kashish948 (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1000
|
 |
June 11, 2014, 08:07:27 PM |
|
Why does Bitcoin not implement anonymous transactions feature? It would definitely be huge if it is implemented!
Also, if such features are not implemented what does BTC have apart from being the first and accepted by a large number of merchants? So why not implement the newest features from altcoins?
|
|
|
|
|
Mounten
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
June 11, 2014, 09:26:13 PM |
|
why don't u put a pull request
|
|
|
|
|
|
celestio
|
|
June 11, 2014, 10:56:12 PM |
|
It would go against what BTC has come to be seen as...a transparent currency. Implementing anonymity features In the protocol(not 3rd party) would probably result in it's death imo.
|
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
|
|
|
|
lewisg
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:55:45 AM |
|
If someone owns 51% he could do double spend attacks and destroy the integrity of the btc network.
|
|
|
|
|
monsterbitty
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:26:43 PM |
|
If they would implement such feature, I am pretty sure government would have easily destroyed them by now. Just see what happened to liberty reserve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kuverty
|
|
June 12, 2014, 04:34:03 PM |
|
If they would implement such feature, I am pretty sure government would have easily destroyed them by now. Just see what happened to liberty reserve.
Them? They? Liberty Reserve was centralized, it was easy. Bitcoin would survive, but exchanges and mainstream adoption would suffer so it wouldn't be the best idea probably. It's best to have a separate cryptocurrency for true anonymity. |
|
|
|
|
|
monsterbitty
|
|
June 13, 2014, 07:21:30 PM |
|
If they would implement such feature, I am pretty sure government would have easily destroyed them by now. Just see what happened to liberty reserve.
Them? They? Liberty Reserve was centralized, it was easy. Bitcoin would survive, but exchanges and mainstream adoption would suffer so it wouldn't be the best idea probably. It's best to have a separate cryptocurrency for true anonymity. yes, I agree with you in that point, may be a separate cryptocurrency which has total anonymity. |
|
|
|
|
|
joshraban76
|
|
June 13, 2014, 07:37:38 PM |
|
And even if you want anon., there are several ways there for being anon. like mixing or converting to other altcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
doldgigger
|
|
June 16, 2014, 07:27:22 PM |
|
There are so many nice to have features that you cannot possibly implement them all in Bitcoin without making it huge and unstable. I think it is to be considered as a huge benefit that the Bitcoin developer community does not try to jump on every bandwagon that comes along, but instead focuses on maintaining a stable core. There are promising altcoin projects which explore advancements on the cash-like properties of a cryptocurrency, though, and who knows, maybe some approach or another will be considered robust and useful enough to find its way into Bitcoin some day.
|
|
|
|
JeffGarcia
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
June 16, 2014, 11:38:40 PM |
|
Of course not. Bitcoin's anonimity is fine as it is - more is not required.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
valley365
|
|
June 17, 2014, 01:28:49 AM |
|
I think anon feature can be an add-on feature, does not need to be with the bitcoin core part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nerazzura
|
|
June 27, 2014, 08:16:06 AM |
|
Why does Bitcoin not implement anonymous transactions feature? It would definitely be huge if it is implemented!
Also, if such features are not implemented what does BTC have apart from being the first and accepted by a large number of merchants? So why not implement the newest features from altcoins?
for while it may not, but if bitcoin continues to grow. to at least maintain its present state, it will happen soon. but if not, the worst possible it will happen that bitcoin will disappear |
|
|
|
|
|
doldgigger
|
|
July 18, 2014, 01:27:10 PM |
|
Why does Bitcoin not implement anonymous transactions feature? It would definitely be huge if it is implemented!
Bitcoin does not connect addresses to names. But most Bitcoin users decide to sacrifice their anonymity for convenience because they want to buy Bitcoins on exchanges, which are usually regulated. |
|
|
|
|
Realpra
|
|
July 18, 2014, 03:28:13 PM |
|
Coinjoin/similar schemes is supported by the protocol. I believe dark wallet and in the future others will have it enabled as default out of the box.
A research paper on coindesk recently stated that even with NO masking efforts they could only trace 10% of transactions by looking at the blockchain.
|
|
|
|
|
celestio
|
|
July 18, 2014, 03:32:17 PM |
|
Coinjoin/similar schemes is supported by the protocol. I believe dark wallet and in the future others will have it enabled as default out of the box.
A research paper on coindesk recently stated that even with NO masking efforts they could only trace 10% of transactions by looking at the blockchain.
http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.com/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html10% is wrong if you're talking about tracing 10% of transactions to output accounts like Coinbase, where the user sells his BTC for USD, it's much much higher, if you're talking about tracing regular Bitcoin transactions, it's 100%. Also coinjoin is deplorable, even having the slightest taint during mixing can reveal your tracks..Darkwallet is also centralized and being such, if it were to get hacked or anything like that, your funds could be stolen like any other malicious wallets out there.. |
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
|
|
|
|
Realpra
|
|
July 18, 2014, 03:56:32 PM |
|
Coinjoin/similar schemes is supported by the protocol. I believe dark wallet and in the future others will have it enabled as default out of the box.
A research paper on coindesk recently stated that even with NO masking efforts they could only trace 10% of transactions by looking at the blockchain.
http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.com/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html10% is wrong if you're talking about tracing 10% of transactions to output accounts like Coinbase, where the user sells his BTC for USD, it's much much higher, if you're talking about tracing regular Bitcoin transactions, it's 100%. Also coinjoin is deplorable, even having the slightest taint during mixing can reveal your tracks..Darkwallet is also centralized and being such, if it were to get hacked or anything like that, your funds could be stolen like any other malicious wallets out there.. Researchers were only looking at the blockchain. Of course governments/exchanges would have more information as you say. I don't know the details about darkwallet, better things will always come in the future given time. Coinjoin/similar being deplorable.. I don't know about that, it can be done in a decentralized manor and if done correctly with enough sources and mixed enough times I think even the NSA would have only random guesses to go by. |
|
|
|
|
celestio
|
|
July 18, 2014, 05:55:09 PM |
|
Coinjoin/similar schemes is supported by the protocol. I believe dark wallet and in the future others will have it enabled as default out of the box.
A research paper on coindesk recently stated that even with NO masking efforts they could only trace 10% of transactions by looking at the blockchain.
http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.com/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html10% is wrong if you're talking about tracing 10% of transactions to output accounts like Coinbase, where the user sells his BTC for USD, it's much much higher, if you're talking about tracing regular Bitcoin transactions, it's 100%. Also coinjoin is deplorable, even having the slightest taint during mixing can reveal your tracks..Darkwallet is also centralized and being such, if it were to get hacked or anything like that, your funds could be stolen like any other malicious wallets out there.. Researchers were only looking at the blockchain. Of course governments/exchanges would have more information as you say. I don't know the details about darkwallet, better things will always come in the future given time. Coinjoin/similar being deplorable.. I don't know about that, it can be done in a decentralized manor and if done correctly with enough sources and mixed enough times I think even the NSA would have only random guesses to go by. Coinjoin is not anonymous, the smallest bit of taint will unveil a user's transactions/tracks. Bitcoin is not anonymous in the least. Here are some website/articles on the subject, above. |
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
|
|
|
|
Realpra
|
|
July 18, 2014, 06:41:32 PM |
|
It's using
CoinJoin for *every* transaction that is what provides privacy by gradually
mixing your coins with those of all other users. The goal is to provide
a pragmatic and low cost privacy tool that can be used for every
transaction - Dark Wallet's implementation actually reduces transaction
fees slightly. Peter Todds comment on one of your linked articles. Anyway protocol allows various tricks that was my point. Ulbricht was found via his name/gmail not TOR or Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
MultiSig
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
July 18, 2014, 09:11:51 PM |
|
It would be a political declaration of war at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
jubalix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1022
|
|
July 18, 2014, 10:11:51 PM |
|
BTC is 100% anon if you use it right and with various utilities.
Dark is a joke, its not even anon. DRK is th enew FTC.
it went, FTC --->QRK---->DOGE---->Blackcoin---->DRK----???this is the dump cycle.
Anoncoin seems to be much better.
|
|
|
|
|
