If you actually holistically understand how something works and still don’t have confidence in it based on those fundamentals, you don’t have to spread misinformation about it to have the thing collapse, it should do so on it’s own.
The reason bitcoin isn’t good for anonymous payments is because it’s ledger is transparent and fully auditable, by design. It was never meant to be truly private and never advertised as such by it’s developers. The word you hear in the bitcoin space is “pseudonymous” which is the same level of masking you have from a username on a social media site. Privacy has never been it’s priority.
Claiming Bitcoin is anonymous is indeed a common mistake, which I didn’t make.
Pseudonyms can help provide privacy, the issue is that those pseudonyms are permanently tied to Bitcoin wallets. Making a transaction with an exchange or seller while providing a full identity allow that exchange to trace all transactions and reassociate identities.
You do make good point, Bitcoin’s use of permanent pseudonyms is another reason why Bitcoin isn’t useful for daily private payments.
Privacy on a ledger requires anonymity, I think you understand that and therefore why I addressed both. The pseudonymity of bitcoin is incidental to the technology, not even that was intended as a privacy aid and even the whitepaper points out this discrepancy. Your representation of bitcoin’s original intentions aren’t accurate, but are a common misconception that I assume arose from cryptocurrency’s “killer app” (Darknet markets).
Bicoin isn’t useful for private daily payments given the high volatility and fees and inefficiency. It was the intention but didn’t pan out.
Today’s main uses cases for Bitcoin:
If you actually holistically understand how something works and still don’t have confidence in it based on those fundamentals, you don’t have to spread misinformation about it to have the thing collapse, it should do so on it’s own.
The reason bitcoin isn’t good for anonymous payments is because it’s ledger is transparent and fully auditable, by design. It was never meant to be truly private and never advertised as such by it’s developers. The word you hear in the bitcoin space is “pseudonymous” which is the same level of masking you have from a username on a social media site. Privacy has never been it’s priority.
Claiming Bitcoin is anonymous is indeed a common mistake, which I didn’t make.
Pseudonyms can help provide privacy, the issue is that those pseudonyms are permanently tied to Bitcoin wallets. Making a transaction with an exchange or seller while providing a full identity allow that exchange to trace all transactions and reassociate identities.
You do make good point, Bitcoin’s use of permanent pseudonyms is another reason why Bitcoin isn’t useful for daily private payments.
Privacy on a ledger requires anonymity, I think you understand that and therefore why I addressed both. The pseudonymity of bitcoin is incidental to the technology, not even that was intended as a privacy aid and even the whitepaper points out this discrepancy. Your representation of bitcoin’s original intentions aren’t accurate, but are a common misconception that I assume arose from cryptocurrency’s “killer app” (Darknet markets).
Ethereum is more energy efficient anyways.
Transactions are also public