| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Consumer Protection Would Eliminate an Essential Function of Bitcoin | >
> | Bitcoin could never secure the privacy of transactions anyway, but people just liked that it wasn't based on the banking system | | | -- By MorreaseLeftwich - 19 Mar 2022 | |
<
< | According to its white paper, bitcoin was meant to overcome the “inherent weaknesses of the trust based model” that is being relied on for transactions over the net. Satoshi Nakamoto presented a few specific benefits, but it was always clear that privacy was probably primary. But while Americans today often raise privacy concerns in their day-to-day lives, most do little to protect our privacy, usually entrusting much of their personal and confidential information to intermediaries. Of course, for most of the relationships formed by such entrustments, there is no legally recognized privilege. Still, for either convenience or insurance, Americans entrust our information to intermediaries anyway. In the case of bitcoin, its technology, which purposefully encrypts the identity of its holders, will not be able to overcome threats to anonymity as Americans continue to allow our concerns for convenience and insurance to predominate. | >
> | David Chaum showed how | | | | |
<
< |
Why don't you link to the document you are relying on?
| >
> | According to its whitepaper, bitcoin was meant to overcome the “inherent weaknesses of the trust based model” that is being relied on for transactions over the net. Satoshi Nakamoto presented a few specific benefits, but it was always clear that privacy was probably primary. However, it is also well-known that Nakamoto is but a fictional character. And while there is, of course, no guarantee that the intention imputed to the character matches that of the genuine founder, many have adopted the technology as a way to secure the privacy of their transactions. But it is apparent that Americans’ adoption of bitcoin is not simply for privacy concerns, as their interest in alternative payment systems would have been piqued earlier, for example, by David Chaum’s proposed system of "BLIND SIGNATURES FOR UNTRACEABLE PAYMENTS". That proposal would not require ditching the modern banking system, but would instead only make payments via banks untraceable with the use of public and private keys. And while Americans often raise privacy concerns in their day-to-day lives, most do little to protect our privacy more generally, usually entrusting much of their personal and confidential information to intermediaries. Of course, for most of the relationships formed by such entrustments, there is no legally recognized privilege. But still, for either convenience or insurance, Americans entrust our information to intermediaries anyway. Moreover, in the case of bitcoin, its technology, which purposefully encrypts the identity of its holders, will not be able to overcome threats to anonymity as Americans continue to allow our concerns for convenience and insurance to predominate. But at the same time, the adoption of bitcoin by so many might evidence an increasing discontent among us with the monetary system “based on government debt” (Debt: The First 5000 Years), which could potentially be catalyzed into effective action if paired with relevant knowledge. | | | | |
>
> | It would be inaccurate to assume that bitcoin’s adoption by so many has been for a shared purpose. While for many, privacy and detachment from the banking system is primary, for many others the adoption of bitcoin has only been for market-based gambling, which is more accessible in the nascent cryptocurrency market than in the more mature markets, like the foreign exchange and stock markets. It is unclear which group stands as a majority, but it is certainly true that the traders have been louder than the rest for years now. Of course, the two groups have totally different hopes for the future of bitcoin, with the traders standing to benefit from a secure commodity, potentially government regulated, while the other group would almost certainly rather bitcoin mature in a way that is independent of, and different from, the modern financial system. The ideological victor became easier to identify after the cryptocurrency community more generally welcomed the executive order passed by President Biden to [[http://...][“ensur[e] responsible development of digital assets.”]] | | | | |
<
< | Without anonymity, Bitcoin cannot facilitate "completely non-reversible transactions" as its founder envisioned
Satoshi Nakamoto argued that bitcoin was better than the status quo because it would do away with the “transaction costs” of the “trust based model.” Those transaction costs are, according to the white paper, a result of the inability of financial institutions to allow for “completely non-reversible transactions.” Given that–the trust-based model’s persisting susceptibility to demurrer under the laws of governments–costs are significant, supposedly “limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.” That may have almost been true, but now there is Zelle. And while it may be true that there are significant transaction costs inherent in the present model reliant on financial institutions, that is similarly true, if not more so, when it comes to bitcoin. Fees for bitcoin transactions are far from nonexistent and the white paper itself envisioned a time when bitcoin transactions would be powered entirely by transaction fees. But the costs are really only comparable if we compare actual money costs. On its face, the whitepaper seems most concerned with the impossibility of irreversible transactions, but anonymity is actually of foundational importance. Satoshi Nakamoto writes that given the status-quo’s reversibility, each party to a transaction must be more wary of the other, “hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.” He does not expound on the privacy issue there, but the reason for the hassling is that a party can sue to contest the contract and take their money back only if they know the identity of the transferee. Regardless of whether a financial institution is serving as the medium or a blockchain, so long as identities are visible, lawsuits and reversals can occur. Thus, the anonymity piece really is foundational. However, it is notable that while bitcoin wallet holder identities are directly encrypted, there is no protection from transactions that any one wallet participated in being traced and linked to an identity once investigated. This is just one example of how bitcoin users must actually expend effort to maintain their anonymity, since it can be easily circumvented.
Americans today constantly entrust intermediaries with their information for convenience or insurance
Americans are constantly surrendering the confidentiality inherent in their everyday processes. For example, many people travel to all of their destinations via a ride-sharing service or with the assistance of a navigation app. Potentially most also receive the majority of their income via intermediaries–and that may also be so for those engaging in illegal business, given the incredible convenience offered by applications like Zelle, Venmo, and Apple Pay. The case of those engaging in illegal business is obviously especially interesting for it shows the exceeding preference for the convenience offered by intermediaries, but there are more mundane and widespread examples as well–email, social media, and others.
American governments have set the stage for the trust based model to enter cryptocurrency markets
A few weeks ago, President Biden passed an executive order which was dreaded by the cryptocurrency trading community in the weeks leading up to it. But when it was released, that same community was very welcoming of its contents, which essentially acknowledged both cryptocurrencies’ great potential and concerns over consumer protection. An additional but much prior development has been the creation of cryptocurrency depository institutions by some state legislatures to allow for secure holding with state approval.
Americans will likely bite the bait
At this point, cryptocurrency users have not been vocal about concerns over the lack of insurance when it comes to their virtual coins, which literally disappear when misplaced. But if such concerns are there but just not yet voiced, then the federal government has stepped in to provide a platform. The executive order passed by President Biden did little to change federal policy, but just announced what was already underway, in addition to, most notably, describing the executive branch’s view as it addresses the technology. Essentially, the order admitted the promising nature of the technologies, but raised concerns over consumer protection. This will likely lead to regulations aimed to protect retail cryptocurrency traders, but would also require disclosures that will reduce anonymity. Furthermore, it might influence the rise of cryptocurrency depository services being opened up to retail traders, which would largely eliminate anonymity.
I'm not sure that I understand the purpose of this draft. Bitcoin is not a currency: it's a collectible, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a character created by a man, a figure in a science-fiction art project. You don't know who lies behind the pseudonym, but I do, and I'm not sure why you think the opinions of the character are those of his inventor, which I'm pretty sure they're not.
As you point out, there never was any actual "anonymity" to public-ledger blockchains used as "money," because whether the ledger records identity is only one method of tracking events in the market.
Cryptocurrency hype, like Y2K, is the consequence of living in a society dominated by technology that even educated people, like lawyers, completely do not understand. So we can be sure, as you say, that neither citizens nor legislators have any grasp of what is going on behind the noise..
But in that context, we need more clarity about the essay's central purpose. If your goal is to explain that we need anonymous digital payment systems, why bother with Bitcoin? David Chaum showed how to do that in 1982. Untraceable digital cash is once again the subject of proposed federal legislation. If the essay's main point is the one suggested in the present draft's conclusion, that citizens are uninformed about the real issues involved in the long-term shift in the nature of money that began in 1971, superbly described by the late David Graeber in Debt: The First 5000 Years (2014), then once again Bitcoin is a distraction, or at best an ironic illustration.
So I think this first draft has served well its most basic function, to unearth issues. The route to improvement, in my view, is to determine which of those issues is central, to get in touch with the sources that help you to teach your readers about that central issue, and to bring the discussion out of crypto bro hype and into sharper focus.
| >
> | It may be so that even those who initially adopted bitcoin for its revolutionary characteristics have now come to realize its ineffectiveness for that purpose; and that may be the reason for their relative silence. But the fact that they ever thought that bitcoin could be their savior caused them to waste time in reliance on the potential they perceived in it (at least they profited). To prevent a repeat, we all must learn more about the nature of money, perhaps most usefully from a historical lens, for example, as described in David Graeber’s (Debt: The First 5000 Years), so that we may recognize the difference between monetary evolution and revolution. |
|