[POLL] Privacy features in bitcoin

[Taskford]

If certain privacy feature also manage to improve scalability (e.g. due to smaller TX size or faster time to verify the TX), i see no strong reason to against such privacy feature.

Yes it will be more great additional feature for bitcoin to have, but unfortunately if privacy feature for bitcoin will be the reason for government to get trigger to eliminate it on scene then I guess I would rather remain to have the current feature where we are free to use it anytime we want rather than thinking about other things which can put bitcoin on more bigger risk to be hated by the government.

They hate privacy since government maybe think its illegal and use as a tool for those frauds to escape on their crimes so maybe they will do something that we don't like if this one will happen. Maybe he want to stir things up since he have some agenda which benefits him that he want to create.

[NotATether]

If certain privacy feature also manage to improve scalability (e.g. due to smaller TX size or faster time to verify the TX), i see no strong reason to against such privacy feature.

Tapscripts are already a good privacy feature, we just haven't figured out how to use them properly for serious projects.

I.e. not for monkey GIFs or runes.

[retreat]

People who don't really like the privacy features in Bitcoin may be afraid that when the privacy features are implemented it will become a feature that directly burdens Bitcoin. Because by making Bitcoin like that, it means there will be a hard fork which might disrupt the stability of Bitcon and that might be a reason for the government to take tough action on Bitcoin and ban it. So there are a lot of considerations that need to be made regarding this privacy feature, and I also think that looking at the Bitcoin market that is already large now, this is a very risky thing for Bitcoin and its future development.

[tabas]

When I was a newbie, it's always been described promoted with anonymity. That's why I am for its privacy but not to the level that privacy coins have. We've seen that the government are totally against it and we don't want them to intervene with Bitcoin although it's already established and at certain level, they won't do the same thing as Bitcoin because the institutions are already in and governments don't see the same privacy as it has got. I haven't followed Snowden for so long and I don't comprehend what he's up to. I think he should criticize more those that make the fees complicated by doing arc20, brc20 and runes protocol.

[ABCbits]

If certain privacy feature also manage to improve scalability (e.g. due to smaller TX size or faster time to verify the TX), i see no strong reason to against such privacy feature.

Tapscripts are already a good privacy feature, we just haven't figured out how to use them properly for serious projects.

I.e. not for monkey GIFs or runes.

Yeah, i'm aware Tapscript offer some privacy improvement. Although people more likely to notice they pay less fee due to smaller TX size. Anyway, we could start by replacing existing usage of script with tapscript version. LN developer already working switching from HTLC ot PTLC, although i don't see much multi-signature wallet use Taproot address.

[Wind_FURY]

I recently saw that Edward Snowden publicly called for Bitcoin to implement privacy features.


Source: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127

In a recent thread here many senior bitcointalk members actually agreed to this sentiment.
We've all come to know bitcoin as a blockchain where inputs and outputs, all of them, are displayed on the public ledger for everyone to go through.

Transactions are pseudonymous but nevertheless traceable. While it's not necessary that a transaction has to be connected to a person, actions of governments against privacy tools and no-KYC services make it very hard to conduct bitcoin transactions without having them attached to your real life identity.

Many would view this as an attack to the freedoms bitcoin has been associated to. But it's also understandable if some bitcoin users are against such a radical change to the protocol.

So I'm making this poll thread to start a debate. Feel free to vote and respond with your thoughts.

It's easy to make that poll, then start asking what everyone believes without the presumptions of how we'll get there -technically and from a social consensus perspective, and what needs to be done to get there.

BUT let's pretend that it's easy, hard fork achievable, and it won't affect the block size/won't increase node hardware requirements. I would still vote against it because a transparent ledger is easier to audit to make sure that everything is balanced and authentic.

Another problem with ledgers that have on-chain confidential transactions is, the government might stop condoning Bitcoin, and actually start banning it.