Privacy should be fought for

[spazzdla]

The fact this isn't talked about much even more so after Canada froze bank accounts watching people tx bitcoin and ETH addresses tied to other ETH addresses are being black listed / banned is really bad..

BTC will fail or much much much worse become the money of enslavement if privacy is not added.. Unbreakable privacy..

The thing is most people actually don't care about their privacy. They say they have "nothing to hide". With this mindset, we can never expect governments to give up on their task to destroy privacy for good. Bitcoin by itself may not be private, but there are tools you can use to help make your transactions private. For instance, you can use a non-custodial mixer to obfuscate your utmost sensitive transactions, or simply convert your BTC to a privacy coin like Monero or Zcash.

Some would say using a new BTC address for each transaction is the perfect measure to help protect your privacy. The problem here is that you're stuck with centralized exchanges which force you to provide your personally-identifiable information. Decentralized exchanges exist, but they have low trading volume/liquidity compared to their centralized counterparts. Not to mention, they're not as easy to use as you think they are. With the introduction of CBDCs, governments will become more invasive than ever. It'll be up to crypto advocates to help defend privacy for the sake of our liberty and freedom. Just my thoughts

Most people do not care for years UNTIL they cannot buy food they want because it would increase their "carbon foot print" too much.   Or their social credit is too low. Or they have been deemed to have had to many coffees for the day, they have seen to much of one news station for the day, they........... the list will not end. ... we are in the trenches now....

It does appear we agree my friend.

I believe all mixers are infiltrated by the govs attempt unknowingly(being optimistic here) to destroy humanity's hope and joy.















Oh my I am on quite the rant I will stop for the time being.

[1715218594]

1715218594

[n0nce]

Privacy of some sort on the protocol level will be very difficult and will take a lot of time(assuming it would actually occur someday). Also, I'm pretty sure privacy is frequently being talked about even before this incident you're referring to. Safe to assume that adding privacy(regardless if on other layers or on the main layer) is simply just not that simple to be implemented in a few years.

That's true! If anyone's interested to jump into 'L1 privacy for Bitcoin', here's the thread for it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5410526.0

I do think it would be great to have better on-chain privacy, and there is some great tech that is being developed and experimented with in a few altcoins that are also mentioned over there.

[spazzdla]

Completely disagree.  Don't get me wrong I am a big privacy advocate. I use signal as often as I can, I'm a big fan of Monero etc.  But if you make bitcoin a truly anonymous coin, it's going to face far harsher scrutiny from governments and a sizable amount of governments will simply ban it for that alone.

Think about it this way, some countries allow for zero freedom of speech, women who cant vote, drive, or show their face in public, etc etc... you think they are going to allow for a monetary system that they absolutely can't track and regulate what so ever? The answer is no.

Is that the world you want?

IS THIS THE WORLD WE WANT?

Do you want BTC to succeed if it means the enslavement of humanity but you are rich..

Would you really want to be a king in hell or an individual of heaven.

Who gives an F what Iran, China, etc do... we are at war for all of humanity we really really are.....




okay.. I couldn't stop ranting.. last time for the time being.. maybe.. hopefully lol.. me bad.

[cabron]

Completely disagree.  Don't get me wrong I am a big privacy advocate. I use signal as often as I can, I'm a big fan of Monero etc.  But if you make bitcoin a truly anonymous coin, it's going to face far harsher scrutiny from governments and a sizable amount of governments will simply ban it for that alone.

Think about it this way, some countries allow for zero freedom of speech, women who cant vote, drive, or show their face in public, etc etc... you think they are going to allow for a monetary system that they absolutely can't track and regulate what so ever? The answer is no.

Is that the world you want?

IS THIS THE WORLD WE WANT?

Do you want BTC to succeed if it means the enslavement of humanity but you are rich..

Would you really want to be a king in hell or an individual of heaven.

Who gives an F what Iran, China, etc do... we are at war for all of humanity we really really are.....

okay.. I couldn't stop ranting.. last time for the time being.. maybe.. hopefully lol.. me bad.

Since you can't find a lot of them in congress is going to really fight for privacy, we may have to do it for ourselves.

If you have exposed yourself to KYC, then its something to dealt with in the future. I guess you have to minimize your activity on it and do more under decentralized platform with fresh wallets that can not be linked to your accounts on exchanges.  Privacy is all up to ourselves.

[Abiky]

You can still technically use Bitcoin without third party services. The only thing you would be required by law to do was to file taxes. If you're doing that, then there's no reason why you can't just use Bitcoin without any other third party.

You can use peer to peer exchanges. The only limitation would be when it comes to escrowing funds, usually that's required by a lot of users here. There's no easy way around that either. Although, at least with that you, and the other trading partner can decide what escrow among you, and you aren't forced into one. For example, using exchanges is usually limited to your geographical area to some extent.

While it's possible to avoid third-parties when using Bitcoin, you'll face a number of difficulties that will prevent you from getting the "full experience". For instance, decentralized exchanges don't have the same liquidity and ease of use as their centralized counterparts. There's also the issue of recovering your funds due to loss, hacks, or theft. Some centralized wallet providers have safeguards (eg: Coinbase) that would protect your Bitcoin against such undesired situations. That's because they're regulated and are insured in every way.

By holding Bitcoins yourself, you'd be on your own if something undesired happens with your holdings. The good thing is that you will gain more privacy and have complete control of your funds. I guess you're going to have to evaluate the advantages/disadvantages between using Bitcoin with third-parties or all the other way around. With all of the tools we have at our disposal, I don't think privacy will cease to exist during our lifetimes. Just my thoughts

[cr1776]

The fact this isn't talked about much even more so after Canada froze bank accounts watching people tx bitcoin and ETH addresses tied to other ETH addresses are being black listed / banned is really bad.. 

BTC will fail or much much much worse become the money of enslavement if privacy is not added.. Unbreakable privacy..

Privacy and anonymity are important.  Whether bitcoin will fail without them,  I don't know. At some point bitcoin reaches a point where one doesn't need to be exchanged for fiat, people just exchange in bitcoin which makes anonymity even more important.  But also easier since you don't need a centralized exchange.

[Abiky]

Privacy and anonymity are important.  Whether bitcoin will fail without them,  I don't know. At some point bitcoin reaches a point where one doesn't need to be exchanged for fiat, people just exchange in bitcoin which makes anonymity even more important.  But also easier since you don't need a centralized exchange.

You can still achieve privacy/anonymity on Bitcoin if you carefully follow the necessary safety precautions. Using mixers, Tor, or even changing BTC addresses for every transaction, should be able to improve your privacy at every level. I'd steer clear from centralized exchanges because they force you to provide personally-identifiable information (KYC/AML). For true anonymity, one should always use a decentralized exchange or trade Bitcoins in-person (P2P).

I wouldn't worry about governments increasing their regulatory efforts against Bitcoin as long as it remains decentralized. Just my opinion

[VictorIBT]

Yup.
At the end of the day, we'll all go back to private blockchains, as we'll own our privacy. Just like cash.
People getting tired of hacks and info leaks will just move into proof of work privacy coins with strong capabilities.

I'd look into https://twitter.com/beamprivacy if I were you. I'm currently mining at a loss, but idc tbfhwy. 

[Ayers]

At some point bitcoin reaches a point where one doesn't need to be exchanged for fiat, people just exchange in bitcoin which makes anonymity even more important.  But also easier since you don't need a centralized exchange.

this is what people like us want, but it means it replaces existing currency and to do this requires government approval. i think that will never happen, the government will never let bitcoin become a currency for people to freely use

I wouldn't worry about governments increasing their regulatory efforts against Bitcoin as long as it remains decentralized. Just my opinion

bitcoin will forever be decentralized but government regulations will create difficulties for us. decentralized exchanges or mixers are also created by people or an organization, everything is under the control of the government, they can also control like the government did with Tornado Cash, they can arrest the head, shut down the website...that's what i'm afraid of

[n0nce]

You can still technically use Bitcoin without third party services. The only thing you would be required by law to do was to file taxes. If you're doing that, then there's no reason why you can't just use Bitcoin without any other third party.

You can use peer to peer exchanges. The only limitation would be when it comes to escrowing funds, usually that's required by a lot of users here. There's no easy way around that either. Although, at least with that you, and the other trading partner can decide what escrow among you, and you aren't forced into one. For example, using exchanges is usually limited to your geographical area to some extent.

While it's possible to avoid third-parties when using Bitcoin, you'll face a number of difficulties that will prevent you from getting the "full experience". For instance, decentralized exchanges don't have the same liquidity and ease of use as their centralized counterparts.

First of all, I'd argue that the 'full experience' doesn't involve fiat transfers. The 'full / ideal Bitcoin experience' would be earning and spending BTC without need to exchange.
Secondly, liquidity on centralized exchanges is often completely faked or meaningless anyway. You gain nothing as a Bitcoin user, whether there are 1000 day-trades per second or 2000.

On Bisq, I can usually find or create an offer which is taken within a few hours (e.g. overnight), in the BTCEUR market. That's easily good enough.

There's also the issue of recovering your funds due to loss, hacks, or theft. Some centralized wallet providers have safeguards (eg: Coinbase) that would protect your Bitcoin against such undesired situations. That's because they're regulated and are insured in every way.

Actually, there are much more funds stolen from (by (!!)) centralized exchanges due to random claims of 'taint' or similar. Never had such issues on Bisq, on the other hand.
Decentralized P2P exchanges don't need regulations like the ones you describe, as they don't even hold your funds. Cut out the middleman!

By holding Bitcoins yourself, you'd be on your own if something undesired happens with your holdings. The good thing is that you will gain more privacy and have complete control of your funds. I guess you're going to have to evaluate the advantages/disadvantages between using Bitcoin with third-parties or all the other way around. With all of the tools we have at our disposal, I don't think privacy will cease to exist during our lifetimes. Just my thoughts

Why even use Bitcoin if you don't hold it yourself?

I wouldn't worry about governments increasing their regulatory efforts against Bitcoin as long as it remains decentralized. Just my opinion

I would; if they make it a crime to own BTC, it will become very hard to meaningfully use it, acquire more of it or sell it. No matter whether the nodes are still decentralized.

[_BlackStar]

This certainly is a grave  concern. Our organization and governments want everything to be transparent. The same institutions impose their biased laws, While we pay taxes to governments, but most of it is spent on distributing freebies, rather than increasing the efficiency of system, politicians tend to use it for own gain. So it becomes imperative that we fight for our rights.

Bitcoin allows us to have a good level of privacy, it's just that it really depends on the user. A person who wants to maintain his privacy with bitcoins will always avoid centralized exchanges or platforms that jeopardize his privacy, but privacy will be of little value when the user concerned does not care.

The government along with its regulation of bitcoin does not want this decentralization to help people have a high level of financial privacy. You're right that they want everything to be transparent, but at the end of the day privacy is an individual choice. Maintaining privacy and fighting for it are very different, we can minimize being vigilant about privacy while it is difficult to change the attitude of the government about the regulations that are made as is the KYC obligation of every user on government licensed exchanges.

[Quidat]

Bitcoin allows us to have a good level of privacy, it's just that it really depends on the user. A person who wants to maintain his privacy with bitcoins will always avoid centralized exchanges or platforms that jeopardize his privacy, but privacy will be of little value when the user concerned does not care.

The government along with its regulation of bitcoin does not want this decentralization to help people have a high level of financial privacy. You're right that they want everything to be transparent, but at the end of the day privacy is an individual choice. Maintaining privacy and fighting for it are very different, we can minimize being vigilant about privacy while it is difficult to change the attitude of the government about the regulations that are made as is the KYC obligation of every user on government licensed exchanges.

Yes, that's what happen in our country. Last year people in this country just found out and they just know crypto because of different p2p, and because our govt doesn't support this kind of thing, I don't know if they really don't know crypto or they just pretending not to, they create a warning for all those people who will earn in crypto, people will need to pay taxes (mostly those new people who play for us are bystander or those in need so they left us because they are playing because they need money but govt want to cut some money to their salary).  Banks in us our very strict when it comes to opening account as well, when you say you are a crypto trader automatically you will be rejected.

Here on our country on which they had really have that kind of warning about crypto.Pretty sure that they are really that indeed looking on how it would be taxed but turns out that they cant able to do so.
They do even having those insights on banning out Binance which is totally absurd. Government doesnt really like on something that they cant really be able to control nor its citizens to bypass about
taxes and this is why some situations where they do become desperate but we know that there's nothing they could do when it comes on tracing up everything.
Crypto community did really become big because of its decentralized and anonymity aspects which it isnt surprising that we had become this big.

[Smartvirus]

The fact this isn't talked about much even more so after Canada froze bank accounts watching people tx bitcoin and ETH addresses tied to other ETH addresses are being black listed / banned is really bad.. 

BTC will fail or much much much worse become the money of enslavement if privacy is not added.. Unbreakable privacy..

It's surprising to me that this is just hitting g Canada just now or perhaps the news just got out of late. This has been an issue in Nigeria dating back a year ago when the CBN placed a ban on cryptos and crypto related transactions. I think the ba is still in effect partially and they are still trying to keep a trace on accounts and banks involed in crypto related transactions. Even on the p2p network, there exists certain loopholes to raise suspicions with banks as to what transactions might be crypto related or note.

Most of the traces are always between previously note accounts, remarks on transactions and sometimes, these banks and its agents registers with an exchange to trade on p2p just to fish out an account. The pressure is less now but still, discretion is advised.

Privacy is a vital part of human existence as everyone craves it in carry out one task or the other. Finance should be no different.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For instance, decentralized exchanges don't have the same liquidity and ease of use as their centralized counterparts.

Liquidity becomes less of a problem over time. DEXes have been abruptly rising recently. Also, ease of use is an invalid argument. Have you ever used a DEX, such as Bisq? I can guarantee you that they've done pretty good job with the UI.

There's also the issue of recovering your funds due to loss, hacks, or theft.

Well, yeah. It's your money, you're responsibility.

Some centralized wallet providers have safeguards (eg: Coinbase) that would protect your Bitcoin against such undesired situations.

There's no entity that can safeguard your own money better than you can. Unless you don't take the necessary protection measures of course. But, again: Your money means your responsibility. It's your duty to take those measures.

By holding Bitcoins yourself, you'd be on your own if something undesired happens with your holdings.

You know that if Coinbase bankrupts you don't get anything, right? You have no insurance. And that's before we even mention the frequent hacks since Coinbase is a central point of hacker's desire.

[n0nce]

Some centralized wallet providers have safeguards (eg: Coinbase) that would protect your Bitcoin against such undesired situations.

There's no entity that can safeguard your own money better than you can. Unless you don't take the necessary protection measures of course. But, again: Your money means your responsibility. It's your duty to take those measures.

I guess there will always be a market for custodianship of cash, fiat, gold, you name it. So, probably also for Bitcoin. But you definitely don't get nearly all of Bitcoin's benefits that way.
It happened to me countless times that I need to use fiat on a weekend, late at night or during a holiday; payments were blocked by the bank and I couldn't reach anyone to resolve the issue. Meanwhile with Bitcoin, all those instances would have been a painless, 10 minute wait (at worst an hour if I'm cheaping out on fees).
That's the difference that makes you miss out on a great deal on flights or delays the arrival of ordered goods by one or more days.
If you give your BTC to custodians, you will run into the same issues again; but if you can accept this + the risk of them running away with your funds, as you deem yourself incapable of protecting seed phrases, Bitcoin gives you the freedom to do it.

By holding Bitcoins yourself, you'd be on your own if something undesired happens with your holdings.

You know that if Coinbase bankrupts you don't get anything, right? You have no insurance. And that's before we even mention the frequent hacks since Coinbase is a central point of hacker's desire.

Some exchanges actually have 'bank' status, meaning when they go bankrupt, some amount per customer is exempt from the liquidation sum. It should be in the range of $100-200k or 100-200k€ per customer. As of how well that works, I don't know. There have been exit scams / 'hacks' in the past where people got nothing, for sure; it would be interesting to know whether a 'bank exchange' went bankrupt and refunded everyone.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I guess there will always be a market for custodianship of cash, fiat, gold, you name it. So, probably also for Bitcoin.

Sure, but it's so ironic, because unlike fiat and gold, bitcoin was made for this very purpose, that is cutting off intermediaries in transactions. It might have some benefits, even that way, but think that if everybody thought likewise, it would have no benefits at all. Control of monetary policy would be down to exchanges' administrators, which is the only benefit left from forfeiting self-custody.

Some exchanges actually have 'bank' status, meaning when they go bankrupt, some amount per customer is exempt from the liquidation sum.

Can you name me one? Most I know have no such policy. And they shouldn't, in my opinion. Handing over your electronic cash to a company because you don't trust yourself to hold it, at the same time that's the very essence of the thing you're handing over, is not an attitude I would want from the cryptocurrency communities.

Also, how can a company pay out their customers if they don't have money?

[n0nce]

I guess there will always be a market for custodianship of cash, fiat, gold, you name it. So, probably also for Bitcoin.

Sure, but it's so ironic, because unlike fiat and gold, bitcoin was made for this very purpose, that is cutting off intermediaries in transactions. It might have some benefits, even that way, but think that if everybody thought likewise, it would have no benefits at all. Control of monetary policy would be down to exchanges' administrators, which is the only benefit left from forfeiting self-custody.

Agree on everything!

Some exchanges actually have 'bank' status, meaning when they go bankrupt, some amount per customer is exempt from the liquidation sum.

Can you name me one? Most I know have no such policy. And they shouldn't, in my opinion. Handing over your electronic cash to a company because you don't trust yourself to hold it, at the same time that's the very essence of the thing you're handing over, is not an attitude I would want from the cryptocurrency communities.

It's called 'deposit insurance' or 'protection of deposits'; for instance:

Kraken Bank, as a bank, is required by Wyoming law to maintain 100% reserves of its deposits of fiat currency at all times. If every client were to demand withdrawals of their fiat at the same moment, Kraken Bank would be able to fulfill each withdrawal immediately without regard to how many loans we had outstanding.

This is the advantage of the SPDI charter, because the FDIC generally only insures deposits up to $250,000. For this reason, deposits will not be required to be insured by the FDIC.

I can't find it right now but I remember that before this, they (or some other exchange) had 'regular' FDIC insurance of up to $100,000 or even $250,000. However it's possible that this only covers your fiat balance.

Also, how can a company pay out their customers if they don't have money?

That I don't know! I guess if it only covers the fiat balance, they're just forced to maintain 100% reserves of fiat balances, while being allowed to do what they want with the cryptocurrencies they sell.