|
|
|
|
|
by feanaro
2500 days ago
|
|
I doubt routine, automated deanonymization will ever be the standard for Bitcoin, but even if so, there are better alternatives when it comes to privacy, such as Monero. I have no doubt others will appears too. In any case, the point is that privacy of financial transactions is a good thing. |
|
However, my argument isn't just against private, it's also against trustless. Censoring transactions to entities deemed by society as harmful (terrorists, sanctioned entities) is a good thing. This cannot be implemented with a trustless system. If Monero were totally private but had a way of determining if the payees were sanctioned entities, that would be one thing, but it doesn't. Auditability matters. How can you track down the next Enron if you can't see their transactions? How can you follow the flow of stolen money? It's fantasy.
Default-hidden, available on subpoena is the middle ground all law and order societies have deemed to be the right place to draw the line. You need to have a solid basis for why this should be thrown away, and how you plan to address these things.
This feels like a software engineering "this system is too complicated to modify, let's throw it out and start over; thus solving the problem once and for all" type deal.