Is Bitcoin practically Anonymous (or Decentralized) ? I know, please read the complete post.
Assumptions (Correct if wrong)
1. Once an entity gets a Bitcoin address it's permanent to that entity
2. I have data (amt of transaction) in public ledgers and I have address of the both entities involved in that transaction.
3*. Having more than one bitcoin address for entity isn't allowed ?
4. We are using bitcoin for WHITE transactions.
Theory :
Now, as the entity's bitcoin address doesn't change over time and I know all the transactions happened in the public ledger. So I get the history of all the transactions that a particular entity has done. Also I have record of all the actual physical transaction that took (buy and sell of a product).[Assuming we are only considering WHITE transactions).
So if I use today's sophisticated Pattern Detection and ML, AI algos (I am not well versed), can't I actually map the physical entity to the Bitcoin address and know who that person is ? [As it is 1:1 mapping]
So I guess even if we are ready to adapt bitcoin for currency we can't guarantee no one can know who send money to whom, right ??
Also people are bound to die and then transactions with the bitcoin address with will stop that's also a very strong evidence that it was that person then (well we can't hang you :p). But even if one person's identity is disclosed then it will be very easy to determine the other party involved (who may be alive) as this person did transactions with certain people in certain order right ? So by elimination, we can actually know which person is which, atleast for Billionaires ??
Yes. Bitcoin has never been fully anonymous, and neither was it ever a selling point. Criminals were able to use it freely in the past because few people had any idea how the Blockchain worked, and there were no Blockchain analysis services. Recently, it seems like they use mixers or buy Monero to throw off the scent. They can otherwise be pinpointed, as you described. The IRS has recently prohibited the concealment of exchange accounts, so they will almost certainly be able to link out all your addresses to you. It's about to happen in a massive scale. |
|
|
|
|
I can't really blame them. They were obviously wrong to pull out in hindsight, but the decision might have made some sense at the time. Bitcoin being priced in cents must have been fresh at their minds at the time. There are always people saying Bitcoin is overpriced, mostly after a furious bull run, and I tend to agree sometimes, only to be proven wrong.
Past event certainly teaches you that it's not smart to bet against Bitcoin, but it's human nature to exercise caution.
Also, I don't think this certain person is trying to get others to dump. He was cautious because of the massive increase and seemed to be genuinely airing out his concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
There doesn't seem to be any numbers cited. They do say they're not isolated cases anymore, but I'm willing to bet people who actually do these kinds of stuff are very few in number. Fact of the matter is, investing in cryptocurrencies is still high risk, and you would need to have a few pieces in your head loose if you want to risk getting jailed just to hit it big.
Still, to each his own I guess. I wouldn't even consider taking out credit to buy dips, but that's just who I am as an investor. Risk big win big, as they say.
|
|
|
|
'Bitcoin Jesus' is 'really, really concerned' about the future of the digital currency
Nicknamed "Bitcoin Jesus," Ver was an early proponent of bitcoin and bought $25,000 worth in 2011 that is now worth $425 million. However, in the debate over how to improve bitcoin's transaction speeds and costs this summer, Ver sided with a minority of developers behind an offshoot called "bitcoin cash."
"The fact of the matter is, the utility of bitcoin has been damaged," Ver said. "If you feel like you missed out on bitcoin back in 2011, take a look at bitcoin cash, give it a use. I think you'll be really, really impressed with the usefulness."
Thanks for copy-pasting this article from somewhere,OP. That fact that Roger Ver is an early adopter doesn`t make him "bitcoin Jesus".He didn`t invent bitcoin or the blockchain.He only wants more and more money and doesn`t care about bitcoin core improvement and mass adoption.The utility of btc has been damaged because of the greedy speculant traders pumping the price and people like him. I bet it's just a stupid nickname some small group of people branded him. He was useful for Bitcoin and its growth for a time. He's become the opposite of thatt, of course, being one of the masterminds behind the recent Bitcoin Cash attack, and pulling stupid stunts like moving his Bitcoins to an exchange. I concede that Bitcoin Cash can handle more transactions right now, but do they even have a road map? They can't just keep on increasing the block size. At least we have Lightning Network on the horizon. I also can't help but wonder how many people lost money on the most recent pump and dump. I'm betting Roger Ver got a huge chunk. |
|
|
|
|
Lmao. I agree about the general level of knowledge most posters here possess, but ponzi? How would you define a ponzi? The way Bitcoin price works is the more of a demand there is, the higher the value gets. No one pays anyone for investing, and everyone who puts in money knows (or should know) that they could lose everything at any time. You profit from appreciating value that's a natural consequence of the market movement.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you want to keep the normies out? Bitcoin is open to everyone. That's kind of the point.
We're all salivating at the prospect of massive profits but this is actually kind of a critical time. We haven't addressed the scalability issue yet, and we know for a fact that the current network can't handle that demand. Transactions are going to continue to get stuck for a while.
|
|
|
|
Been mining since 2013 and will hold my coins. I don't see where the futures will help us other than give us some more legitimatize from the main stream. We will see what happens as they start in 5 mins...
" You have nothing to fear but fear itself" FDR
Anyone falling for the "oh no futures are coming" FUD is a straight retard, there isn't much to say about it. Wall Street is not going to magically short an asset that's limited in amount, cannot be manipulated in it's supply, and it's totally transparent about things. This is another whole new animal they are dealing it. If they aren't completely insane, they will not do anything stupid, or they might end up creating systemic risk on the financial system as they end up liquidated while BTC pumps. Nobody is going to be paying attention to the Future's prices anyway, they are not backed by actual Bitcoin. This is true. Futures will certainly be a factor going forward, but there's no way crashing Bitcoin is as simple as some people theorize. It's ridiculous. They're either forgetting that Bitcoin is decentralized and is resistant against external control, or they're overestimating Wall Street's capabilities. I see this as Bitcoin breaking into the mainstream, and it may even be one step closer to being an ETF. I'm more concerned as to what this will do to the mempool, but that's a different discussion entirely. |
|
|
|
|
Taxation has always been inevitable. Governments are always looking for ways to earn money, and Bitcoin basically hands one to them on a silver platter. It sucks, but if it's the price to pay to avoid a ban, then so be it.
It's not all bad either. People who see this move would be more likely to believe that Bitcoin is legitimate and here to stay. Governments are unlikely to waste resources on simple fads, after all. Think about it, implementing capital gains tax on Bitcoin puts it on the same level as stocks, ableit not formally. It's sure to garner a lot of interest from potential investors.
|
|
|
|
This is supposed to be the money of the future.
I personally don't want to wait a week and pay 25% fee. That's some bullshit
Yep. And people choose to believe that statement despite all these glaring flaws because they know that in the grand scheme of things, Bitcoin is still in its infancy. Bitcoin has a community and a group of developers that are trying to ensure that Bitcoin evolves with the times. That part has hit a snag partly because of Bitcoin's explosive boom, but I have no doubt in my mind that these problems will be solved eventually. For now, I'm willing to wait it out. |
|
|
|
|
Segwit was supposed to address it along with the confirmation speed issue, but some exchanges opted not to use it, and some people don't care about it. It kind of helps, but only works when both the sender and receiver are using it.
The Lightning Network is being tested and should be ready soon. It offers instant confirmations and is predicted to lower transaction fees significantly. No idea when it will be ready though, and it's kind of reliant on Segwit.
Other than those, I don't really know.
|
|
|
|
|
No one. People always like sharing their conspiracy theories that there's a group of people who is controlling Bitcoin from the shadows, but they all have one thing in common: they don't have a single shred of concrete evidence. Bitcoin has been growing since its inception so it's just natural for it to reach these heights. It's really how fast it has been going that's been raising eyebrows. However, if you look at it from a percentage stand point, it's not even that much; Ethereum had more growth this year.
Either way, all the holders benefit from the rising value. That's the beauty of it.
|
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that cryptos are here to stay and only the form and applications are yet to be determined.
Has any one considered the threat to independent cryptos that a gov't or central bank issued crypto represents?
A crypto tethered to the US dollar could gain rapid widespread acceptance by banks and business entities making it possible to buy anything from a soda to a car in crypto. Debit card readers could quickly be converted. bank account balances could be held in dollars or cryptos etc.
While we might get the benefits of electronic payments that come with a digital currency, we would completely lose the protection from the manipulated value (or devaluation) of the dollar. That won't stop the banks from doing it. In fact it's an incentive for the banks to do it. Their tethered crypto could get widespread usage in a couple of years and make it very difficult for non tethered cryptos to gain acceptance. Widespread business acceptance of a crypto will lead to widespread acceptance by the non technical general public that don't understand the difference.
That's true. There will be little reason for people to risk their money in Bitcoin and other cryptos if their own countries introduce their own. People would lean towards trusting their own government rather than Bitcoin, and so would businesses in response. That's just one side to a story though. State backed crypto will be stable, and like fiat, inflationary. It's not going to be able to fill the need of people looking into storage of value, and it definitely can't be considered an investment. Majority of people use Bitcoin precisely for these purposes, so it's still going to gain adoption. They have different niches, though Bitcoin can fill both, in a way. |
|
|
|
Am I daft for thinking that one of the biggest threats to cryptocurrencies is the amount of power used to mine them. It seems to me that in the next year or so alternative technologies will need to be developed that dramatically reduce power usage.
Why is the power usage such a big deal? How many people are complaining about the power being used in 1000s of Banks all over the world? Can you imagine how many air-conditioning units are running 24/7 in these buildings? How much electricity are spend on CCTV and monitoring equipment? How many computers/scanners/photo copy machines/fax machines/printers and ATM's are being used daily? I see nobody complaining about that.  They can't ban banks though, can they? No one will be clamoring for their closure. The world knows they're necessary. Banks are also separate entities, with each essentially a company of its own. They can't be bundled together when talking about power consumption. Bitcoin, in contrast, has a target on its back. As the world exists now, it's unnecessary. The majority won't care if it dies, and some may even want it to. The world has been looking for excuses to undermine Bitcoin, spouting things like how criminals and terrorists use it as a weapon. We can't really afford to give them any more reasons to hate. Something needs to be done for sure. |
|
|
|
...
if it's simply a matter of declaration e.g. at the border or something, that's not a big deal. it's pretty unenforceable. but i can't tell, are they trying to build a database of cryptocurrency wallets linked to ID? that's pretty scary if so.
https://news.bitcoin.com/irs-crackdown-tracking-bitcoiners-with-chainalysis/They are already building a database. That's what makes this bill look like it's going to open the door to a whole new set of laws undermining privacy. Even if they know that the person crossing the border owns cryptocurrencies, how do they determine if the person is bringing them in? Are they legally allowed to check your mobile devices and computer? Even if they do find a wallet, what happens if you don't have your coins there? Heck, there may even be some people out there that has their recovery seeds memorized. I can already tell that this is going to be a nightmare, both for us and them. But yeah, the government knowing your entire financial history in the blockchain is a pretty scary prospect. Bitcoin's growth is going to take a hit for sure. |
|
|
|
|
It would be impossible to say with certainty because quantum computers are still in development, but scientists estimate that they could be. Right now, public keys could be easily derived from private keys, but not the other way around. Deriving a private key from a public key would require a lot of computing power, so much that the conventional computers we have right now can't do it. What if quantum computers are powerful enough to do that though? They would have access to every address that has broadcasted a transaction, so each address would have to be emptied and trashed after use. This is why it's typically considered bad practice to reuse addresses, apart from privacy concerns.
That being said, it's all theoretical. It's hard to find out the true capabilities of quantum computers given that they don't exist yet. For now, we can rest easy that it remains impossible.
|
|
|
|
Let's try to clear this up as everyone still seems to be confused. SEC. 18. Prohibition on concealment of ownership of account.
“(a) In general.—No person shall knowingly conceal, falsify, or misrepresent, or attempt to conceal, falsify, or misrepresent, from or to a financial institution, a material fact concerning the ownership or control of an account or assets held in an account with a financial institution.
I've been reading up on the subject and it doesn't look like you have to declare every single address you have that has money in it. The bill seems to be limited to coins stored in accounts with a financial institution. The way I understand it, they really only changed the definition of "financial institutions" to include cryptocurrency exchanges. That means you have to disclose your exchange accounts like you would your bank accounts, which is hardly surprising as I imagine there are some people with more money in their exchange accounts than their bank accounts. Cryptocurrency wallets are not considered a financial institution, so it seems to be exempted. Your other addresses are very likely to be traceable from your exchange accounts though, so therein lies a problem, but at least people should be able to get away with not disclosing them. I could be completely wrong though, of course, so please feel free to correct me. |
|
|
|
|
That's all well and good, and Bitcoin certainly has the potential to reach trillions in "market cap", but why the hate on gold? Apart from a few similarities, I simply don't see them as competitors in any aspect. They do serve as storage of value, but who invests in gold and expects massive returns? Those people simply don't want their money to use value, and they're pretty much completely safe. They have different demographics, and even if Bitcoin is accepted on a global level, it's not going to kill off gold. It's still a precious metal with a variety of uses, a fact that Bitcoin cannot take away.
|
|
|
|
Lmao it looks like Bulgaria could teach the US government a thing or two about HODLing. $500 million to $3 freaking billion is no joke. It would be interesting to see what steps they take next. Do they HODL? Do they go the auction route like the US? What's interesting is that if they auction it, then they're basically giving their citizens their blessing to use Bitcoin. That may not be so bad because they've obviously profited from it, and they already know they can crack down on crimes using Bitcoin. There was a bloomberg article claiming 1,000 people own 40% of bitcoin which might have scared off investors. Nah, if you read it, they don't back it with any statistics at all. I would take that with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
This article seems devoid of facts. It starts off saying someone moved 25k Bitcoins to an exchange, prompting people to talk about it. You know what this article is talking about? Roger Ver amidst the Bitcoin Cash attack: https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7cefom/roger_ver_just_sent_25k_btc_to_bitfinex/True, this was certainly market manipulation at work, but the coins moving didn't prompt the drop itself. It came with massive social media FUD and a mempool spam attack. That was a confirmed case of a Bitcoin whale trying to bring down Bitcoin with his friends and failing. That suggests it's much easier to do in theory than in practice. About 40 percent of bitcoin is held by perhaps 1,000 users; at current prices, each may want to sell about half of his or her holdings, says Aaron Brown, former managing director and head of financial markets research at AQR Capital Management.
I would like to know where he got his data. I know that there is market inequality, but I always thought it would be impossible to precisely quanitify because people can use multiple wallets with no traces of each other. Asked about whether large holders could move in concert, Roger Ver, a well-known early bitcoin investor, said in an email: “I suspect that is likely true, and people should be able to do whatever they want with their own money. I’ve personally never had time for things like that though.” They conveniently forgot to mention that while Roger Ver is still holding Bitcoins, he's rooting for Bitcoin Cash now. |
|
|
|
Has that ever happened?
Some have these KYC.
Will it happens?
In most exchanges I go anonymous. On some I got some money.
Hell YES, there is a new rule just published, ALL Exchanged on USA SOIL Must divulge all sales over $20k to the IRS U will then get an automatic bill from the IRS for not declaring this un-earned income, and all penalty's are DUE, All exchanges on USA soil to be licensed, and conditions are licensing are being a compliant agent for the IRS, in other words all BTC exchanges on USA soil, are IRS tax collectors and enforcers. The $20k rule will eventually drop to $10k, and goal is $500 USD all sales of crypt to be reported to IRS [ zog? usa, austrailia, japan, taiwan, so-korea, uk,can, .. all usa colonys areas held by usa military under zog ] *** Summary, never use a exchange that is under ZOG, that means probably only safe exchanges be china and/or russia IRS like FBI are just ZOG agents keeping the funds flowing to Tel-Aviv(City of London), since 1913 FRB Not true. The recent court ruling only applies to Coinbase. They requested that Coinbase divulge all of their customers' info, and Coinbase contested it and took it to court. The court ruled that Coinbase must disclose some of the information of their customers who have transactions amounting to $20,000 or higher. It sucks, but at least there was some sort of compromise. The IRS initially requested them to divulge all information about every customer, even those that doesn't have anything to do with paying taxes. Coinbase called it a partial victory, and it really kind of is. As for other exchanges, they could very well follow suit if the IRS sets their sights on them. There is precedent after all. If this bothers you, and it really should, then pay your taxes to avoid potential problems going forward. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
