3 ms·

Bitcoin is quite unsafe. For example if you send money to a cause you care about, but government disagrees with it, they can disallowlist your wallet and you pr

Bitcoin is quite unsafe. For example if you send money to a cause you care about, but government disagrees with it, they can disallowlist your wallet and you probably won't be able to touch any coins derived from it ever. If Intel was serious, they should have looked into supporting Monero or other truly anonymous currencies.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
If you use one wallet for all your transactions, you're the fool. You don't carry your checking account in your back pocket, why would you give a small charitable fund (or anyone!) knowledge of how much you have, and where?
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  Using multiple wallets is just minor obfuscation, not protection. The funds came from somewhere and that somewhere is also knowable & observable. Especially with transaction fees being what they are, shuffling money between wallets is just wasting money. And a lot of it.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    So take your payments into different wallets, avoid the "shuffling". You can also use mixers, or friends, and do "one shuffle", and have the same result. Point is, the only thing that can be improved here is app UX.
wyldfire 5y ago
Thankfully -- for now -- most merchants do not seem to respect any such blacklist/greylist. However, for exchanges, KYC regulation may end up having some similar effects. Intel's no dummies. They know that a lot of investors have heard of Bitcoin and not a lot of investors have heard of monero. They didn't get into this business because they wanted to contribute to a decentralized currency. They just want to make money.
AnonHP 5y ago
Considering that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies intend(ed) to operate in a decentralized manner, your point probably matters only for those who want to deal with centralized exchanges that follow such allow or deny lists. There are services and ways to connect with others to trade (though they may come with some more difficulty compared to a centralized exchange).
rbanffy 5y ago
Isn't this why you have multiple wallets?

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago

If you use one wallet for all your transactions, you're the fool. You don't carry your checking account in your back pocket, why would you give a small charitable fund (or anyone!) knowledge of how much you have, and where?

kllrnohj 5y ago
Using multiple wallets is just minor obfuscation, not protection. The funds came from somewhere and that somewhere is also knowable & observable. Especially with transaction fees being what they are, shuffling money between wallets is just wasting money. And a lot of it.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  So take your payments into different wallets, avoid the "shuffling". You can also use mixers, or friends, and do "one shuffle", and have the same result. Point is, the only thing that can be improved here is app UX.

wyldfire 5y ago

Thankfully -- for now -- most merchants do not seem to respect any such blacklist/greylist. However, for exchanges, KYC regulation may end up having some similar effects. Intel's no dummies. They know that a lot of investors have heard of Bitcoin and not a lot of investors have heard of monero. They didn't get into this business because they wanted to contribute to a decentralized currency. They just want to make money.

AnonHP 5y ago

Considering that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies intend(ed) to operate in a decentralized manner, your point probably matters only for those who want to deal with centralized exchanges that follow such allow or deny lists. There are services and ways to connect with others to trade (though they may come with some more difficulty compared to a centralized exchange).

rbanffy 5y ago

Isn't this why you have multiple wallets?