Will blockchain survive the crackdown on mixers and anonymization?

[legiteum]

It would appear, based on the news this week, that major world governments like the US and others are cracking down on the notion of "government-proof privacy", and prosecuting companies and individuals who facilitate money transfer that cannot be potentially traced by a government. They are going after mixers and brokers who do not adequately engage in KYC.

In short, it would seem that governments are trying eliminate the very thing that Bitcoin--and blockchain generally--was originally designed to accomplish.

What does this mean for the long term prospects for cryptocurrencies? Will blockchain survive losing it's original purpose?

My own answer is: "yes", in the short term, and "maybe" for the longer term.

I have written before about different kinds of "privacy" that people might want, and most want privacy from other citizens, from companies, and from criminals: privacy from a targeted investigation from the government is a level that, in my estimation, a "nice to have" for most people, but not a dealbreaker.

Hence in the short term, cryptos missing their original purpose is not something most consumers care about. Most holders of Bitcoin these days do so in a centralized way, e.g. with an app or a broker that keeps their account under their name, in a centralized database.

As for the longer term, this brings up an important question: why use blockchain at all?

Blockchain is slow and expensive to transact in on purpose because of proof-of-work and decentralization. No cryptocurrency will ever come even close to scaling to the billions of transactions each day by people worldwide.

But a digital currency that is not blockchain-based can accomplish this and provide the same mechanism for speculation and value store that blockchain-based currencies provide. In my opinion, the long-term future of the actual blockchain architecture behind today's cryptocurrencies is... unclear.

[mk4]

In the first place — why would 'blockchain' not survive? Blockchains will work totally fine without mixers and coinjoins and stuff. I'm all for privacy, but everyone simply isn't interested in it whether we like it or not. Only a minority cares about self-custody and being self-sovereign; a lot of people just want to use it just as an investment/hedge.

And yes, even without privacy, Bitcoin and blockchains would still be useful, just as these are still very useful today despite privacy being very minimal.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

It would appear, based on the news this week, that major world governments like the US and others are cracking down on the notion of "government-proof privacy", and prosecuting companies and individuals who facilitate money transfer that cannot be potentially traced by a government. They are going after mixers and brokers who do not adequately engage in KYC.

What about the exchanges that do support and go for the use of KYC and they were being attacked, what can they do, it is better we understand the ploy of the governments, which is in their fight against a decentralized network and anything that gives us financial freedom and privacy, because they have no say over them, and as for the exchanges, they will continue the struggles together until we all realized the need to either stop using them or go for the decentralized ones. 

[KingsDen]

It is fine to know that what happens in the blockchain is not only about privacy and neither is it about the mixers only. I believe that the potential of blockchain is yet to be harnessed fully. There is no doubt that the government will continue to fight against privacy but then there is a limit to what they can do. For instance they keep compelling the centralized exchanges to delist privacy coins, this does not mean that they will in any way infiltrate the decentralized exchanges to also delist privacy coins.

There was when I was very much bothered about what is happening now. And as the time progresses my fears come to pass. Prepare your mind to see more regulations and shutdown of privacy enhancement systems in the cryptocurrency industry. But I am consoled by a singular phrase that says thus; necessity is the mother of invention. The more and more the government fight against decentralization and privacy, the more private and decentralized individuals will find ways to continue scaling through.

[legiteum]

In the first place — why would 'blockchain' not survive? Blockchains will work totally fine without mixers and coinjoins and stuff. I'm all for privacy, but everyone simply isn't interested in it whether we like it or not. Only a minority cares about self-custody and being self-sovereign; a lot of people just want to use it just as an investment/hedge.

And yes, even without privacy, Bitcoin and blockchains would still be useful, just as these are still very useful today despite privacy being very minimal.

Blockchains work "fine", I agree. And as I wrote above, I don't see anything about them changing in the short term.

But long term, the entire reason you resort to the blockchain architecture is to make the system resistant to government subpoenas. If you didn't want that benefit, a centralized system is far better in every single way.

And here I am just talking about the backend architecture, not digital currency trading in general, which I very much am banking on--personally--to remain a very big part of consumer life . You can absolutely have everything most consumers want out of cryptocurrencies without blockchain, but cheaper and faster and better.

So in the long run, if blockchain is just a useless addition to a product that makes it slower and more expensive, then that technology will eventually fall by the wayside.

[BitMaxz]

Blockchains work "fine", I agree. And as I wrote above, I don't see anything about them changing in the short term.

But long term, the entire reason you resort to the blockchain architecture is to make the system resistant to government subpoenas. If you didn't want that benefit, a centralized system is far better in every single way.

And here I am just talking about the backend architecture, not digital currency trading in general, which I very much am banking on--personally--to remain a very big part of consumer life . You can absolutely have everything most consumers want out of cryptocurrencies without blockchain, but cheaper and faster and better.

So in the long run, if blockchain is just a useless addition to a product that makes it slower and more expensive, then that technology will eventually fall by the wayside.

Have you read the Satoshi's white paper? If not I suggest read them first from the link below

- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Can you find or did you read that he said Bitcoin is government-resistant?

Bitcoin is still decentralized anyone can have their own full node and make it anonymous and private the only things that are not private are the transactions that come from exchanges and transactions we made but we still have services like non-KYC p2p exchanges. I  just don't know if these p2p exchanges will be seized by the government as I haven't heard yet.
and those mixers/coinjoin are just a 3rd party service Satoshi never plan about these services.

[un_rank]

You're using bloclchain generally. Not all blockchains are decentralized or private, it's a technology that can be used and modified in different way, can even get more centralized than the financial system that is used by banks. If you narrow it down to Bitcoin which operates on a decentralized bloclchain, it will definitely survive the attack on pruvxcy through mixers and coinjoin services.

The authorities can only target and hurt Bitcoin indirectly by taking down services that allows privacy, but cannot regulate the Bitcoin network.

- Jay -

[legiteum]

What about the exchanges that do support and go for the use of KYC and they were being attacked, what can they do, it is better we understand the ploy of the governments, which is in their fight against a decentralized network and anything that gives us financial freedom and privacy, because they have no say over them, and as for the exchanges, they will continue the struggles together until we all realized the need to either stop using them or go for the decentralized ones.  

Exchanges that were complying with the law have not been "attacked". Binance broke some specific laws, and was charged accordingly.

It's perfectly legal to hold and trade Bitcoin in the United States. It's perfectly legal to have an exchange for USD or other negotiable currencies as long as KYC and other rules are followed.

The world is not out to get you .

Have you read the Satoshi's white paper? If not I suggest read them first from the link below

- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Can you find or did you read that he said Bitcoin is government-resistant?

It's implied in the entire paper. It's the entire reason Bitcoin even exists. Otherwise, why not just use a credit card or a bank?

What the whitepaper did not anticipate is chain analysis which makes Bitcoin actually very very unprivate . That's why follow-on products like mixers and Monera came about.

You're using bloclchain generally. Not all blockchains are decentralized or private, it's a technology that can be used and modified in different way, can even get more centralized than the financial system that is used by banks.

Using blockchain centrally is a complete waste of time and the dumbest thing ever. It's basically adding some code to a project that doesn't need it, and makes the project more expensive, slower, less secure, and more cumbersome to use. It would be like using an HTTPS/REST network layer to add two numbers together instead of just writing "a += b;". I mean, it's theoretically possible, but the only reason you'd do it would be to impress your boss that your project has some catchy buzzwords in it (and a good development manager would tell you to stop that and just get the project done ).

[BitMaxz]

It's implied in the entire paper. It's the entire reason Bitcoin even exists. Otherwise, why not just use a credit card or a bank?

What the whitepaper did not anticipate is chain analysis which makes Bitcoin actually very very unprivate . That's why follow-on products like mixers and Monera came about.

Any transactions are in public not private but all identities who use this address or who made any transaction are private.
So do you think if you send BTC to me or other forum members here did they know your identity or mine? Did you find it on the blockchain?

What makes you think about Chain analysis do to you? What they can only do is to track a transaction but they don't know who owns it and I don't think ChainAnalysis will track you unless you did money laundering.

[legiteum]

Any transactions are in public not private but all identities who use this address or who made any transaction are private.
So do you think if you send BTC to me or other forum members here did they know your identity or mine? Did you find it on the blockchain?

What makes you think about Chain analysis do to you? What they can only do is to track a transaction but they don't know who owns it and I don't think ChainAnalysis will track you unless you did money laundering.

Identities per se are not on the blockchain, but chainanalysis allows people to "triangulate" where a transaction came from, or where it went. It's not exact, but I'm pretty sure it works well enough to make it so that criminals no longer use Bitcoin, or if they do, they use a mixer.

And while authorities won't go out of their way to track you down unless they have a reason to do so, criminals and marketers will use it to try to steal or sell something, or otherwise bother you . In this context, using Bitcoin these days isn't very safe...

[btc78]

In the first place — why would 'blockchain' not survive? Blockchains will work totally fine without mixers and coinjoins and stuff. I'm all for privacy, but everyone simply isn't interested in it whether we like it or not. Only a minority cares about self-custody and being self-sovereign; a lot of people just want to use it just as an investment/hedge.

But this goes beyond mixers and coinjoins and stuff like that. The government is starting with this and soon enough they will start cracking down on other crypto related stuff. Right now they can still justify what they are doing in guise of concern over anonymity.

Next thing we know everyone is being checked and asked for their financial information.

[legiteum]

But this goes beyond mixers and coinjoins and stuff like that. The government is starting with this and soon enough they will start cracking down on other crypto related stuff. Right now they can still justify what they are doing in guise of concern over anonymity.

Next thing we know everyone is being checked and asked for their financial information.

I guess you can "imagine" absolutely anything, but the clear pattern since money laundering laws were first put on the books in the early 1970s is to go after criminals who cannot account for large amounts of money legally.

The US at least, millions of Americans are paid every day for their work in untraceable physical cash, and there are no laws against it all of these years later. The only time the authorities get involved is when it is a lot of money where it's clear the money wasn't obtained legally.

[HideYourKeys]

In Bitcoin we could always get some anonymization through Lightning or Liquid, they have not focused on that yet, luckily

[foggyb]

In the first place — why would 'blockchain' not survive? Blockchains will work totally fine without mixers and coinjoins and stuff. I'm all for privacy, but everyone simply isn't interested in it whether we like it or not. Only a minority cares about self-custody and being self-sovereign; a lot of people just want to use it just as an investment/hedge.

And yes, even without privacy, Bitcoin and blockchains would still be useful, just as these are still very useful today despite privacy being very minimal.

Still useful, probably--if you do as the powers-that-be command.

Imagine living in Stalin's Soviet Union and only having crypto to transact with. They would obviously ban all private transactions. All your finances would be a matter of public record. This is not some theoretical scenario, but a real-life hazard that we will likely experience in the coming decades.

[Medusah]

In short, it would seem that governments are trying eliminate the very thing that Bitcoin--and blockchain generally--was originally designed to accomplish.

Efforts to eradicate it have been ongoing since its inception.  The current escalation indicates a concerted effort to suppress centralized privacy services.  Bitcoin was originally designed to create a currency outside the government's control; not to make centralized services invulnerable to governmental coercion.  The remedy lies not in abandoning Bitcoin, but in advancing our decentralized privacy solutions.

As for the longer term, this brings up an important question: why use blockchain at all?

I think we've addressed this before.  Here is why: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page. 

[btc_angela]

Any transactions are in public not private but all identities who use this address or who made any transaction are private.
So do you think if you send BTC to me or other forum members here did they know your identity or mine? Did you find it on the blockchain?

What makes you think about Chain analysis do to you? What they can only do is to track a transaction but they don't know who owns it and I don't think ChainAnalysis will track you unless you did money laundering.

Identities per se are not on the blockchain, but chainanalysis allows people to "triangulate" where a transaction came from, or where it went. It's not exact, but I'm pretty sure it works well enough to make it so that criminals no longer use Bitcoin, or if they do, they use a mixer.

And while authorities won't go out of their way to track you down unless they have a reason to do so, criminals and marketers will use it to try to steal or sell something, or otherwise bother you . In this context, using Bitcoin these days isn't very safe...

Then in your argument t hat "Bitcoin is not safe", we can conclude that cryptocurrencies are not safe this Bitcoin is the prime mover of crypto? So there is a flaw in your argument already as crypto is safe, it's not there are a lot of bad people around us that uses it's weaknesses to their advantage.

So for me blockchain will survived and so are mixers.

There could be another layer, similar to bitcoin mixers in the future so it's going to be a cat-and-mouse game for authorities to de-anonymized transactions and "triangulate" where the transaction came from.

[hatshepsut93]

In short, it would seem that governments are trying eliminate the very thing that Bitcoin--and blockchain generally--was originally designed to accomplish.

Bitcoin's original goal was being p2p digital cash. Nothing that the governments did in the past changed that. Some mixers got closed? That only means they were the weak link because they were centralized. This means that privacy enthusiasts will focus on developing decentralized anonymization.

And blockchains goal was always making the devs rich by selling pre-mined coins. So far governments are not going after this investment scam scheme.

[electronicash]

you being known to the authorities because of the KYC done by exchanges means you are vulnerable to them and they could visit your home address and chain you for having transactions they couldn't trace. that's crazy but it could actually happen.

developers also may be visited by the authorities to see whether they can tag wallet addresses. and this is how blockchains of some coins may not survive. if it's what OP means? if they could do this to mixers why not to the developers? they could just find faults in these developers and if they are resistant, they could just jail them.

[legiteum]

In short, it would seem that governments are trying eliminate the very thing that Bitcoin--and blockchain generally--was originally designed to accomplish.

Bitcoin's original goal was being p2p digital cash. Nothing that the governments did in the past changed that. Some mixers got closed? That only means they were the weak link because they were centralized. This means that privacy enthusiasts will focus on developing decentralized anonymization.

And blockchains goal was always making the devs rich by selling pre-mined coins. So far governments are not going after this investment scam scheme.

Yes, and the reason you need p2p cash--or p2p anything, for that matter--is to evade government subpoenas. If you don't need that, centralized architectures are far more efficient, secure and convenient.

Bitcoin's original purpose was to create a method of transacting that could not be traced by governments, and could not be stopped by them.

Developers also may be visited by the authorities to see whether they can tag wallet addresses. and this is how blockchains of some coins may not survive. if it's what OP means? if they could do this to mixers why not to the developers? they could just find faults in these developers and if they are resistant, they could just jail them.

No, what I meant was that governments are getting good at cracking down on "absolutely anonymous" transactions that the government cannot trace. It's clear that kind of "privacy" (as opposed to privacy from criminals and marketers and other citizens) is going to be much harder to obtain, and will probably be reduced to very small networks and very obscure coins--which will necessarily be very risky since they will be such so small. This could effectively kill the entire ability of people to transact in a way that cannot be traced.

But yet the only reason to use blockchain in the first place is to create these kinds of transactions. So why use it?

[khalidkhan82118]

It would appear, based on the news this week, that major world governments like the US and others are cracking down on the notion of "government-proof privacy", and prosecuting companies and individuals who facilitate money transfer that cannot be potentially traced by a government. They are going after mixers and brokers who do not adequately engage in KYC.

In short, it would seem that governments are trying eliminate the very thing that Bitcoin--and blockchain generally--was originally designed to accomplish.

What does this mean for the long term prospects for cryptocurrencies? Will blockchain survive losing it's original purpose?

My own answer is: "yes", in the short term, and "maybe" for the longer term.

I have written before about different kinds of "privacy" that people might want, and most want privacy from other citizens, from companies, and from criminals: privacy from a targeted investigation from the government is a level that, in my estimation, a "nice to have" for most people, but not a dealbreaker.

Hence in the short term, cryptos missing their original purpose is not something most consumers care about. Most holders of Bitcoin these days do so in a centralized way, e.g. with an app or a broker that keeps their account under their name, in a centralized database.

As for the longer term, this brings up an important question: why use blockchain at all?

Blockchain is slow and expensive to transact in on purpose because of proof-of-work and decentralization. No cryptocurrency will ever come even close to scaling to the billions of transactions each day by people worldwide.

But a digital currency that is not blockchain-based can accomplish this and provide the same mechanism for speculation and value store that blockchain-based currencies provide. In my opinion, the long-term future of the actual blockchain architecture behind today's cryptocurrencies is... unclear.

Given the recent regulatory crackdown on privacy-focused aspects of cryptocurrencies, do you think blockchain's original purpose is becoming obsolete? How might this impact the long-term viability of cryptocurrencies as governments ramp up efforts to enforce KYC regulations and eliminate anonymous transactions?