5 ms·

Yeah, only a few people have come to this realization: 1. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a corporation without money 2. So far it's been impossible to receive m

by drcode 13y ago

Yeah, only a few people have come to this realization: 1. It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a corporation without money 2. So far it's been impossible to receive money online anonymously Therefore: 3. Corporations can't be anonymous Bitcoin finally gets rid of this barrier and makes anonymous corporations possible (whether autonomous or human-operated)

adamb_ 13y ago
I don't believe the OP is suggesting the company doesn't make money, rather there's no specific group of people who partake in the profits. Why does the money received need to be anonymous?
- kaonashi 13y ago
  Presumably to avoid prosecution for tax evasion.
  - adamb_ 13y ago
    I think it would be more interesting to imagine that such a company could theoretically pay its taxes. If such an entity is to be trusted and utilized by the majority, having it "play by the rules" to some extent could be valuable.
    - eriksank 13y ago
      There is no moral value whatsoever in playing by politically-controlled rules. To libertarians your statement sounds very anti-libertarian and to religious people, your statement sounds like a blasphemous heresy.
      - kaonashi 13y ago
        > To libertarians your statement sounds very anti-libertarian And to reasonable people, it sounds reasonable.
        eriksank 13y ago
        Libertarians and religious people come to the same conclusion by entirely different routes: Calling people to obedience to any other laws than the ones of the Creator, the original lawmaker, amounts to pronouncing a blasphemous heresy. Anybody doing that will deservedly burn in hell.
- drcode 13y ago
  > Why does the money received need to be anonymous? Well, since I was talking about an "anonymous corporation" in my comment, it would be kind of necessary for it to receive money anonymously. I agree OP is talking about something slightly different.
betterunix 13y ago
Anonymity is not really a feature of Bitcoin, and in fact the design of Bitcoin makes anonymity difficult.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  People keep saying this, but it's just not true. Use a tumbler. Done.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    No, not done: (1) You need to hope and pray that your mixing service does not just run off with your money (2) You need to be careful not to withdraw your money from the mixing service "too quickly" or else you will de-anonymize yourself Here is a paper that casts serious doubt on at least one mixing service, based on a simple (by the authors' own admission) approach to de-anonymizing Bitcoin: https://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/sites/default/files/public/department/itsecurity/mbc13/mbc13-moeser-paper.pdf https://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/sites/default/files/public/de... All this ignores the fact that the security model of Bitcoin mixing services is even less well-developed than the security model of Bitcoin itself (incredibly, such things are possible).
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      Thank you for the paper. But did you read it? Bitcoin Fog works, and the paper goes into detail about why it works. In the Silk Road investigation, the investigators basically threw up their hands and said "don't bother trying to analyze the transaction graph." So there's some evidence that tumblers are effective in practice.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        I do not think the takeaway is that Bitcoin Fog works; rather, it is that Bitcoin Fog protects you from the specific strategy used by the authors of the paper. Another approach might work against Bitcoin Fog. "In the Silk Road investigation, the investigators basically threw up their hands and said "don't bother trying to analyze the transaction graph." So apparently tumblers are effective in practice." Do you have a citation about mixing services specifically thwarting investigators? Maybe the investigators felt that Bitcoin itself was too much to deal with. It would not be the first time a law enforcement agency has pointed to a system with little-to-no security and claimed that they cannot attack it.
gaadd33 13y ago
I think there are enough legal structures in various jurisdictions that make creating an anonymous corporation somewhat easy. http://www.economist.com/node/21563286 http://www.economist.com/node/21563286 is a pretty good article on it. The book "Treasure Islands" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OA6420/ref=as_li_ss_tl?tag=supportoccupy-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OA6420/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...) is a pretty good read about offshore banking/tax havens and the price put on secrecy.

by drcode 13y ago

adamb_ 13y ago

I don't believe the OP is suggesting the company doesn't make money, rather there's no specific group of people who partake in the profits. Why does the money received need to be anonymous?

kaonashi 13y ago
Presumably to avoid prosecution for tax evasion.
- adamb_ 13y ago
  I think it would be more interesting to imagine that such a company could theoretically pay its taxes. If such an entity is to be trusted and utilized by the majority, having it "play by the rules" to some extent could be valuable.
  - eriksank 13y ago
    There is no moral value whatsoever in playing by politically-controlled rules. To libertarians your statement sounds very anti-libertarian and to religious people, your statement sounds like a blasphemous heresy.
    - kaonashi 13y ago
      > To libertarians your statement sounds very anti-libertarian And to reasonable people, it sounds reasonable.
      - eriksank 13y ago
        Libertarians and religious people come to the same conclusion by entirely different routes: Calling people to obedience to any other laws than the ones of the Creator, the original lawmaker, amounts to pronouncing a blasphemous heresy. Anybody doing that will deservedly burn in hell.
drcode 13y ago
> Why does the money received need to be anonymous? Well, since I was talking about an "anonymous corporation" in my comment, it would be kind of necessary for it to receive money anonymously. I agree OP is talking about something slightly different.

betterunix 13y ago

Anonymity is not really a feature of Bitcoin, and in fact the design of Bitcoin makes anonymity difficult.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
People keep saying this, but it's just not true. Use a tumbler. Done.
- betterunix 13y ago
  No, not done: (1) You need to hope and pray that your mixing service does not just run off with your money (2) You need to be careful not to withdraw your money from the mixing service "too quickly" or else you will de-anonymize yourself Here is a paper that casts serious doubt on at least one mixing service, based on a simple (by the authors' own admission) approach to de-anonymizing Bitcoin: https://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/sites/default/files/public/department/itsecurity/mbc13/mbc13-moeser-paper.pdf https://www.wi.uni-muenster.de/sites/default/files/public/de... All this ignores the fact that the security model of Bitcoin mixing services is even less well-developed than the security model of Bitcoin itself (incredibly, such things are possible).
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    Thank you for the paper. But did you read it? Bitcoin Fog works, and the paper goes into detail about why it works. In the Silk Road investigation, the investigators basically threw up their hands and said "don't bother trying to analyze the transaction graph." So there's some evidence that tumblers are effective in practice.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      I do not think the takeaway is that Bitcoin Fog works; rather, it is that Bitcoin Fog protects you from the specific strategy used by the authors of the paper. Another approach might work against Bitcoin Fog. "In the Silk Road investigation, the investigators basically threw up their hands and said "don't bother trying to analyze the transaction graph." So apparently tumblers are effective in practice." Do you have a citation about mixing services specifically thwarting investigators? Maybe the investigators felt that Bitcoin itself was too much to deal with. It would not be the first time a law enforcement agency has pointed to a system with little-to-no security and claimed that they cannot attack it.

gaadd33 13y ago

I think there are enough legal structures in various jurisdictions that make creating an anonymous corporation somewhat easy. http://www.economist.com/node/21563286 http://www.economist.com/node/21563286 is a pretty good article on it. The book "Treasure Islands" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OA6420/ref=as_li_ss_tl?tag=supportoccupy-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OA6420/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...) is a pretty good read about offshore banking/tax havens and the price put on secrecy.