A simple metaphor for Bitcoin’s pseudonymity and transparency

[intrader]

I recently saw a metaphor comparing Bitcoin to a party where everyone wears masks.

• Masks: Bitcoin addresses hide real identities, similar to guests wearing masks instead of showing their faces.
  Public activity: Everything that happens at the party is visible, just like all Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public blockchain.
  This shows that Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Identities are hidden, but transactions are fully transparent and can be viewed by anyone.
  

However, this comparison has limits:

• It ignores how addresses can be linked over time.
  
• It doesn’t explain cryptography and consensus rules.
  
  • It may give newcomers a false sense of privacy.
  So the question is:
  Do simple metaphors help people understand Bitcoin, or do they make it seem more private than it really is?
  I’d like to hear how others here explain Bitcoin’s transparency and pseudonymity to newcomers.

[Oshosondy]

Do simple metaphors help people understand Bitcoin, or do they make it seem more private than it really is?

You can not understand something completely with just two sentences. As a newbie, if you want to understand something, you have to browsed about that thing, making findings to add to your knowledge about the thing. Not that you will read two sentences and just make conclusions which supposed not to come your mind until you learn about the thing.

[Livingleged]

I’d like to hear how others here explain Bitcoin’s transparency and pseudonymity to newcomers.

The transparency of the transactions bitcoin is such that all transactions are stored in the public ledger as such if you’re running a node you’ll definitely see the transactions but you can’t trace any transactions to a specific user in real world identity thats the simplest way I can explain it. Yes it is pseudonymous Wch means you can actually see the chain of data I mean on-chain of data moving from one address to another to another with out being able to identify its owner.

[henry_of_skalitz]

Do simple metaphors help people understand Bitcoin, or do they make it seem more private than it really is?

You can not understand something completely with just two sentences. As a newbie, if you want to understand something, you have to browsed about that thing, making findings to add to your knowledge about the thing. Not that you will read two sentences and just make conclusions which supposed not to come your mind until you learn about the thing.

Metaphors can only help us to understand better that's already in our heads as a base.. or to do it a cool and interesting way for those that understand everything anyway.

[Ucy]

Bitcoin addresses are like transparent and locked "mailboxes" on a public space. The boxes are very many,  have numbers instead of names of their owners written on them. Anyone can slip in letters or even money via little openings on the boxes, but only the owners have the keys to unlock and access the contents of the boxes. The boxes represent their owners, and the identities of the owners are hidden, so they are anonymous. Anonymous = a person's identity is hidden

Bitcoin is neither anonymous nor pseudonymous, it's not a human and its name/identity (name = Bitcoin) is not hidden. It could instead be regarded as anonymity-friendly, while the users are considered anonymous because their identities are hidden from the public or the Bitcoin transparent ledger.


Overtime linking of addresses does not leak the owners identities unless the identities were somehow/somewhere leaked by them or others, and publicly linked to their addresses.
 By the way, newcomers privacy are protected as long as their identities are hidden from the public. If they want to be completely hidden from everyone, including internet gatekeepers... opensource and decentralized internet, devices, VPNs, Tor, etc that enforce the privacy will become necessary

Concerning cryptography and concensus rules, using the mailbox metaphor, we can compare the keys, hidden identities and other obscured information to cryptography while consensus rules are agreement by the mailbox participants on what can be accepted or rejected, which is aided by transparency of the mailboxes.

[Alpha Marine]

Do simple metaphors help people understand Bitcoin, or do they make it seem more private than it really is?
I’d like to hear how others here explain Bitcoin’s transparency and pseudonymity to newcomers.[/list]

Metaphors are not meant to explain a thing completely. That is why it is called a metaphor. It's only used to help people have a better understanding of something. Using the metaphor, they are two different things, so they can't fully explain the issue, but you can use it to understand the topic better.

I have also used this forum as a metaphor in explaining Bitcoin before. Everybody on the forum does not know you (except you reveal yourself). You make a post that everybody can see and can be linked to your account, but nobody really knows the person behind the account.
This is merely a metaphor; there is so much difference between the forum and bitcoin, and you can't fully understand the security or privacy levels of bitcoin simply by this metaphor. You have t learn about it first to fully understand it.