> Would you object to me saying "bitcoin" For me, the jury is still out, cf tulip bubble. > of us having a reasonable secure and (seemingly) anonymous currenc

> Would you object to me saying "bitcoin" For me, the jury is still out, cf tulip bubble. > of us having a reasonable secure and (seemingly) anonymous currency I'd object to that on the basis that most crypto-currencies have a public ledger, and I believe deanonymization is already somewhat effective and also only just in its infancy. I would not want to have committed anything to the blockchain that I wasn't happy for the world to know. I believe this is solvable in future innovations, but appears to be far from widely deployed. The linked post appears to be a possible solution. Also I think the whole tainted coins concept, where a government marks transactions emanating from a wallet, and all linked transactions after that, is going to be a much much bigger deal than people think. It seems very unlikely to me that companies like Coinbase won't have to maintain a blacklist at some point in the future if they want to stay on the good side of regulators, which will lead to all sorts of turbulent effects.