Thanks for the link. The AB article describes various situations for which AB claims a transaction should be anonymous because revelation of the truth would cause a person embarrassment (teen pregnancy, or HIV test) or where "the authorities" might jump to the wrong conclusion about a person's motives (anarchist cookbook) or because some laws are bad laws and widely ignored.
I do not find those arguments compelling at any deep level - they are arguments from expedience. The embarrassment issue should be dealt with at source, imho - the possibility of pregnancy, HIV, whatever is the underlying truth that must be handled and covering it up (briefly) is not the optimal way to handle it. Similarly, "the authorities" will do what 'the authorities" will do, and sometimes they will harass the wrong citizen and the citizen will have to explain and defend himself as best he can. Reducing the number of such events by use of anonymous transactions helps, but does not solve the underlying problem - and of course "the authorities" would point out that it provides a window of opportunity for "bad guys" to exploit.
Situationally, I would welcome such anonymity in the same way that a child welcomes a ringing phone when he gets caught with his hand in a cookie jar, but it would only be to temporarily dodge something that I should really handle at a deeper, more mature level. I could not feel comfortable within myself relying on such crutches to get by in life but I can certainly feel their attraction.
Well if you argue that rather the underling problem harassment and even punishment of behavior that is simply not the social standard should be fixed, you can simply argue in the opposite direction. If all of societies problems would be fixed there where no need for non anonymous transactions at all.
Simple fact is they aren't and there is a need for anonymous transactions for a society to work.
Your other examples (colonists, surveillance etc.) illustrate various scenarios where one group/entity needs anonymity to counter the excesses of another group/entity that does have anonymity. I agree that such one-sided situations are unreasonable, and I contend that one-sided model prevails in all societies today. Remember though that in my thought experiment NOBODY has anonymity. While there might be a record for all to see that John Citizen bought an illegal substance, there would also be a record for all to see that "the authorities" plan to kick down John Citizen's door at 4 am, and another record for all to see that "the authorities" decided not to kick down Jane Citizen's door. Jane Citizen also bought an illegal substance and is the daughter of Senator Bob Citizen. On and on... no secrets for the good guys, no secrets for the bad guys, however defined. Cameras on 24/7 in Gitmo, senate washrooms, massage parlors, whatever? I realize I've drifted far beyond financial anonymity, but what the heck.
There is an old metric in law "would the person have done what he did if a policeman were looking over his shoulder?". This was invented when "policeman" represented a benign, honorable, unbiased agent of justice so it is a bit hard to identify with today, but... the notion I'm trying to float of "no anonymity for anyone" is an attempt to encapsulate the idea of how we might behave if we knew we could not hide what we were doing. Could a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a (pick a villain) do their dirty deeds if all eyes were on them?
Here you assume that everyone has something to hide, to not be embarrassed or punished. That's also not the case. This would simply lead to an oppression of minorities that live outside the social norm.
If there was no way to hide what we are doing, we are stuck at the status quo.
In the times a policeman represented a benign, honorable, unbiased agent of justice. Justis was for example that women are not allowed to vote and Black People have to sit in the back of the bus.
Every Generation is wrong including this one (ours). Absolute transparency blocks the natural change of society by putting to much power into that hands of the people that are currently "right".
As I write this it occurs to me that this is a variant of a thought experiment offered by my favorite philosophy prof long ago. He invited us to think about what society would be like if everyone was entitled to "one free murder". Would you use it in a schoolyard squabble or would you save it for a dustup in the nursing home? Would you use it the first time your mother-in-law bugged you or when some jerk cut you off in traffic? Would you wait, year in and year out in case something really outrageous came along? More importantly, of course, how might you conduct your affairs knowing that anyone you came into contact with might decide to use their freebie on you? Would we have a kinder gentler society? I don't know, but I like to think about that kind of thing.
That's one of the "deep thought things" that simply aren't deep at all.
I really don't like thought experiments like this for one the simple fact:
For them to even be a thought experiment you have to assume that humans are simple brutes that are not capable of organizing them self without an authority that tells them exactly what to do and what not to do, while the society we have is actually proof that this is not true.
So what would really happen if everyone gets a "free murder" or 10 or 100?
Simple: The free marked would take care of this.
Most people don't like to be killed. Therefore they would pool them self in a kind of insurance pool, saying when one of us gets killed by a free murder we kill the guy who did it.
Now to stop a vicious killing circle between pools once started, different pools would agree to only kill (punish) the individual that started it.
People where afraid that they would get revenge killed without being having done anything, so pools would form that cost some money but therefore provide a investigative service in case someone of them is accused of murder and pai tribunals (curts) to decide if their member is gulty or not and have an agreement with other pools to honor this decisions.
tl. dr. we would end up where we are to day, with the difference that people would have the ability to choose to not spend money on such pools and therefore be not protected by the law if they prefer that.
BTC will fix some of society's problems. The law of unintended consequences guarantees that it will introduce some new ones. If we see them coming we will probably fix them as they arise, some through forks. Despite my "no anonymity" thought experiment I'm paradoxically strongly drawn to its zerocoin opposite. Maybe what these two opposites have in common for me is the idea of "no exceptions" - total privacy for all or total anonymity for all, such that no group/entity gets special rules as at present.
I for one think at our current environment the "middle" of BTC fits our needs the best. It provides general pseudonimity by giving it's user the ability to always without a doubt proof that a transaction that he claims took place as took place.
Show Posts
