4 ms·

There are ways to anonymize Bitcoin transcations, but I don't know how reliable they are. But there are other coins that attempt to be anonymous by default. I d

There are ways to anonymize Bitcoin transcations, but I don't know how reliable they are. But there are other coins that attempt to be anonymous by default. I don't think it is a fundamentally unsolvable aspect.

acdha 5y ago
That’s the part covered by this: > Mixers are of little consequence, just like money laundering schemes aren't a magical loophole around laws regulating transactions and tracking asset ownership. The key is understanding that governments don’t just say “oh, it involves computers, guess we have to give up”. Once something grows to the point where it’s worth caring about, blockchains are easily censored as we’ve seen in e.g. China. It’s not just that they’re a complex high-volume network stream which is easily blocked but, more importantly, that most of what people want to do happens in the real world where those governments control things. If businesses are required to report their customers, a blockchain doesn’t help you because the auditors are going put them out of business if they don’t comply. If you are linked to a mixer or anonymous coin network, congratulations, you’re now at risk of being charged as an accomplice for the worst crime committed using that system – better hope you can prove and they care that you weren’t knowingly helping them! (Are you sure that service isn’t run by the police so you can pay them to make a confession?) All of this is fully retroactive, too: you might think you’ve evaded attention but that changes when someone you transacted with turns over their transaction history. How many of the people you’ve transacted with are you willing to go to jail for rather than testify against them? If the government published a list of tainted addresses involved in illegal activity, it’s going to be quite expensive to ignore it since whoever does do is taking on both the risk of prosecution and a reduced pool of potential buyers. All of those things cut into legitimate usage: most people have alternatives so if a blockchain isn’t cheaper people aren’t going to touch it if it involves legal risks.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Nobody expects governments to simply give up. But for a country to have to go full China to be able to prevent the use of Bitcoin is still quite an effort. And even if that happens, you can memoize your master key and try to escape into another country. Much easier than if you have to transport several pounds of gold. So it isn't perfect yet, but still a lot better than any other approach. The argument "but it is against the law" (like money laundering) isn't really a good argument against an attempt to hedge against unfair governmental interventions.

acdha 5y ago

That’s the part covered by this: > Mixers are of little consequence, just like money laundering schemes aren't a magical loophole around laws regulating transactions and tracking asset ownership. The key is understanding that governments don’t just say “oh, it involves computers, guess we have to give up”. Once something grows to the point where it’s worth caring about, blockchains are easily censored as we’ve seen in e.g. China. It’s not just that they’re a complex high-volume network stream which is easily blocked but, more importantly, that most of what people want to do happens in the real world where those governments control things. If businesses are required to report their customers, a blockchain doesn’t help you because the auditors are going put them out of business if they don’t comply. If you are linked to a mixer or anonymous coin network, congratulations, you’re now at risk of being charged as an accomplice for the worst crime committed using that system – better hope you can prove and they care that you weren’t knowingly helping them! (Are you sure that service isn’t run by the police so you can pay them to make a confession?) All of this is fully retroactive, too: you might think you’ve evaded attention but that changes when someone you transacted with turns over their transaction history. How many of the people you’ve transacted with are you willing to go to jail for rather than testify against them? If the government published a list of tainted addresses involved in illegal activity, it’s going to be quite expensive to ignore it since whoever does do is taking on both the risk of prosecution and a reduced pool of potential buyers. All of those things cut into legitimate usage: most people have alternatives so if a blockchain isn’t cheaper people aren’t going to touch it if it involves legal risks.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Nobody expects governments to simply give up. But for a country to have to go full China to be able to prevent the use of Bitcoin is still quite an effort. And even if that happens, you can memoize your master key and try to escape into another country. Much easier than if you have to transport several pounds of gold. So it isn't perfect yet, but still a lot better than any other approach. The argument "but it is against the law" (like money laundering) isn't really a good argument against an attempt to hedge against unfair governmental interventions.