[katsume3]

Since Bitcoin is not fundamentally private, any attempt to tumble your BTC is fruitless because the Bitcoin blockchain and every transaction is public and transparent. There are even companies like Chainalysis[0] who profit off this fact and help law enforcement with e-crime. I imagine if Satoshi wanted to do Bitcoin again, she would bake in privacy as a core feature?

[0] https://www.chainalysis.com/

[ve55]

Just because every transaction is public does not mean that it's impossible to mix bitcoins, as transactions can have multiple inputs and outputs. It's difficult to mix, but keep in mind perfect information isn't available to those doing analysis, and companies like chainalysis also use a lot of off-chain information to help them draw conclusions.

[sgp_]

It's not impossible to use properly, but it requires time and money. Just to enter the Samourai mixing pools, for example, costs ~$5-270, exclusive of Bitcoin miner fees. Mixing can also take days. Mixing may provide the intended effect for some people, but it's certainly not something for non-enthusiasts. Plus, Chainalysis and other companies will just mark the whole mixing pool as higher risk anyway and flag those deposits with exchanges, even if they can't trace it.

[RandomBacon]

Satoshi mentioned things like Ring Signatures. In another timeline, I think it's possible that Satoshi might have kept working on it to make it private by default.

Sidenote: The original author of CryptoNote which Monero is based on, Nicolas van Saberhagen, is also an anonymous identity like Satoshi.

[jmt_]

Possibly not. Satoshi likely did not intend nor desire their currency to be used to facilitate crimes. In fact, they were infamously weary of WikiLeaks using the currency for donations due to the legal issues surrounding them, and WikiLeaks "crimes" are not comparable to say arms trafficking or something substantially illegal. The public nature of the BTC blockchain helps facilitate decentralized, equal participation.

[thaumasiotes]

> Satoshi likely did not intend nor desire their currency to be used to facilitate crimes.

This is certainly false; the whole point is to invalidate money transmission laws.

[jmt_]

One can "invalidate" money transmission laws without committing crimes.

[thaumasiotes]

How?

[jmt_]

Use Bitcoin for legitimate purchases?

[drdeca]

How does this invalidate money transmission laws?

If all the transactions being done wouldn't be forbidden by money transmission laws even if they were transmitting money normally, then the transactions aren't doing anything to negate the effects of the money transmission laws.

On the other hand, if a transaction would go against money transaction laws if it were going by some other method, even if it would currently be legal if done with bitcoin (which I doubt is the case, but even supposing), the money transmission laws could just be amended to also forbid the analogous transactions which use bitcoin instead of whatever other method, therefore then making it a crime.

A plan to invalidate a law by making a technology that fits through a loophole in a law, and hoping the loophole never gets patched, seems, an odd plan.

A plan to make a law practically un-enforceable by making a technology, seems like a more reasonable plan to me, and is also inherently facilitating a crime.

[drdeca]

Isn't it meant to be censorship resistant? If a state made a law which forbade the use of bitcoin, that would make the use of bitcoin in that state a crime, but I think that making it difficult for a state to enforce such a law is kind of a design goal for bitcoin? Or at least, closely aligned with design goals of bitcoin.

Of course, it wouldn't be desired that it be made illegal, but I think the desire would be that, if possible, even if it was illegal, people would still be successful in attempting to use it.

[RandomBacon]

> Isn't it meant to be censorship resistant?

I don't think so. Satoshi included the headline of bank bailouts in the first block. It's been a decade since I scanned over the whitepaper, but I think it was to create a currency that people couldn't manipulate.

Bitcoin may be censorship resistant, but it is not censorship proof.

[drdeca]

The reason I said "if possible" was to suggest that some sufficiently powerful adversaries could censor it, but that this is just because it can't be avoided, not because it is desired that they be able to do so.

[lawn]

They were not wary of WikiLeaks using Bitcoin because of possible crime association, but because Bitcoin was so new and they didn't want to draw attention so early in the project.

[zapdrive]

I don't get how referring to an unknown person as "she" is not reverse-sexism? Why not use 'they'?

[stripline]

This bothers me as well. Using "he" generically is accepted use of the English language so one could be forgiven for continuing to use it. By using "she" you are going out of you way to choose a gender, when you could easily use a gender-neutral pronoun.

[RandomBacon]

Or the person who wrote that might genuinely believe that Satoshi was female.

I don't like reverse-sexism/racism/etc because adding the term "reverse" doesn't stop it from being sexist/racist/etc itself, but Hacker News guidelines say we should "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

[0-_-0]

Satoshi (さとし, サトシ) is generally a masculine Japanese given name

[RandomBacon]

Using a screen name of the opposite sex is a good way to help hide one's identity. I wouldn't read into it.

[kazinator]

Some people don't like using "they" as a singular, myself included, in serious writing.

Though the singular "they" has been in the English language since something like the 14th century, for the past hundred-and-fifty or so years, some prescriptive grammarians have been advising against it, insisting that it's an error. I is perhaps due to the efforts of these grammarians that "they" has come to be regarded as informal, giving text a colloquial or conversational flavor.

How you can avoid sexism is my sometimes using "he" and sometimes "she" as a meta-variable for some unspecified person (consistently for the same person).

If you make the he:she ratio exactly 50% in your corpus, you're above all accusation of sexism.