2 ms·
It's the difference between pseudonymity and anonymity. Saying that I've transferred B bitcoin to identity A doesn't tie that identity to a "real" person, it j
by abetusk 9y ago
It's the difference between pseudonymity and anonymity. Saying that I've transferred B bitcoin to identity A doesn't tie that identity to a "real" person, it just says whoever holds A's identity (secret keys) can do other transactions with the bitcoins A holds.
In practice this gets complicated as some exchanges require a valid government ID (drivers license say) and that's why these so-called "tumbling" services sprung up. The idea is that, for a small fee, you put X bitcoin into a pool with other people, and get (X - eps) back out and put into another identity of your choosing (eps being transaction fees). As long as the tumbling service doesn't get compromised so that the destination address can't be tied to the source address, this allows for a level of real world identity protection.
Presumably even sending bitcoin from an identity that's tied to your meat space identity directly to another identity that you create provides a layer of protection.
- vkou 9y ago> Presumably even sending bitcoin from an identity that's tied to your meat space identity directly to another identity that you create provides a layer of protection. But then any transaction from your second, secret identity that compromises you will retroactively compromise all other transactions made from that identity. Your opsec has to consistently be perfect.
- cinquemb 9y agoThis is true, which is why it makes sense that one would throw away one's secret identity (and creating another) after each and every transaction to mitigate agaisnt this. Not to say one is in the clear even if they do such, because as some say, metadata kills…