4 ms·
Publishing your entire transaction history for the entire world to see doesn't seem like the best way to have privacy, even if it is under a pseudonym. After a
by amalcon 12y ago
Publishing your entire transaction history for the entire world to see doesn't seem like the best way to have privacy, even if it is under a pseudonym. After all, purchasing history seems like one of the best tools to trace a pseudonym.
- mirimir 12y agoWe can have as many pseudonyms as we need, and can transfer Bitcoins among them via mixing services. No pseudonym need make more than one purchase. It's the difficulty of anonymous postal delivery that's limiting.
- amalcon 12y agoYou can do the same thing with USD. It's called money laundering, and was not invented by the Bitcoin community. Granted, for the time being it's a lot easier to do with Bitcoin, but any kind of mass market adoption would surely change this.
- bhayden 12y agoMoney laundering doesn't really solve the problem of being able to buy good digitally without revealing your identity.
- amalcon 12y agoAll of the things mirmir mentioned are considered money laundering when done with USD, so they either solve that problem for both or for neither. Neither result is an argument in favor of bitcoin, so whether or not they do is immaterial.
- mirimir 12y agoPostal delivery of physical goods is problematic, and anonymous payment is pointless. But that's not an issue for software licenses, ebooks, server and VPS rental, VPN subscriptions, consulting services, and so on.
- mirimir 12y agoYes, but "money laundering" is a loaded term. There is nothing dishonorable about foiling meddlers and thieves.