24 ms·

they didn’t listen then and they don’t listen now. waste of effort.

hailwren 4y ago
I think you are projecting your beliefs onto them. Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes have all been implemented because everyone in crypto acknowledges the lack of privacy. The WSJ on the other hand…
- bluGill 4y ago
  You are confusing the enthusiasts with the people who understand crypto. Both groups existed, but the enthusiasts group made many claims that anyone who had even minimal understanding didn't believe.
- twelve40 4y ago
  > Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes Does any of this stuff actually help bypass KYC requirements for legal offramps in developed countries?
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Probably not. I believe exchanges are meant to block transactions of tainted coins. And using a mixer immediately marks the coins as tainted.
    - hailwren 4y ago
      I haven’t really used any of them, but my belief is that the USG wouldn’t have sanctioned TornadoCash if it didn’t work.
msm_ 4y ago
Satoshi (and many other OG members of bitcointalk) knew, and tried to improve the protocol. BTC was not set in stone at the beginning. It's just at some point Satoshi disappeared, and moonfags[1] who controlled the capital (miners and exchanges) weren't interested in any technical improvements that may make regulators more angry, causing the end of most innovation in the cryptocurrency space. [1]Sorry for the very colloquial term, I don't know a better one. I mean people who care about cryptocurrencies only as a speculative "investment".
- overthrow 4y ago
  Bitcoin chose a certain set of tradeoffs, and other coins choose differently. It has its advantages. There's no need to project such negativity onto other projects for making different design choices.
- nr2x 4y ago
  Yeah that’s super offensive, I would avoid it altogether.
- thewildginger 4y ago
  Just say crypto bros. We all know someone who treats crypto like it's CrossFit. We'll get what you mean. Even a miner and exchanger is a crypto bro, even if they don't want to admit it. They're in it for the money.

I think you are projecting your beliefs onto them. Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes have all been implemented because everyone in crypto acknowledges the lack of privacy. The WSJ on the other hand…

bluGill 4y ago
You are confusing the enthusiasts with the people who understand crypto. Both groups existed, but the enthusiasts group made many claims that anyone who had even minimal understanding didn't believe.
twelve40 4y ago
> Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes Does any of this stuff actually help bypass KYC requirements for legal offramps in developed countries?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Probably not. I believe exchanges are meant to block transactions of tainted coins. And using a mixer immediately marks the coins as tainted.
  - hailwren 4y ago
    I haven’t really used any of them, but my belief is that the USG wouldn’t have sanctioned TornadoCash if it didn’t work.

msm_ 4y ago

Satoshi (and many other OG members of bitcointalk) knew, and tried to improve the protocol. BTC was not set in stone at the beginning. It's just at some point Satoshi disappeared, and moonfags[1] who controlled the capital (miners and exchanges) weren't interested in any technical improvements that may make regulators more angry, causing the end of most innovation in the cryptocurrency space. [1]Sorry for the very colloquial term, I don't know a better one. I mean people who care about cryptocurrencies only as a speculative "investment".

overthrow 4y ago
Bitcoin chose a certain set of tradeoffs, and other coins choose differently. It has its advantages. There's no need to project such negativity onto other projects for making different design choices.
nr2x 4y ago
Yeah that’s super offensive, I would avoid it altogether.
thewildginger 4y ago
Just say crypto bros. We all know someone who treats crypto like it's CrossFit. We'll get what you mean. Even a miner and exchanger is a crypto bro, even if they don't want to admit it. They're in it for the money.