4 ms·
I'm fairly sure GP meant that Bitcoin itself is designe to be immune to legal interference. Individual users are not, although by employing a very strict securi
by brazzy 7y ago
I'm fairly sure GP meant that Bitcoin itself is designe to be immune to legal interference. Individual users are not, although by employing a very strict security regime, they can in principle stay completely anonymous.
- ac29 7y ago> by employing a very strict security regime, they can in principle stay completely anonymous Doesn't that necessarily require avoiding legitimate financial institutions at all costs?
- lmm 7y agoYou can interact with legitimate financial institutions in the normal way under your public identity. You've just got to make sure you don't share that identity with your bitcoin counterparties, which will limit your ability to exchange bitcoin for things of value such as fiat currency.
- garmaine 7y agoBitcoin isn’t meant to interface with existing financial institutions.
- fidelramos 7y agoCorrect. It's actually in the first line of the Bitcoin whitepaper's abstract: > A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
- ac29 7y agoSure, but effectively 100% of the world's economy takes place via fiat currencies. One could remain anonymous by accumulating a bunch of cash (or gold, or some commodity, etc) and never spending it as well.