So how much privacy do we really need?

[Hamphser]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

We cant really change the fact that bitcoin and other crypto currency which do have anonymity features will not be used on criminal activities since this is the best ingredient to execute those bad doings.Its sad to think but we cant do anything about it and this is why cryptos do really have a bad image on most governments because they do only see on their negative aspect.Thinking off on what you are suggesting is somehow hard,creating anonymous or private transactions which cant be used on criminality? Its impossible.

[1715225696]

1715225696

[bomberb17]

Ok so after doing some research it seems that this is an open question out there, (applies not only to bitcoin-cryptocurrencies but to the whole online-world) and there's no definite answer for that question.
That question is better known as the "anonymity vs. accountability" debate.
I believe this article summarizes the issue: http://hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/ks070709.pdf

[amishmanish]

It seems possible that bitcoin has now moved out of the Privacy debate. Majority of the people using a bitcoin wallet will no longer care about privacy nor will have it guaranteed by it.
As far as the original question goes a lot of people have different responses to this 'intrusion of privacy' thing. There are those who are paranoid enough to make a fuss about Amazon knowing about their shopping habits. That seems a bit of an exaggeration.

Then there are those who are concerned about their information like address, Credit card info being safe and secret. Isn't this just another hazard of our human activity?Like driving? If you drive a car, there's always a chance of a Road accident but we all follow rules, hope the others do and try to feel safe despite the fact that it never has been. So, if you need that kind of privacy (which keeps your accounts safe), maybe using a Tor-Node for bitcoin or an Anonymous Tor-based coin would be the answer....

Lastly, we have the heroes/activist group of people who need anonymity because they are the Julian Assanges and Edward Snowdens of the world. Those are people who I guess are already smart enough to hide themselves. They will just need to be off-grid with a trusted sphere of people around them.

To answer whether we as normal consumers/ citizens need or even can have privacy,well, Nobody can guarantee privacy without regulations and law & order. Just like nobody can guarantee safety without your town sheriff. (Although I assume, a lot of people in USA like to keep safety in their own hands, which is quite a cultural thing; But frankly, some of the things you guy do are just hard to understand!!..)

Privacy is a right but if the powers that be want to interfere, then their's prolly little we can do. So be in the second group of people and try to be safe by being vigilant.

[aleksej996]

1. Can you provide an example of a 'decentralized' exchange? Any exchange needs a form of a government permission to operate in any country. (we are not talking about crypto<->crypto exchange, but crypto<->fiat)
2. Suppose I hack into your bank account and steal all of your savings. Or use your identity to get a $100,000 loan. Did I commit a crime? Not according to you, since I didn't hurt or kill anyone.

1. I did, the only one that I know that is decentralized and uses fiat<->crypto. Bisq (former Bitsquare). Just read the first sentence again more carefully
2. According to me, you haven't. If I had a bank and you did that, I would still not call it a crime. I considered thefts of bitcoins just as well and private information and data, like pictures and other hacks and ransomware. I have been thinking about it for a long time and I think that we shouldn't consider any non-physical act as a crime. At least not in the physical world, now will there be punishment for your cyberactions in the cyberspace, like government hacking you back or stealing your money, is a different story in my opinion and those two should be strictly held separate.

[bomberb17]

It seems possible that bitcoin has now moved out of the Privacy debate. Majority of the people using a bitcoin wallet will no longer care about privacy nor will have it guaranteed by it.
As far as the original question goes a lot of people have different responses to this 'intrusion of privacy' thing. There are those who are paranoid enough to make a fuss about Amazon knowing about their shopping habits. That seems a bit of an exaggeration.

Then there are those who are concerned about their information like address, Credit card info being safe and secret. Isn't this just another hazard of our human activity?Like driving? If you drive a car, there's always a chance of a Road accident but we all follow rules, hope the others do and try to feel safe despite the fact that it never has been. So, if you need that kind of privacy (which keeps your accounts safe), maybe using a Tor-Node for bitcoin or an Anonymous Tor-based coin would be the answer....

Lastly, we have the heroes/activist group of people who need anonymity because they are the Julian Assanges and Edward Snowdens of the world. Those are people who I guess are already smart enough to hide themselves. They will just need to be off-grid with a trusted sphere of people around them.

To answer whether we as normal consumers/ citizens need or even can have privacy,well, Nobody can guarantee privacy without regulations and law & order. Just like nobody can guarantee safety without your town sheriff. (Although I assume, a lot of people in USA like to keep safety in their own hands, which is quite a cultural thing; But frankly, some of the things you guy do are just hard to understand!!..)

Privacy is a right but if the powers that be want to interfere, then their's prolly little we can do. So be in the second group of people and try to be safe by being vigilant.

The most sensible answer I've read so far. Clearly the majority of people would fall into your second group, so the privacy question is mainly targeted for this group. Businesses also fall into this category. I believe that a cryptocurrency that satisfies this group's needs has yet to be found.

1. Can you provide an example of a 'decentralized' exchange? Any exchange needs a form of a government permission to operate in any country. (we are not talking about crypto<->crypto exchange, but crypto<->fiat)
2. Suppose I hack into your bank account and steal all of your savings. Or use your identity to get a $100,000 loan. Did I commit a crime? Not according to you, since I didn't hurt or kill anyone.

1. I did, the only one that I know that is decentralized and uses fiat<->crypto. Bisq (former Bitsquare). Just read the first sentence again more carefully
2. According to me, you haven't. If I had a bank and you did that, I would still not call it a crime. I considered thefts of bitcoins just as well and private information and data, like pictures and other hacks and ransomware. I have been thinking about it for a long time and I think that we shouldn't consider any non-physical act as a crime. At least not in the physical world, now will there be punishment for your cyberactions in the cyberspace, like government hacking you back or stealing your money, is a different story in my opinion and those two should be strictly held separate.

1. It seems Bisq is based on the localbitcoins.com philosophy, where it just brings trading parties together without the exchange holding currency. So technically, it's not an exchange platform. In a case of a government ban, the exchange website itself maybe wouldn't shutdown, however the transactions themselves could. And I'm not talking about cryptocurrency transactions, but the bank transfers/money orders etc where the government has control over. Maybe cash transactions would work, but no sensible and honest person would exchange large amounts with cash.
2. "If I had a bank and you did that, I would still not call it a crime" + "I think that we shouldn't consider any non-physical act as a crime" -> bank fraud not a crime? Cyberbullying not a crime?  Online predators not a crime? Child pornography not a crime? No comment!!!

[Stedsm]

OP, I will be putting your statements in different quotes to answer to each of them:

However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?

We all think we should remain completely anonymous because if "we" are holding all our "finances" on our "own", then I don't think there is any need for others to be able to actually watch our activities, though that's not possible with Bitcoins because we use to "stake" as well as "sign" our addresses to show the legitimacy of being "ourselves".

I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.

Bitcoin works like parent coin, so if that won't be adopted, I fear none of the others would. But you can check the daily usage and market capitalization to see if what you think is correct or the reality is totally different?(!) Those that have too much privacy are not the only that might be used for criminal activities as even Bitcoins are being used through the "Tor" way under the "Dark Web Network" for such activities.

My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

Idea is great, but I feel pity to say that there's nothing in this world that could offer both of the delightful pleasures in your dish because that's where regulation is needed, and when such is enforced in this, what's the purpose of using it? Centralization under the name of decentralized?

[aleksej996]

1. It seems Bisq is based on the localbitcoins.com philosophy, where it just brings trading parties together without the exchange holding currency. So technically, it's not an exchange platform. In a case of a government ban, the exchange website itself maybe wouldn't shutdown, however the transactions themselves could. And I'm not talking about cryptocurrency transactions, but the bank transfers/money orders etc where the government has control over. Maybe cash transactions would work, but no sensible and honest person would exchange large amounts with cash.
2. "If I had a bank and you did that, I would still not call it a crime" + "I think that we shouldn't consider any non-physical act as a crime" -> bank fraud not a crime? Cyberbullying not a crime?  Online predators not a crime? Child pornography not a crime? No comment!!!

1. It might not fit some technical definition of an exchange, but maybe Bitcoin doesn't fit some technical definition of a currency. What is a technical definition tho, doesn't matter. Bisq is practically an exchange, as you can use that program to exchange currency. Localbitcoins is centralized, Bisq is not. Website is only thing you could shut down in Bisq, just like government could shutdown Bitcoin.org, but not the transactions themselves. Bisq doesn't have cash trades, it uses various bank transfers as payment methods between peers, but no single party knows all the bank transfers connected to Bisq, this information is encrypted between traders and the whole network exists only on the Tor network. Bisq was created to be censorship resistant, it is decentralized by design, there is no single point of failure. You would have to take every Bisq offer to reveal all the users, which would cost a lot of money, as there are security deposits, Bitcoin mining fees, antispam trading fees etc. This is all assuming that Bisq traders actually want to trade with you, instead of someone they traded with before.
It is good to be always sceptical, but I think you would understand more if you read more about it. It is a pretty good decentralized system.
2. Correct. Bank fraud is not a crime in my book, banks are a fraud. Cyberbullying is not a crime, just close the tab. You really think that it should be illegal for one person to hurt other with words? Does that call for actual physical intervention by law? Online predators are criminals when they do actual physical crime, whether they talk to vulnerable people online or not, even tho it is disgusting, it should be punished physically by law. You can expose them, warn others about them, forbid the use of Internet or teach vulnerable about the dangers, but not get rid of people who talk to other people on the Internet, no matter what they say. Child pornography should be a crime when it is filmed, as children are too young to make such decisions in life and especially if they are forced. Actually watching it shouldn't. Are you going to arrest anyone who sees something you might consider disgusting to watch or are you just paranoid that every action that reminds you of a crime should be punished?

[Cutekittens21]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

I disagree with both of your predictions. The lack or abundance of privacy probably won't affect the adoption, since Bitcoin is private enough and if you are careful you can reach a near perfect privacy, but you can also reach complete transparency if you desire so, it is completely up to the user.

Bitcoin is supposed to be used in way that you use different addresses for every transaction for security and privacy so there shouldn't be any problems with the lack of it. While other more private cryptocurrencies won't get banned either, since that is near impossible as well, it is hard to ban something that is decentralized and ever adopting like that.

I don't see a reason why we wouldn't have a soft-fork down the road for adding confidential transactions so people can use them if they want.

Bitcoin does not offer any privacy. You create a new, empty wallet address? Yes it is anonymous. Do you get some coins from your friend? Now you are linked with your friend and whoever your friend is in turn linked to. Do you buy some coins from an exchange? Now you are linked with that exchange (which in most cases collects your personal information). Do you buy something from overstock? Now you are linked with that store. And these links are permanent. You could create another wallet and send your coins there, but all you can manage is to just make another link to all of the above.
All this is being done: https://www.elliptic.co/financial-institutions/
Also for those who still don't want to accept it, watch this from Greg Maxwell himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHPYNZ8i1cU

Regarding another 100% private cryptocurrency, in the end yes it will be banned from the government(s) (see China for example). The coin itself cannot be banned, but the exchanges can. And that currency will sooner or later be used for illegal purposes (Alphabay etc.)

Well said. I like your insight. I do agree with you for the most part, but I don't think all governments will be banning it. What are you thoughts on the future of cryptocurrency then? Your post sounds a big negative.

[bomberb17]

...Actually watching it shouldn't. Are you going to arrest anyone who sees something you might consider disgusting to watch or are you just paranoid that every action that reminds you of a crime should be punished?

No comment again. I think we must stop here.

Well said. I like your insight. I do agree with you for the most part, but I don't think all governments will be banning it. What are you thoughts on the future of cryptocurrency then? Your post sounds a big negative.

I think that a cryptocurrency that has a chance to be adopted by the civilized world, should have transactions that are both anonymous and accountable.
Anonymous to protect the everyday user and the businesses from leaking information about their transactions (addresses and amounts).
Accountable to make it a mainstream currency, where fraud and illegal activity can be tracked.
This seems to be a contradiction, but we must find a sweet spot in between these two, and there is a question on how would a cryptocurrency achieve this in its technical design. Or maybe there could be other solutions, like off-chain or side-chain transactions.

[aleksej996]

...Actually watching it shouldn't. Are you going to arrest anyone who sees something you might consider disgusting to watch or are you just paranoid that every action that reminds you of a crime should be punished?

No comment again. I think we must stop here.

Well said. I like your insight. I do agree with you for the most part, but I don't think all governments will be banning it. What are you thoughts on the future of cryptocurrency then? Your post sounds a big negative.

I think that a cryptocurrency that has a chance to be adopted by the civilized world, should have transactions that are both anonymous and accountable.
Anonymous to protect the everyday user and the businesses from leaking information about their transactions (addresses and amounts).
Accountable to make it a mainstream currency, where fraud and illegal activity can be tracked.
This seems to be a contradiction, but we must find a sweet spot in between these two, and there is a question on how would a cryptocurrency achieve this in its technical design. Or maybe there could be other solutions, like off-chain or side-chain transactions.

You sound a bit too afraid of life my friend. You can't have freedom and someone to fully protect you and watch over you all the time.
Be brave and rational. not paranoid.

If you do give government full capability of tracking every transaction then they will use it for corruption, political imprisonment, personal benefits and they will get hacked and eventually all the information will leak. Giving power to the ones who consistently prove that they can not be trusted with it is absolute madness created by fears that are even more insane. You should be careful, not paranoid.

Democracy and anonymity go together. You can not have full democracy without full anonymity.

[FuzzyQuant]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be.

If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need.

Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO.

[bomberb17]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be.

If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need.

Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO.

Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address.

[aleksej996]

Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address.

You can always exchange your bitcoins to some anonymous altcoin like Monero using any of the many decentralized crypto<->crypto exchanges (will work even better with Atomic swaps), then make a Monero private transaction and then exchange it back. It really isn't hard to stay anonymous or launder your coins once you are already in crypto and, as I mentioned before, with Bisq you can even get even get more coins with fiat anonymously and securely. The point is that not only would removing anonymity from crypto be bad for society, but it is also impossible. All that governments can do is the same they been doing with fiat for decades, witch is to keep the small fish (which make the economic minority) out of the game, not the big guys. Bitcoin tech is just allowing the small fish to be as anonymous as big fish if they know what they are doing. It was simply created to give power to the people and it does that pretty well.

[FuzzyQuant]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be.

If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need.

Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO.

Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address.

Obviously if you just send the bitcoins from one address to the other, that won't work... We're talking about using a middle-man, such as an exchange. Most exchanges send from a generic or random address (not the one you use to deposit in them), so it becomes practically impossible to track.

Old address -> Exchange deposit address -> [Exchange send using their own address] -> New address

Your new address is only  linked to the generic address of the exchange and the generic address cannot be directly linked to your deposit address, so you're "anonymous."

[paxmao]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

100% privacy suits me perfectly. Exactly the same privacy that all the rich guys on the Panama papers and other lists were enjoying.

[bomberb17]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be.

If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need.

Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO.

Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address.

Obviously if you just send the bitcoins from one address to the other, that won't work... We're talking about using a middle-man, such as an exchange. Most exchanges send from a generic or random address (not the one you use to deposit in them), so it becomes practically impossible to track.

Old address -> Exchange deposit address -> [Exchange send using their own address] -> New address

Your new address is only  linked to the generic address of the exchange and the generic address cannot be directly linked to your deposit address, so you're "anonymous."

You can't rely for your anonymity on exchanges. Keep in mind that exchanges have your personal information. If you use an exchange in the middle, you might become anonymous to me, but you won't be anonymous to the professional de-anonymizers. It's like using a regular bank.

[FuzzyQuant]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be.

If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need.

Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO.

Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address.

Obviously if you just send the bitcoins from one address to the other, that won't work... We're talking about using a middle-man, such as an exchange. Most exchanges send from a generic or random address (not the one you use to deposit in them), so it becomes practically impossible to track.

Old address -> Exchange deposit address -> [Exchange send using their own address] -> New address

Your new address is only  linked to the generic address of the exchange and the generic address cannot be directly linked to your deposit address, so you're "anonymous."

You can't rely for your anonymity on exchanges. Keep in mind that exchanges have your personal information. If you use an exchange in the middle, you might become anonymous to me, but you won't be anonymous to the professional de-anonymizers. It's like using a regular bank.

It all depends on how superficial you are... You can always sign-up on exchanges with bogus information and a fake e-mail address and do it while obfuscating your real IP. I don't want to promote any detailed guide as to how to become very anonymous, but it's definitely doable. You are arguing a lost point, clinging on details. It is definitely doable and the "professional de-anonymizers" as you call them are always one step behind the professional anonymizers.

[aleksej996]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

100% privacy suits me perfectly. Exactly the same privacy that all the rich guys on the Panama papers and other lists were enjoying.

Great response. Biggest criminals, politicians, businessman always had the anonymity. Bitcoin is in all aspects there just to give to the people what the powerful already had, the control of the money supply, ownership of the actual funds, anonymity, no censorship of transactions and etc.

[FuzzyQuant]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

100% privacy suits me perfectly. Exactly the same privacy that all the rich guys on the Panama papers and other lists were enjoying.

Great response. Biggest criminals, politicians, businessman always had the anonymity. Bitcoin is in all aspects there just to give to the people what the powerful already had, the control of the money supply, ownership of the actual funds, anonymity, no censorship of transactions and etc.

If I can point out, the Panama papers are no longer anonymous, since everyone knows about them... Also, the whole "what the powerful have" narrative is getting very old. While I am by no means rich, why do bitcoin fanatics always put the rich in the same caricature/box? You don't have to be rich to have access to this "anonymity", which is not really anonymous, since a company or group of people are holding all your information and you've off-loaded the risk onto them and you better pray they know how to truly hide things.

I would argue that bitcoin gives everyone access to a better mechanism, if they know how to use it. Money can surely make a big difference, but it's knowledge that truly makes the difference at the end of the day. Money will buy you someone else's knowledge, but it will never beat you having the knowledge yourself.

There's nothing stopping you from becoming rich, if you are willing to put in the effort and time, most people aren't and therefore will never be rich. It's trite to always blame the rich for everything. You may live in a country where they are more controlling and oppressive, but there's nothing stopping you from re-locating to a place that respects competition and will allow you to rise if you put in the effort. Is it easy? No, but it's better than complaining about the rich.

[BumbleHummel]

We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?

100% privacy suits me perfectly. Exactly the same privacy that all the rich guys on the Panama papers and other lists were enjoying.

Great response. Biggest criminals, politicians, businessman always had the anonymity. Bitcoin is in all aspects there just to give to the people what the powerful already had, the control of the money supply, ownership of the actual funds, anonymity, no censorship of transactions and etc.

If I can point out, the Panama papers are no longer anonymous, since everyone knows about them... Also, the whole "what the powerful have" narrative is getting very old. While I am by no means rich, why do bitcoin fanatics always put the rich in the same caricature/box? You don't have to be rich to have access to this "anonymity", which is not really anonymous, since a company or group of people are holding all your information and you've off-loaded the risk onto them and you better pray they know how to truly hide things.

I would argue that bitcoin gives everyone access to a better mechanism, if they know how to use it. Money can surely make a big difference, but it's knowledge that truly makes the difference at the end of the day. Money will buy you someone else's knowledge, but it will never beat you having the knowledge yourself.

There's nothing stopping you from becoming rich, if you are willing to put in the effort and time, most people aren't and therefore will never be rich. It's trite to always blame the rich for everything. You may live in a country where they are more controlling and oppressive, but there's nothing stopping you from re-locating to a place that respects competition and will allow you to rise if you put in the effort. Is it easy? No, but it's better than complaining about the rich.

I imagine that depends on your definition of rich. I don't think advocating action is wrong for seeking success, but the ludicrous wealth typically used for the "rich" in most people's minds (billionaires and such) is not a result of simple "put in X work, get out Y money." Far more variables come into play, such as creativity, connections, etc. A successful person is one that can create opportunities for themselves, yes.