This is ridiculous. Mixing is a foundation of cryptocirrency, cryptocirrencies don't make any sense without mixing. Who wants their entire transactions history to be public? That would make them an easy target for many kinds of fraud and other kinds of attacks.
> Mixing is a foundation of cryptocirrency, cryptocirrencies don't make any sense without mixing.
I'm going to need a citation on this one. Many people who are still stuck on Bitcoin maximalism these days seem to have gone the "nothing to hide" route, and actively denigrate the idea that privacy tech should be implemented at all.
> Who wants their entire transactions history to be public?
But privacy is essential to make it possible. Seriously, would you choose a bank which would post details for every payment you make online, available for everybody to read? Try imagine what can bad people do with that information.
essential for it to gain users but by no means a technical requirement.
Besides getting actual privacy with cryptocurrency requires jumping through a lot of hoops, covering a lot of tracks, and trusting a lot of people. I think privacy is the killer feature that we will never actually have.
edit: you are of course right and I am splitting hairs, but I do think real privacy is impossible.
Cryptocurrencies aren't a smart workaround around the financial system. They are simply violations of laws.
They're not loopholes. Thousands of years of economic theory wasn't suddenly made obsolete by something new. It's just crime. Economic systems already knew we don't want money laundering and we do want reversibility. Some techie thinking mixers aren't money laundering and thinking reversibility is a bug doesn't make it so. They were on purpose. Because that's superior.
That's superior for central governments who want to be able to get half of your economic output, punish you if you do drugs and that try to push an insane level of consumerism at the expense of businesses (reversibility).
Fraud protection could very well be kept under control and prevented with insurance, instead of potentially invalidating every economic transaction.
Not everyone is an ultra extreme libertarian. By far most people want police, fire department, roads, FDA, FCC, OSHA, national security, social security, and even the DMV. And the system of taxes is something that achieves that.
People want those things, and they don't want the old Chinese drug dens.
Does that mean that the implementation is perfect? Absolutely not. Especially in the US. Mass incarceration is counterproductive and horrible. Cannabis illegality has a racist history. But personally I don't think people should be allowed to use fentanyl, meth, and heroin.
Even libertarians should recognize that there's no way such use doesn't have a huge externality caused by people who are judgement proof, on people who had nothing to do with the use.
Looks like you are an ultra extreme libertarian. And that's fine. But like anarchy I don't think it's a bad ideal, I just think it's a pipe dream.
How do you mean reversibility leads to increased consumerism? You mean because I wouldn't buy things online if my credit card wouldn't allow me to reverse the charges if it's a scam?
That sounds like capitalism, to me. You're free as a business to only accept debit cards. Debit cards don't (in my jurisdiction at least, and AFAIK most or all) don't have the same protections as credit cards.
Do you not like capitalism? This seems incompatible with the libertarian values you seem to have.
> Fraud protection could very well be kept under control and prevented with insurance,
I truly wish you good luck with that. No sarcasm. But I do also mean "yeah, good luck with that".
> instead of potentially invalidating every economic transaction.
Oh, you mean like the Ethereum DAO split? That was the true "socialism for the people who have connections, capitalism for the poor".
