3 ms·

These are some heavy assertions here. How would Bitcoin protect against any of that? The government already tracks who buys Bitcoin by having all points of pur

These are some heavy assertions here. How would Bitcoin protect against any of that? The government already tracks who buys Bitcoin by having all points of purchase of USD<->Bitcoin require proof of identity, and they can obviously look at the blockchain to get all the transaction made by each individual. Let's be realistic for a second. All it would take for the government to forfeit your bitcoins is a $5 wrench [1]. I don't like that it's that way, and I don't know what the solution is, but I know it's not as simple as "make Bitcoin happen". [1] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

pdpi 5y ago
For a long time, you could achieve that through localbitcoins or similar (not sure what the situation looks like now). You have tools to achieve some degree of anonymity, and there's other currencies that deal with that aspect of things better. Well-regulated exchanges are part of an effort by (usually VC-backed) startups to legitimise making money off of cryptocurrencies, rather than a core part of the original ethos behind Bitcoin.
- optymizer 5y ago
  I don't understand the anonymity argument. Cash is already anonymous - the act of transferring cash from one person to the other is anonymous. While bills have serial numbers, it is impossible to see who owns all the bills at any moment in time. One can only trace specific bills if they've been marked and then found. Bitcoin transactions are not only recorded, but linked to each other uniquely. It's a government's dream to be able to track all your payments everywhere. It's the opposite of anonymity. Even if you manage to buy bitcoins from someone anonymously, if you _ever_ make a transaction that identifies you (such as paying with Bitcoin at Starbucks where a security camera can run facial recognition) they can trace where your bitcoins came from and then look at all other transactions you've ever made. That situation is not better than fiat. It's an objectively worse situation for preserving your anonymity.
maaaaattttt 5y ago
When (if) speculation settles down, even if the governments know who owns bitcoins, they won't be able to "print" more of it and that's a big advantage over any other fiat currency.
- soco 5y ago
  Can somebody please explain me what is the big deal for me if the government cannot print more currency? I remember old readings saying that inflation was a useful tool - is this not an argument anymore?
  - maaaaattttt 5y ago
    Inflation ultimately means that the money that you own now could buy you way less than it used to or that it will buy you products of a lesser quality than it used to. And I think that we are very much seeing the effects of that. I would not be able to afford as much as I can today if I were only able to buy goods produced in my region (EU). We live under the impression that everything is fine because the decrease in purchasing power has been hidden by the fact that we buy mostly from goods produced very cheaply in the East.

pdpi 5y ago

For a long time, you could achieve that through localbitcoins or similar (not sure what the situation looks like now). You have tools to achieve some degree of anonymity, and there's other currencies that deal with that aspect of things better. Well-regulated exchanges are part of an effort by (usually VC-backed) startups to legitimise making money off of cryptocurrencies, rather than a core part of the original ethos behind Bitcoin.

optymizer 5y ago
I don't understand the anonymity argument. Cash is already anonymous - the act of transferring cash from one person to the other is anonymous. While bills have serial numbers, it is impossible to see who owns all the bills at any moment in time. One can only trace specific bills if they've been marked and then found. Bitcoin transactions are not only recorded, but linked to each other uniquely. It's a government's dream to be able to track all your payments everywhere. It's the opposite of anonymity. Even if you manage to buy bitcoins from someone anonymously, if you _ever_ make a transaction that identifies you (such as paying with Bitcoin at Starbucks where a security camera can run facial recognition) they can trace where your bitcoins came from and then look at all other transactions you've ever made. That situation is not better than fiat. It's an objectively worse situation for preserving your anonymity.

maaaaattttt 5y ago

When (if) speculation settles down, even if the governments know who owns bitcoins, they won't be able to "print" more of it and that's a big advantage over any other fiat currency.

soco 5y ago
Can somebody please explain me what is the big deal for me if the government cannot print more currency? I remember old readings saying that inflation was a useful tool - is this not an argument anymore?
- maaaaattttt 5y ago
  Inflation ultimately means that the money that you own now could buy you way less than it used to or that it will buy you products of a lesser quality than it used to. And I think that we are very much seeing the effects of that. I would not be able to afford as much as I can today if I were only able to buy goods produced in my region (EU). We live under the impression that everything is fine because the decrease in purchasing power has been hidden by the fact that we buy mostly from goods produced very cheaply in the East.