|
Title: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: dslowness on March 30, 2014, 08:28:50 PM I haven't really seen this discussed, but wouldn't the ability to add notes to transactions become a privacy concern and a method of easy regulation? I'm imagining merchants being required to reply to payments with "receipt" transactions with notes that could potentially contain sensitive information (i.e. what was payed for, the receiver's mailing address, etc. Even a simple order number could be enough to connect an address to a personal identity.) Am I just being paranoid?
Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: windpath on March 30, 2014, 09:56:17 PM It sounds a little paranoid to me ;)
That would equate to stamping every fiat bill you receive with the same information.... And whats to stop me from stamping all my bills with my competitors information to create a greater accounting burden for them? I would say its untenable. Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: dslowness on March 30, 2014, 10:43:37 PM Perhaps. The main difference, however, is that fiat stamping would be much more difficult to enforce considering there isn't a public ledger to verify your compliance. Also, the existence of larger merchants with publicly known addresses would greatly reduce the foul play you described. These merchants would be the first to comply, with the smaller "honest" merchants eventually falling in line. A slippery slope for sure, but definitely a point of weakness in the decentralized nature of the network.
Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: windpath on March 30, 2014, 11:53:21 PM Perhaps. The main difference, however, is that fiat stamping would be much more difficult to enforce considering there isn't a public ledger to verify your compliance. Also, the existence of larger merchants with publicly known addresses would greatly reduce the foul play you described. These merchants would be the first to comply, with the smaller "honest" merchants eventually falling in line. A slippery slope for sure, but definitely a point of weakness in the decentralized nature of the network. While not all do, I would anticipate most major merchants, if not all, implementing hourly/daily address changes, there is 0 benefit (aside from tx fees, much smaller the CCs) to having 1 big fat address vs. many smaller ones... Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: ryanmnercer on March 31, 2014, 12:18:09 AM Perhaps. The main difference, however, is that fiat stamping would be much more difficult to enforce considering there isn't a public ledger to verify your compliance. Also, the existence of larger merchants with publicly known addresses would greatly reduce the foul play you described. These merchants would be the first to comply, with the smaller "honest" merchants eventually falling in line. A slippery slope for sure, but definitely a point of weakness in the decentralized nature of the network. While not all do, I would anticipate most major merchants, if not all, implementing hourly/daily address changes, there is 0 benefit (aside from tx fees, much smaller the CCs) to having 1 big fat address vs. many smaller ones... Hell, in my case it's not even a wallet I control. If a customer pays with bitcoin it goes through bips.me then to me. Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: countryfree on March 31, 2014, 12:44:46 AM I've never added a note to a transaction, and nobody I dealt with had ever added anything either. So there isn't any privacy concern.
Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: dslowness on March 31, 2014, 01:16:23 AM I've never added a note to a transaction, and nobody I dealt with had ever added anything either. So there isn't any privacy concern. My concern is with governments or regulatory agencies forcing you to add notes. Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: amspir on March 31, 2014, 01:51:22 AM I haven't really seen this discussed, but wouldn't the ability to add notes to transactions become a privacy concern and a method of easy regulation? I'm imagining merchants being required to reply to payments with "receipt" transactions with notes that could potentially contain sensitive information (i.e. what was payed for, the receiver's mailing address, etc. Even a simple order number could be enough to connect an address to a personal identity.) Am I just being paranoid? The message could be hidden. The original document would be known only to the parties involved, the public message on the block chain would be a hash of that document. Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: Bit_Happy on March 31, 2014, 02:35:55 AM I've never added a note to a transaction, and nobody I dealt with had ever added anything either. So there isn't any privacy concern. My concern is with governments or regulatory agencies forcing you to add notes. Isn't the government in the business of helping us? Seriously, if they get that involved we will need to start a different "libertarian" project. Title: Re: Public messages in transactions a privacy concern? Post by: killinitsoftly on March 31, 2014, 02:49:36 AM Considering most companies work via BitPay, it would be BitPay that would have to succumb to the demands of the US government. Is BitPay American?
|