121–130 of 369 posts
Cryptocurrency's obsession with fees is baffling. Fees are not why moving money is hard.
For all of the talk about how Bitcoin is not truly anonymous, this wallet demonstrates otherwise, with the apparent 'anonymity proviso' being that you don't do too much with it, and just let the coins sit.
We're having a discussion on HN about a specific person moving a specific amount of money around. That by itself is basically the opposite of privacy.
Anonymity - the quality of the user being unknown
Privacy - the quality of the user's actions being unobserved
Authenticity- the quality of the user's actions being certainly the user's
Bitcoin provides pseudonymous transactions, which may approach anonymity if the user is careful. It does not provide true privacy as all transactions are public. But the purpose of the transactions is not communicated, though may be inferred if the parties are identified. If I transfer $20 in BTC to a pizza joint, you can guess that I bought a pizza, but it's just a (well-founded) guess. It provides a high degree of authenticity in that it is a hard problem (in the mathematical sense, unless your keys have been obtained by an adversary) to fake a transaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the Government taxes, 1 Billon no matter that will pay a jucy tax slice.
Where are you that has a transaction tax on account transfers? Not the US certainly, and not anywhere in the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Every member can be uniquely identified but if you are careful not to link your pseudonym (e.g. wallet address) to any personally identifiable information, nobody else can. But this is really hard when it is about money since in general you'd want to spend that money an that's where the link appears. As long as you don't spend the money, there is no information to link.
There are ways around this problem. See: https://local bitcoins.com Doesn't completely de-anonymize you but it does reduce the set of people who have uniquely identifiable information to 1
For all of the talk about how Bitcoin is not truly anonymous, this wallet demonstrates otherwise, with the apparent 'anonymity proviso' being that you don't do too much with it, and just let the coins sit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not with a multi-signature address acting as escrow. 2013 called and wants its arguments back
In that case you still have to trust the escrow service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably just twice. Bitcoin addresses are check summed so it's nearly impossible to fat finger a mistake.
And yet it happens - as does putting the value in the "fee" box!
For all of the talk about how Bitcoin is not truly anonymous, this wallet demonstrates otherwise, with the apparent 'anonymity proviso' being that you don't do too much with it, and just let the coins sit.
That's the whole idea behind the blockchain. Everything is recorded in ledgers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, is it that different from being able to send an encrypted message, or lock something securely in a safe?
Is there a difference between expressing moral support for a terrorist organization and sending them $1 million? I was never very compelled with the "money = speech" argument when taken particularly literally.
How many times would you double check the address before hitting send? I would think to minimize risk, would slice this up into a few transactions...
The fun bit is that the signer can backdoor transactions, and that part isn't something that can be verified by anybody who doesn't have the private keys.