|
Title: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: awigaxeh-443 on March 20, 2012, 06:33:12 AM Let's say that I bought 20 million USD of goods(that's about about 4,283,572.49 BTC), wouldn't people notice this kind amount of money sent from one wallet to another? Also isn't there an IP address attached to each wallet? If these kinds of transactions are not common then it would be very noticeable if such amounts were to go back and forth.
What if in the possible future people send each other 100 million USD worth of BTCs? Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: Matthew N. Wright on March 20, 2012, 06:37:01 AM Let's say that I bought 2 million USD of goods(that's about about 4,283,572.49 BTC) ??? No, it's 411,726 BTC Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: awigaxeh-443 on March 20, 2012, 06:44:58 AM I meant 20 million USD
Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: John (John K.) on March 20, 2012, 06:50:56 AM Let's say that I bought 2 million USD of goods(that's about about 4,283,572.49 BTC), wouldn't people notice this kind amount of money sent from one wallet to another? Also isn't there an IP address attached to each wallet? If these kinds of transactions are not common then it would be very noticeable if such amounts were to go back and forth. What if in the possible future people send each other 100 million USD worth of BTCs? If that day when 100m USD worth of BTC is sent regularly, each BTC would've been worth like $10,000 each to sustain this kind of transfers. Hence, the actual bitcoins sent would be smaller (approx. 10,000 coins for this transfer). There is no IP address attached to each wallet. A relaying IP is broadcasted with each transaction when you send coins, but it is not your IP. It's a relay node, where thousands of transactions use this IP per day depending on the node's size. If you buy 2m USD worth of goods now, people would notice this transaction but not know who it is from and to, especially when the sender and receiver do not reuse the addresses involved. (which is the norm anyway) edit: and you'll drive up the prices if you do buy 20m worth of goods now. Probably like pushing the prices to the $30-100 range so you'll need to send less after all of this. Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: awigaxeh-443 on March 20, 2012, 06:55:18 AM lmao so people would be able to guess that exorbitant amounts of money is going through the system, not so discreet
Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: John (John K.) on March 20, 2012, 06:57:15 AM See blockchain.info for yourself, truckloads of money change hands and you cannot identify them.
Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: Matthew N. Wright on March 20, 2012, 06:58:50 AM lmao so people would be able to guess that exorbitant amounts of money is going through the system, not so discreet You have missed the point of Bitcoin. Are the world trade center towers discrete? Yet wealthy men own them, and you do not know how much money they have, where it is located etc? Bitcoin goes one further and strips the names from the buildings, and locks the building down. Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: Count Schlick on March 20, 2012, 09:35:28 PM What you're describing has nothing to do with safety. You're attempting to say that bitcoin is not strongly anonymous. These are not the same thing.
This (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity) should address your concern. Someone with the kind of funds you are talking about has the time to make transfers in such a way as to strengthen the anonymity of the transfer. Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: awigaxeh-443 on March 20, 2012, 11:41:32 PM wow so safety and anonymity don't go hand in hand for you, nice
Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: Kluge on March 21, 2012, 12:15:49 AM wow so safety and anonymity don't go hand in hand for you, nice I walk to a quiet rural suburb and stand around. Not anonymous, but pretty safe.I drive a out a couple hours to the "bad part" of Detroit and wear a horse-mask and stand around. Anonymous, but not safe. Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: Haplo on March 21, 2012, 12:22:13 AM wow so safety and anonymity don't go hand in hand for you, nice No, not really. But we can read (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity).Title: Re: Ecurrencies = unsafe. Possible final conclusion. Post by: Count Schlick on March 21, 2012, 12:36:00 AM wow so safety and anonymity don't go hand in hand for you, nice You haven't defined your criteria for safety. Who or what do you feel you need to be safe from? What are you expecting bitcoin to protect you from that traditional finances do not? |