Removed.

[coinbiz]

Removed.

[Enzyme]

Sure, bitcoin transactions are transparent, but it's still pretty difficult to figure the identity of an address/wallet owner.  

If the government required all wallets to be publicly registered to a driver license or government ID, would you be OK with that?  Why?  Why not?

I'm trying to understand what percentage of people use bitcoin because it's relatively anonymous.  

If not, is it because you primarily use bitcoins for drugs/porn or other illicit activity?  Or you use it to try to cloak your donations/transactions?

Look forward to your opinions.  

Thanks.

No, that completely ruins the whole point of Bitcoin.
I would rather use PayPal.

[R2D221]

If the government required all wallets to be publicly registered to a driver license or government ID, would you be OK with that?  Why?  Why not?

No, because I don't have a government ID.

[DannyHamilton]

If not, is it because you primarily use bitcoins for drugs/porn or other illicit activity?  Or you use it to try to cloak your donations/transactions?

Before I answer your question, answer one for me.

If you could do so without being charged any processing fees, would you be willing to contact your banks, credit card companies, and retirement savings investments to receive an export of your entire spending and savings history from all of you accounts for the past 3 years, and to then post that entire history here in this thread for the entire world to access?

[Gleb Gamow]

If not, is it because you primarily use bitcoins for drugs/porn or other illicit activity?  Or you use it to try to cloak your donations/transactions?

Before I answer your question, answer one for me.

If you could do so without being charged any processing fees, would you be willing to contact your banks, credit card companies, and retirement savings investments to receive an export of your entire spending and savings history from all of you accounts for the past 3 years, and to then post that entire history here in this thread for the entire world to access?

Before I answer that question, can't some (plural) three-letter agency do that already with the current get-up?

[ViciousPlayer]

It is already the case that BTC is not anonymous. That is why there is so much move into stealth coins with the alts. The first one was DRK and it had a huge following. There is no stealth mode with BTC and I will continue to use it.

[Chef Ramsay]

Yep, there's no anon here unless you make it for yourself. Keep that in mind my friends. Your security is what you make of it.

[50ouncebrew]

Yeah idc about that.

[Chef Ramsay]

Yep, there's no anon here unless you make it for yourself. Keep that in mind my friends. Your security is what you make of it.

If you're new in the USA, go to/and use coinbase. You'll thank me later. In fact, coinbase is the method for purchasing is your best friend.

[hilariousetc]

Bitcoin may eventually have such restrictions imposed on it under AML laws etc, but even if it did come under such regulations it would still be a better and fairer system than banks and PayPal etc so yes I would still use it.

[solex]

If not, is it because you primarily use bitcoins for drugs/porn or other illicit activity?  Or you use it to try to cloak your donations/transactions?

Before I answer your question, answer one for me.

If you could do so without being charged any processing fees, would you be willing to contact your banks, credit card companies, and retirement savings investments to receive an export of your entire spending and savings history from all of you accounts for the past 3 years, and to then post that entire history here in this thread for the entire world to access?

Before I answer that question, can't some (plural) three-letter agency do that already with the current get-up?

Before I answer that question, can we be confident that this thread isn't full of three-letter agency sock-puppet accounts?

[WillyBTC]

Sure, bitcoin transactions are transparent, but it's still pretty difficult to figure the identity of an address/wallet owner.  

If the government required all wallets to be publicly registered to a driver license or government ID, would you be OK with that?  Why?  Why not?

I would still use it, but would I "be OK with that"? No way. I much prefer the pseudonymous nature that bitcoin has at present. But I wouldn't abandon it entirely if we lost that.

[Q7]

No way I'm going to provide my details for any bitcoin related transactions. If I'm required to do that, what makes the difference between using fiat anyway.

[dnydublin12]

Yes I would.

Wouldn't use it for everything, just as I don't now, but I would use it for some transactions.

[Braedo]

No I wouldn't, I don't use Bitcoin to hide or for anything illegal but I don't agree with the government having their hand in everything.

[fairglu]

I would if every government, politician and company were also required to use it, and thus all and every transaction they make and funds they hold would be public.

There would be a lot of value in having all politicians publish full, unforgeable and realtime financial status and ties.

Anonymity is not a problem for Joe Average, but anonymity is a problem for public persons.

Alas the opposite is more likely to happen: all of Joe's financials are tracked, while politicians, bankers and major corporations are happily doing shady untraceable trading...

...and its not likely to happen, it's what we have today with fiat.

[panju1]

Sure, bitcoin transactions are transparent, but it's still pretty difficult to figure the identity of an address/wallet owner.  

If the government required all wallets to be publicly registered to a driver license or government ID, would you be OK with that?  Why?  Why not?

I'm trying to understand what percentage of people use bitcoin because it's relatively anonymous.  

If not, is it because you primarily use bitcoins for drugs/porn or other illicit activity?  Or you use it to try to cloak your donations/transactions?

Look forward to your opinions.  

Thanks.

I wouldn't.
But the reason is definitely not because I use bitcoins for illicit activities. It is because there is no need for the world to know my spending patterns.

[crazy_rabbit]

I would.

[pawel7777]

I don't recall any single transaction I've ever made that I'd be 'ashamed of' or try to hide it. But that doesn't mean I'm happy to share all my financial history with anyone.

I don't see how it would be even possible to prevent any user from creating anonymous/unregistered wallet.

Anonymity (or pseudonymity) is not a feature of bitcoin that I value the most, but it's nice to know that you could remain anonymous (to some degree) if you ever need to.

So yes, I'd keep using bitcoin, but I wouldn't like that requirement. 

[countryfree]

No, I wouldn't.
Cos, that would make BTC worse than a standard bank account to me.
The less I deal with government agencies, the better. By the way, which government? Governments belong to the past, especially to me, since I changed country last week.