shielded Zcash are concealing their private finances from the world; they will not end up on any “rich lists”, their finances are protected from snooping by cyberstalkers, and they can sleep quietly at night without worrying about
armed robbers. But they are not in any position to hide from their governments. This issue is not as simple as it seems at a glance.
I think that Zcash has walked that tightrope pretty well. Bitcoin could have done similarly—and it could do similarly, in the future.
A world with widely adopted truly private digital money, could well come with issues of its own, some positive, and, some negative.
Since the dawn of human history, criminals have been able to transact anonymously with gold coins in the hand, with paper cash, etc. More importantly, so could good people who deserve to have privacy—who should not be punished for the actions of others.
Now that the world is going all-digital, truly private digital money only restores, in essence, the way things were for thousands of years.
That’s a good thing—unless one idealizes transforming the whole world into a giant panopticon, where everyone is presumed guilty and thus kept under watch.
But, 100% on the fungibility issue, and privacy issue as a whole.
A little coincidence:
I have believed for years that zero-knowledge proofs will take over the world.
That is from technical discussion of
my original idea to use zero-knowledge proofs for emergency salvaging of BTC, in case a large quantum computer is developed. Zero-knowledge proofs are
not only useful for privacy; they have at least three or four non-privacy use cases that I want to see in Bitcoin. Perhaps I should stop writing forum posts, and write some code.