Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

i wish this were really true. 

it seems many/most need banking accts yet are being obstructed by the banks.  i wonder how Blockchain.info does it?

All it would require, I think, is a place where you can pay to register your corp via a method that does not involve a bank transfer.

What I would do if I was Microsoft would be to get a corporation registered in a suitable country. That corporation would be a purely-online entity. Its only expense is maybe the cost of a VPS to run its website, and those are easy to pay for with bitcoin now.

This corporation would issues shares of its equity as colored bitcoins, which could be distributed via any method and have the useful property of being transferable outside the control of the issuer.

Then I'd make sure this corporation "invents" some intellectual property which I need, and then negotiate a licensing agreement with it. The foreign corporation would specify license fees to be paid in bitcoin, and the rates would be very generous toward the IP holder.

Since that foreign corporation has effectively zero expenses, all of its profits would be distributed to shareholders (whomever holds the colored bitcoins).

I'd repeat this process several times, finding multiple creative ways to end up owing some foreign supplier bitcoins in exchange for good and services, until my US corporation was barely profitable at all.

[1714202916]

1714202916

[1714202916]

1714202916

[1714202916]

1714202916

[justusranvier]

But first we better get to work on better privacy techniques.

Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state.

you keep saying this about Bitcoin's anonymity properties.  if true, why haven't you identified the mtgox crooks yet and sold off the info?  you'd make alot doing so...

edit:  not to mention identities of the numerous other thefts in Bitcoin-land.

For one thing, we don't know that any bitcoin were actually stolen from Mt Gox. They might have bene running a ponzi/fractional reserve.

The other thing is that even if the surveillance infrastructure isn't very effective today the one thing we know it's only going to get better over time.

Information being leaked today is a problem, even if no adversaries are going to be able to exploit it until tomorrow, because the blockchain will still be here tomorrow.

[thefunkybits]

But first we better get to work on better privacy techniques.

Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state.

you keep saying this about Bitcoin's anonymity properties.  if true, why haven't you identified the mtgox crooks yet and sold off the info?  you'd make alot doing so...

This is so true imo...

Everyone is so concerned about privacy and anonymity these days but even our smartest minds can't catch the bad actors. From mtgox to TradeFortress to SR, the good guys and the bad guys all work tirelessly to no avail. Even with a transparent blockchain, the control we have over privacy is still very much in our own hands.

[justusranvier]

Everyone is so concerned about privacy and anonymity these days but even our smartest minds can't catch the bad actors. From mtgox to TradeFortress to SR, the good guys and the bad guys all work tirelessly to no avail. Even with a transparent blockchain, the control we have over privacy is still very much in our own hands.

Did you miss that Coinbase is doing blockchain analysis to identify which of their customers are using gambling sites?

This will become more common over time, as Bitcoin becomes more widely used.

[cypherdoc]

But first we better get to work on better privacy techniques.

Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state.

you keep saying this about Bitcoin's anonymity properties.  if true, why haven't you identified the mtgox crooks yet and sold off the info?  you'd make alot doing so...

edit:  not to mention identities of the numerous other thefts in Bitcoin-land.

For one thing, we don't know that any bitcoin were actually stolen from Mt Gox. They might have bene running a ponzi/fractional reserve.

The other thing is that even if the surveillance infrastructure isn't very effective today the one thing we know it's only going to get better over time.

Information being leaked today is a problem, even if no adversaries are going to be able to exploit it until tomorrow, because the blockchain will still be here tomorrow.

let me ask it another way.

do you think you could de-anonymize most, if not all, addresses on the blockchain today with enough resources at your disposal?  cuz you make it sound like you can.

edit:  i'm not talking about Coinbase users, ppl who leave their addresses on the forum here, or who perform traffic analysis type tx errors routinely.

[justusranvier]

do you think you could de-anonymize most, if not all, addresses on the blockchain today with enough resources at your disposal?  cuz you make it sound like you can.

If proper countermeasures were not taken by the community it would be possible, given that "with enough resources" can mean almost anything.

[cypherdoc]

do you think you could de-anonymize most, if not all, addresses on the blockchain today with enough resources at your disposal?  cuz you make it sound like you can.

If proper countermeasures were not taken by the community it would be possible, given that "with enough resources" can mean almost anything.

i'm talking about NSA level of resources.

so you admit that one can obtain anonymity as long as they are not Coinbase users, ppl who leave their addresses on the forum here, or who perform traffic analysis type tx errors routinely, etc?

[adamstgBit]

do you think you could de-anonymize most, if not all, addresses on the blockchain today with enough resources at your disposal?  cuz you make it sound like you can.

If proper countermeasures were not taken by the community it would be possible, given that "with enough resources" can mean almost anything.

what countermeasures were taken?

AFAIK the community has been working with FBI to make sense of the blockchain, so they can have some kind of a chance catching bad actors.

[justusranvier]

so you admit that one can obtain anonymity as long as they are not Coinbase users, ppl who leave their addresses on the forum here, or who perform traffic analysis type tx errors routinely, etc?

As long as the never use any service which is recording data and providing it to the NSA.

This means more than just not having a Coinbase account - it also means never buying anything from a company that uses Coinbase as a payment processor (or Bitpay, or any other payment processor).

It means an absolutely perfect track record with no mistakes, because automated surveillance systems don't get bored and complacent like humans do.

Remember that after FDR banned gold not everybody turned in their gold, but it hardly mattered because they couldn't spend it without being worried about getting ratted out.

[justusranvier]

The point is, privacy has to be as automated and perfect as the surveillance in order to be effective.

Right now doing everything right means doing it manually, which means sooner or later you will make a mistake.

[Peter R]

…
Did you miss that Coinbase is doing blockchain analysis to identify which of their customers are using gambling sites?
...

I think this is just CYA from Coinbase's perspective.  They want to be able to show that they don't accept funds directly from sites of questionable legality.  And I'd do the same thing if I were in their position.

Furthermore, what they are doing adds helpful pressure to implement better mixing/anonymity by default, as evident by your concerns.  The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure in positive ways.  If "due diligence" for tracking coins from gambling sites is "1 hop" then the coins can be sent using 2 hops, etc.  It's just a game to pacify the regulators--Coinbase pretends to care and so implements a coin-tracking policy, and we route around it (becoming stronger in the process).

I am no longer worried about a bitcoin "fungibility crisis."

[Hunyadi]

…
Did you miss that Coinbase is doing blockchain analysis to identify which of their customers are using gambling sites?
...

I think this is just CYA from Coinbase's perspective.  They want to be able to show that they don't accept funds directly from sites of questionable legality.  And I'd do the same thing if I were in their position.

Furthermore, what they are doing adds helpful pressure to implement better mixing/anonymity by default, as evident by your concerns.  The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure in positive ways.  If "due diligence" for tracking coins from gambling sites is "1 hop" then the coins can be sent using 2 hops, etc.  It's just a game to pacify the regulators--Coinbase pretends to care and so implements a coin-tracking policy, and we route around it (becoming stronger in the process).

I am no longer worried about a bitcoin "fungibility crisis."

Don't you guys think that Darkwallet will solve anonymity concerns?

[justusranvier]

Furthermore, what they are doing adds helpful pressure to implement better mixing/anonymity by default, as evident by your concerns.  The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure in positive ways.  If "due diligence" for tracking coins from gambling sites is "1 hop" then the coins can be sent using 2 hops, etc.  It's just a game to pacify the regulators--Coinbase pretends to care and so implements a coin-tracking policy, and we route around it (becoming stronger in the process).

I agree that the pressure is good for Bitcoin in the long run.

We don't actually disagree. See what I originally wrote:

But first we better get to work on better privacy techniques.

Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state.

The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure precisely because the status quo is in adequate.

[negafen]

…
Did you miss that Coinbase is doing blockchain analysis to identify which of their customers are using gambling sites?
...

I think this is just CYA from Coinbase's perspective.  They want to be able to show that they don't accept funds directly from sites of questionable legality.  And I'd do the same thing if I were in their position.

Furthermore, what they are doing adds helpful pressure to implement better mixing/anonymity by default, as evident by your concerns.  The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure in positive ways.  If "due diligence" for tracking coins from gambling sites is "1 hop" then the coins can be sent using 2 hops, etc.  It's just a game to pacify the regulators--Coinbase pretends to care and so implements a coin-tracking policy, and we route around it (becoming stronger in the process).

I am no longer worried about a bitcoin "fungibility crisis."

Don't you guys think that Darkwallet will solve anonymity concerns?

There is no technology that will solve privacy permanently.

It has and will always be a cat and mouse game.

[cypherdoc]

Furthermore, what they are doing adds helpful pressure to implement better mixing/anonymity by default, as evident by your concerns.  The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure in positive ways.  If "due diligence" for tracking coins from gambling sites is "1 hop" then the coins can be sent using 2 hops, etc.  It's just a game to pacify the regulators--Coinbase pretends to care and so implements a coin-tracking policy, and we route around it (becoming stronger in the process).

I agree that the pressure is good for Bitcoin in the long run.

We don't actually disagree. See what I originally wrote:

But first we better get to work on better privacy techniques.

Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state.

The gambling sites, users, and wallet devs are all reacting to the pressure precisely because the status quo is in adequate.

perhaps you should consider rephrasing "Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state" to "Bitcoin's ancillary services aren't any good to anyone in its current state"?

[rpietila]

perhaps you should consider rephrasing "Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state" to "Bitcoin's ancillary services aren't any good to anyone in its current state"?

I am sure you have heard about Monero, which is anonymous, and can already work as a BTC mixer, and in the future as a standalone coin.

[_mr_e]

perhaps you should consider rephrasing "Bitcoin isn't any good to anyone in its current state" to "Bitcoin's ancillary services aren't any good to anyone in its current state"?

I am sure you have heard about Monero, which is anonymous, and can already work as a BTC mixer, and in the future as a standalone coin.

Actually James from Nxt, an absolute beast of a developer, is also currently deving on Bitcoin Dark to integrate his new Teleport system. It is built on TOP of Nxt technology but will be first integrated into BTCD but will be capable of teleporting ANY coin. This will be a complete breakthrough in anonymizers. http://www.flipgorilla.com/p/23023990364728535/show#/23023990364728535/0

[Melbustus]

I honestly don't know if bitcoin's non-perfect privacy is an ultimate bug or ultimate feature in terms of adoption. JR is right that bitcoin leaks, and that govs will get better at exploiting leaks, as well as more actively and completely demanding identity ties that will stick with coins to some degree.

And that's why govs are likely to, in the longer run, embrace bitcoin without a hugely aggressive battle (as in, "hey merchants, if you accept bitcoin, you go to jail"). They do (or will) realize that because perfect privacy is far from easy to achieve with bitcoin, they can live with it. Further, the inevitable rise of built-in-privacy coins (eg, Monero, as rpietila suggests), will potentially catalyze this viewpoint pretty quickly. Govs will actively *promote* bitcoin at the expense of whatever full-native-privacy coin starts to gain some visible traction.

Heck, Lawsky is already aware of this dynamic. Anyone else catch his comment in the hearings earlier this year, where he pondered: "...maybe we need to require that all virtual currencies have a transparent blockchain."?

[rpietila]

I agree that the best way to leave Monero et al to the dust would be to lift the lid from Bitcoin price appreciation. The trendline allows for 10+ times higher price, which would mean that alts are destroyed (since they are priced in bitcoins).

[Ultros]

I honestly don't know if bitcoin's non-perfect privacy is an ultimate bug or ultimate feature in terms of adoption. JR is right that bitcoin leaks, and that govs will get better at exploiting leaks, as well as more actively and completely demanding identity ties that will be stick with coins to some degree.

To me Bitcoin's relative transparency is the feature that will make it acceptable for banks and governments, they will gladly be able to "regulate" it and probably decrease its potential but as a necessary step into cryptocurrency's massive awareness. For everything else, you'll have Monero and alikes.