Did Satoshi Envisage A Pseudonymous Or Anonymous Bitcoin

[Cyberczar]

One of my recent clients is a Blending service for Bitcoin. I've been wondering at the role of blenders and why Satoshi did not make Bitcoin completely anonymous like Monero or Zcash or maybe that was his plan as the project evolved. Perhaps the developers he handed over to did not realize that an anomymous Bitcoin would have been closer to cash the way a premier crypto that should replace fiat should be. Granted, this will favour criminals in a way (the way they gravitate towards Monero) but it would have made Bitcoin the perfect instrument for value transfer.

[1715043683]

1715043683

[1715043683]

1715043683

[1715043683]

1715043683

[franky1]

bitcoin does not ask for real name or home address.
however 'good' money is where you can track its provenance (track back to source) to see a good clean audit

many altcoins are not popular and are not used for real life stuff so do not require a audit trail back to which block the coin/partial coin originated from.

the idea of bitcoin WAS sole control. sole security.
EG do due diligence with who you trade with to ensure you do not get scammed.
EG dont hand funds to strangers.

but thats for 1 peer to communicate with another about personal data. should they wish to disclose.
its not meant for the blockchain to store (unlike credit cards)

the whole thing about making bitcoin full anonymous is not about hiding ID. its actually more about using the 'its not full anonymous' to sway the sheep into ruining the provenance check of coins/audit of coins.

real funny part is a certain dev that says make it private using provenance breaking code. under the pretense of reducing mixing service spam.. actually runs a mixer and loves spamming.
he proposed a code tweak that turns a ~230byte tx into a 1kb tx but needs a couple of them to be full anonymous. which ends up as more bloat than just mixing spam does. (revealing his motives are not about bloat reduction but ruining provenance)

ruining the provenance of bitcoins audit will hurt bitcoin more then those that wish to hide. by being lazy and not hiding themselves, and simply want a coin to be messed up and unauditable purely for their laziness

[squatter]

One of my recent clients is a Blending service for Bitcoin. I've been wondering at the role of blenders and why Satoshi did not make Bitcoin completely anonymous like Monero or Zcash or maybe that was his plan as the project evolved. Perhaps the developers he handed over to did not realize that an anomymous Bitcoin would have been closer to cash the way a premier crypto that should replace fiat should be. Granted, this will favour criminals in a way (the way they gravitate towards Monero) but it would have made Bitcoin the perfect instrument for value transfer.

One reason might be that Bitcoin's primary intent wasn't privacy -- it was trustlessness. There is something intuitively attractive about a completely transparent and predictable supply with regard to money. Satoshi also may not have known how to design or code an anonymous protocol like Monero.

[messito]

it seems to me that Bitcoin technology is ideal and to this day I do not see a coin with more interesting technology than Bitcoin

[pooya87]

apart from what was said about the fact that the purpose of bitcoin is not to help you hide but to take control back, it can also be partly because bitcoin itself is the innovation that led to other stuff. in other words bitcoin's creation was the reason why anon coins like Monero were created and sometimes you have to take the steps one at a time not jump over them. not to mention that these anon coins are not perfect. they have flaws that are not desirable for a payment system such as bitcoin.