Traditional cash is more privacy oriented then bitcoin

[thompete]

There aren't a lot of situations I can think of where I would need total anonymity. I'm a law abiding, tax paying citizen. Trying to circumnavigate the system because I simply adhere to some high minded ideal of personal liberty is pointless for me. I do that kind of thing right out loud and in your face, consequences be damned.
I'm guessing most of the chest-beating anarcho capitalists here are just blowing smoke. If you really wanted to stay off the radar, why tout that here?
Be a f#%^ing grown up and pay your taxes

Same thing for me. I have never actually used the advantage of anonymity, except for gambling maybe, because countries could be tapping into a lot of things.

[Coinna]

Does it mean in addition to being pseudonomous it is pseudoprivate ?

I obviously understand the ease with which large sums can be transferred, but privacy ?? I think DarkCoin and some other clones are promising that. Maybe really private folks need to look there.

[gogxmagog]

I'm just undecided as to the ethics of total anonymity.
On the one hand I enjoy my privacy.
On the other hand... Big money can use it to avoid their responsibilities.
It's a double edged sword.
How many billions are in numbered Swiss accounts and off-shore havens?
Privacy, even anonymity has always been available for a price.
"Free for those who can afford it, very expensive for those who can't."

[UnicornFarts]

"Free for those who can afford it, very expensive for those who can't."

See - I think this is the root of the issue.

As technology has evolved it has placed much more power in the hands of centralized power.  Either power that comes with wealth (avoid offshore taxes, hire lawyers, etc) or power that comes with actually being in power (NSA wire tapping, etc).

I watched a really good video by Gavin Wood who essentially said the idea of anonymity and privacy is not an "is" "is not" issue.  It's about making it cost prohibitive enough that the government is forced to pick their targets.  Not throw a blanket over an entire population.

I think the ancap is a completely failed idea.  As is libertarian (they are different).  Just look at the altcoin ann section.  THAT is ancap at it's finest.

I also feel democracy has failed.  So I'm not really sure where that leaves me.  But anyway.  I agree with you that the ethics of total anonymity are tricky.  But I think I lean towards the blockchain providing anonymity for all in the protocol to *try* to insulate the individual from the centralized powers that be.  This helps continue to level the playing fireld between the rich and the poor at the same time as far as functionality / what's available to them

[Blazr]

How many billions are in numbered Swiss accounts and off-shore havens?

You've been watching too many movies. Switzerland now shares all that information with the US: http://web.archive.org/web/20080611115027/http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/kd3795.htm
Not only that Swiss bank accounts were only popular among working class and not among the rich. Why? because if you are rich, you don't have to pay taxes.

Lets take Google as an example. I don't have any information on Google's "tax-evasion structure" in the US (however you can bet they have many tricks) however, outside of the US, Google is really called "Google Bermuda Unlimited", they are a company in Bermuda that doesn't have to publish any financials and has an office in Amsterdam (which has no employees and is a PO box), which is owned by Google Ireland in Dublin, where they have a datacenter that was pretty much paid for by the Irish government under a series of grants they got for "research".

The total amount of tax Google pays with this setup is only 2%! and they got a free datacenter. And it's completely legal, they didn't have to use any anonymity or off-shore bank accounts, just tactics and damn good lawyers who were able to convince tax authorities across the world that all of this makes total sense.

And don't forget the way taxes work is that you have to prove to them you don't owe more, they don't have to prove anything. The IRS will simply say "OK we think you made $1 million in Bitcoin that you didn't tell us about, prove you didn't or pay up".

[pawel7777]

Saw this today and think it sums up something I've thought for a long time that most bitcoiners didn't seem to get.

Traditional cash is more privacy oriented then bitcoin because a record of the transaction isn't publicly broadcast to be recorded for all eternity.

Think it's pretty relevant in light of the Ross Ulbricht.  Bitcoin is NOT anonymous.  And if one mistake is made in the future it can reveal all of your past.

Bitcoin is not anonymous, it's pseudonymous. But with the right precautions you can remain fairly anonymous using BTC, while paying cash requires physical presence, so not necessarily much anonymity here.

Also last time I checked.  Toilet paper has performed a hell of a lot better over the last several months than bitcoin.

Scott Toilet Paper:

I ain't no expert, but it looks like a good time to buy  

[Q7]

I tend to disagree. If you hold large amount of paper money for example like 100k, eventually you will need to involve banks. You can't just keep it in your house. And you can't carry that with you through airports. And if you deposit that amount there is every way to trace back where the money comes from. Tax collector will compile that piece of information. Whereas for bitcoin you can always make it more anonymous like for example mixing the coins around with other cryptos.