4 ms·

Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. Tainted money like that would need to be put through a

Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. Tainted money like that would need to be put through a Bitcoin tumbler which is unsafe and imperfect or only ever used to pay for other criminal activities as exchanging it for fiat in an exchange cooperating with any authorities could be pretty hard.

wfunction 9y ago
> Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. And I was merely saying Bitcoin has been making untraceable digital payments possible (and practical/easy). Nowhere was I saying it is impossible to also use Bitcoin for traceable digital payments.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  And you'd still be wrong. There's nothing about bitcoin that makes payments untraceable (quite the opposite). It takes longer, but it's possible.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    "It takes longer, but it's possible"? That's like saying decrypting RSA "takes longer, but it's possible". Yeah, good luck.
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      There used to be ransomware that demanded cash by mail. RSA analogy? Way too harsh.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        That's good to know, I wasn't aware. But cash by mail... at what scale? How many people were attacked? And I don't see why the RSA analogy is "too harsh". Impractical is impractical.
        jpttsn 9y ago
        Floppy disk days, no big thing. But practical enough to work in the wild. RSA bruteforce is (I hope) impractical on a different level.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        But tracing bitcoin is not impractical. It's been done.
    - yenda 9y ago
      Isn't the ledger public ? Isn't it easier to track for the authorities than cash serial numbers ?
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        It's easier in many ways but due to anonymity you have to cross trace more. But yes, it's WAY easier to trace than cash
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      It's more like saying "breaking sha1 is slower than md5". Like, it's more awkward but quite doable especially with decent resources.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

wfunction 9y ago

> Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. And I was merely saying Bitcoin has been making untraceable digital payments possible (and practical/easy). Nowhere was I saying it is impossible to also use Bitcoin for traceable digital payments.

abritinthebay 9y ago
And you'd still be wrong. There's nothing about bitcoin that makes payments untraceable (quite the opposite). It takes longer, but it's possible.
- wfunction 9y ago
  "It takes longer, but it's possible"? That's like saying decrypting RSA "takes longer, but it's possible". Yeah, good luck.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    There used to be ransomware that demanded cash by mail. RSA analogy? Way too harsh.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      That's good to know, I wasn't aware. But cash by mail... at what scale? How many people were attacked? And I don't see why the RSA analogy is "too harsh". Impractical is impractical.
      - jpttsn 9y ago
        Floppy disk days, no big thing. But practical enough to work in the wild. RSA bruteforce is (I hope) impractical on a different level.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        But tracing bitcoin is not impractical. It's been done.
  - yenda 9y ago
    Isn't the ledger public ? Isn't it easier to track for the authorities than cash serial numbers ?
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      It's easier in many ways but due to anonymity you have to cross trace more. But yes, it's WAY easier to trace than cash
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    It's more like saying "breaking sha1 is slower than md5". Like, it's more awkward but quite doable especially with decent resources.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]