4 ms·
Those are good objections. I guess the only safe way of dealing with bitcoins is to get money into a wallet without in any way associating it with your real lif
by pgsandstrom 13y ago
Those are good objections. I guess the only safe way of dealing with bitcoins is to get money into a wallet without in any way associating it with your real life persona, which could be very tricky. And after that never ever use your wallet to pay a service that is assigned to your real name.
Are there any good resources to read up on how the remixers work, and why they cant be relied upon?
- saurik 13y agoI do not have any resources related to that; the summary (as I vaguely remember the arguments) came down to evidence being accumulated due to reasonable caps on fees and delays (if giving your money to the remixer occasionally ate 99% of the money and occasionally made it hold onto the money for a year, you are no longer in a position to effectively utilize it) combined with correlations on repeated transactions. To be clear, though, my argument was simply to move the "data scientist" line from "wallet obfuscation" (for which I then provided more concrete issues) to "remixers", and then to point out that normal people (the kind of person who didn't solve the underlying problem long ago using prepaid credit cards ;P) aren't using remixers and are unlikely to begin using remixers (as they probably aren't even using the more useful forms of wallet obfuscation: they are probably relying on what their wallet software is doing by default).