Is Gavin Andresen Sincere when he says he cares deeply about privacy in Bitcoin?

[Bill Bisco]

In this video around 4:05 Gavin Andresen says that he does care deeply about privacy.

I'm really worried because it's been nearly a year now.  I don't hear anything from the core developers that they're going to implement something concrete to ensure bitcoin's anonymity.

I hear about Zerocoin's developers saying that the Bitcoin developers were unwilling to modify the source code and add anonymity and so Zerocoin will now become an alt coin.

I get really nervous when I read articles like this or talks like this which highlight the extreme dangers that can be imposed by world governments without anonymity.

I don't know, guys, I want to believe Gavin Andresen, but I'm really worried that the Bitcoin core developers will choose the easy path and not implement any additional anonymity features in Bitcoin.  I really fear for the long term viability of Bitcoin and the abilities of vindictive governments to harass people if these anonymity features aren't implemented.

[1715049179]

1715049179

[1715049179]

1715049179

[1715049179]

1715049179

[1715049179]

1715049179

[1715049179]

1715049179

[TheButterZone]

I really fear for the long term viability of Bitcoin and the abilities of vindictive governments to harass people if these anonymity features aren't implemented.

Ditto.

Future Bitcoin services need to be run as if they are illegal enterprises, like Silk Road, even if what they are doing is apparently legal.

Why:

• Laws change.
• Regulations are vague and open-ended, and it's probably impossible to operate a business without accidentally violating one.
• Even if you do manage to operate without violating any rule law enforcement agencies do not always limit themselves to the letter of the law when deciding to begin an enforcement action.
• Governments are not the only threats to a successful business. Non-governmental organized crime is almost equally capable of extortion.

The solution is to run all services in the darknet, not tied to any physical location or legal jurisdiction, and without any explicit connection to a real-life identity.

In order to reduce the risk of the operator running away with all the coins customers should start using Bitcoin like it was intended and only get involved with zero-trust business models instead of giving their money to companies that blindly emulate old paradigms.

[Peter R]

Have you looked into CoinJoin?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0  This is already implemented in the Blockchain.info webwallet.

In general, I feel people's fear of "privacy loss" has more to do with their lack of understanding of the existing bitcoin protocol (partly due to insufficient tools/wallets to easily implement better privacy by default) than any deficiency of bitcoin. 

Sometimes you want addresses and transactions to be public and easily traceable, other times you don't.  Bitcoin allows for both. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Better clients will get adopted by the majority of the network ... you are essentially concerned with a centralisation of the software development (and it could be a valid one). But if it proves to be a long term problem the ecosystem will react accordingly in an emergent way.

E.g. if you are given the choice between free client software that includes privacy tools and free client software that doesn't, which will you choose to install?

[tvbcof]

Better clients will get adopted by the majority of the network ... you are essentially concerned with a centralisation of the software development (and it could be a valid one). But if it proves to be a long term problem the ecosystem will react accordingly in an emergent way.

E.g. if you are given the choice between free client software that includes privacy tools and free client software that doesn't, which will you choose to install?

If coins are tainted by virtue of being used by a client which performs privacy related operations, and if retailers refuse them (because, say, there is a government mandate to honor the tainting authority's output), then I'm using the client which does not.

(Of course I'll also be spending all my BTC and switching over to an alt which is more robust, but that's just me.)

[Peter R]

If coins are tainted by virtue of being used by a client which performs privacy related operations, and if retailers refuse them (because, say, there is a government mandate to honor the tainting authority's output), then I'm using the client which does not.

I can imagine a Coin Tainting Authority (CTA) in some dystopian future--initially implemented to blacklist the bounty of some great crime--that slowly grows more and more prejudiced.  I can see how such a system could arise.  

But how would this tainting authority discriminate coinjoin transactions of untainted coins where the inputs are controlled by a single entity, from coinjoin transactions where the inputs have multiple owners?  (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0)  Stopping this legitimate need for privacy is a more difficult proposition--both technically and politically---than the CTA declaring the coins at 1IStole1BillionDollars398dj as black-listed.      

In any case, I expect any credible "tainting" efforts to be several years away, if they happen at all (I personally think blacklisting/tainting will not work for technical reasons).  And, in the absence of a truly one-world totalitarian government, there will always be some untaint-for-a-fee mechanism: for were not control and profits from money-laundering what motivated our hypothetical CTA to over-reach in the first place?

[anti-scam]

Zerocoin wasn't implemented in the first place because it simply wasn't ready. The new Zerocoin hasn't even released any code publicly yet. It's too early to judge whether or not it will make it into Bitcoin.

[maurya78]

I would like to say yes but time alone will tell...

[Ragnarly]

Bitcoin Anonymity Upgrade Zerocoin To Become An Independent Cryptocurrency

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/01/13/bitcoin-anonymity-upgrade-zerocoin-to-become-its-own-cryptocurrency/

[cr1776]

Bitcoin Anonymity Upgrade Zerocoin To Become An Independent Cryptocurrency

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/01/13/bitcoin-anonymity-upgrade-zerocoin-to-become-its-own-cryptocurrency/

The good thing is that zerocoin can be added later to bitcoin once released and tested. Privacy and anonymity are extremely important.  Coinjoin, dark wallet etc are all parts of the puzzle.

[Alpaca Bob]

CoinJoin and all that is great, but Bitcoin really needs to run anonymously by default, and it must do so before we reach the tipping point of mass adoption.

I wish I could code so I could help 

[Coolstoryteller]

There's a few developers working on privacy sensitive coins besides zerocoin. Anoncoin, Stablecoin (accepting beta testers for its mixer- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=402095), and Darkcoin. Zerocoin seems to be getting the most PR because they have a cryptography professor behind it.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Bitcoin will go mainstream so there cant be more privacy.

Zerocoin will fill that gap. And believe me: zerocoin will never be added in bitcoin. Dont wait for that.

[freet0pian]

Bitcoin will go mainstream so there cant be more privacy.

Zerocoin will fill that gap. And believe me: zerocoin will never be added in bitcoin. Dont wait for that.

Agree 100%. If zerocoin functionality would be implemented in bitcoin there would be two large obstacles to get gov. approval for that or at least they would pretend these were obstacles. The perfect anonymity would make the Oh-So-Dreaded-Money-Laundering™ a lot easier so no compliance with AML and also The-Poor-Customers-Would-Be-Left-Mugged-And-Scammed-Of-Their-Bitcoins™ while the criminals could disappear into the dark web...

[yayayo]

I'm sorry to say this - but I do not trust Gavin. While he tries to appear unconventional / independent at the surface, he seems to be rather conformist at the core. Consider all the Bitcoin Foundation pro regulation stuff he's pushing and his talking with officials.

He likes flattery. He is also prone to be blackmailed since he's not an anonymous person and has family.

Conclusion: We urgently need initiatives for more privacy.

ya.ya.yo!

[zeroday]

Forget about anonymity If you want to see $10K/btc.

I expect that Silkroad & Co will move to Zerocoin in time.

[AnonyMint]

I get really nervous when I read articles like this or talks like this which highlight the extreme dangers that can be imposed by world governments without anonymity.

Add my thread to the logic about the threats from lacking anonymity.

Zerocoin doesn't obscure IP addresses. Still vulnerable to traffic and pattern analysis too. CoinJoin can't scale due to denial-of-service in its 2nd signing step. DarkCoin appears to be fundamentally flawed. Etc.

All the gory details in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439357.msg5355485#msg5355485

[Lethn]

I suspect that this has nothing to do with privacy and Zerocoin wanted to make changes that Gavin didn't like to the source code, he's not stupid, I can never understand why people like Zerocoin or even Bitcoin foundation for example feel the need to hijack other peoples' work unless it was for a nefarious reason, they should have just gone and made an altcoin from the beginning.

Anoncoin did it right away and they're succeeding so I don't understand why the Zerocoin devs have such a problem with this, this kind of thing is why Satoshi released the code open source in the first place.

[dewdeded]

This whole stuff make you wonder what happended to Satoshi. Could be, he was found by NSA/CIA and killed. Then they awarded the project lead to their socket puppet Gavin.


Because it unlikely Satoshi would have choosen somebody living in the USA.

[AnonyMint]

I get really nervous when I read articles ... or talks like this which highlight the extreme dangers that can be imposed by world governments without anonymity.

Andreas' rant started around 33 minutes or so, and he really got into by 39 min. He basically says that the developed world is too focused on profit, navel-gazing, kissing the boot of regulators. He says the 6 billion are driving the real future of Bitcoin.

Cool! He and I are shouting the same thing!

So fuck these assholes in this forum who are criticizing me.

P.S. Andreas has one flaw in his analysis, the developing world is short the dollar and the tail doesn't wag the dog yet. The USA is still fully in control for another decade or so. So we have to go through a really big mess first before we get to his ideal.