Hacker News Reader

Some counterpoints:

> Untraceable theft from your wallet

Blockchain analysis is a flourishing field. Vanilla bitcoin is far from untraceable, in fact it is LE’s wet dream.

> Unregulated merchants who aren't incentivized to play by the rules

There are two distinct sets of rules here. The ones merchants have to legally abide by (government imposed) and the ones that fit PayPal’s agenda. The latter is usually the problem (c.f. WikiLeaks blockade) because it is entirely based on the whims of a private company.

> No third-party intermediary in the event you get ripped off.

I often see this argument. Schneier also mentions it as a drawback. Note that reversible transactions can be built on top of bitcoin, if it is desirable. The opposite is not true. At least bitcoin gives you the option to do irreversible transactions if you wish.

> Ability for weed shops and porn sites to accept digital payments (This depends on your stance on these issues. Not everyone feels the same as you).

People need to be able to break the law and operate gray markets to move society forward. See Moxie’s excellent essay on the subject [0]

> If you buy something on ebay, ebay and the credit card company have a record of your purchase. If you buy something from a bitcoin merchant, they will have a record of your purchase. How is that different?

The reason eBay needs your real name is to combat chargeback fraud and tax evasion (for merchants). The former is irrelevant with irreversible transactions, the latter remains valid in that particular case. But what about Joe-random-SaaS? Why does {Spotify|Shopify|Expensify} need my real name besides payment?

[0] https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/

> Untraceable theft from your wallet

Theft is traceable (by looking at the blockchain). Theft is untraceable in the fiat system, because you don't have access to the bank's coffers to check they've not pilfered your money. Turns out they never had the coffers anyway, your money is just some number on a screen, and there are people who have the ability to change those number arbitrarily.

If you take the right steps to secure your bitcoin private key, it doesn't even need to exist in digital form, or physical form, ever. It can be purely inside your head. It's just a number. One which the probability of somebody guessing correctly is unimaginably small.

> Unregulated merchants who aren't incentivized to play by the rules

The same is true for fiat money. Scammers exist, and if you get scammed, you will usually be stuck for months without access to your funds while some third party performs an "investigation" (In paypal's case, "investigation" means return money to the buyer).

How about unregulated "customers" who are not incentivized to play by the rules? Credit card fraud is a huge cost to businesses.

> No third-party intermediary in the event you get ripped off.

The correct term is choice of third-party intermediary (or not). Bitcoin does not force an escrow on you, but allows you to choose whether or not to use one, and who to use. This process can be conducted digitally with multisig transactiton outputs.

> (This depends on your stance with these issues. Not everyone feels the same as you).

Feels are overrated. What are you going to do about it? We've already seen that action is worse than inaction in drug wars. If you think that paying for porn is immoral, what about the morality of you declaring unilaterally that you are cutting off the income of women because you don't like them getting naked in front of a camera?

> Theft is traceable (by looking at the blockchain).

So the people who stole the money from Mt. Gox are currently sitting in jail, right?

This also shows the doublethink you sometimes see with cryptocurrency: it's totally anonymous, and so you can use it for privacy, except for when it's not, so you can use the immutable record to figure out who harmed you.

I was referring to the ability to discover that your funds have been stolen, not necessarily who stole them. (The latter usually doesn't matter, you probably won't see the money again). The fiat system has no ability to monitor for theft. Theft can go on for years unnoticed, and by the time it is noticed, the entitiy involved may be insolvent, having a bigger effect on many people, or even the larger society if the entities are big enough.

Bitcoin is not totally anonymous. If you trade through AML compliant entities, your details will be linked to transactions, and people might be able to discover who you transact with based on the public transaction information. With coinjoin and similar fungibility enhancements, that process of tracking is made far more difficult towards impossible. Also, the Lightning Network enables anonymous payments through an onion routed network, where the only public information is who you have open channels with. Anonymity will become the norm in Bitcoin even if it not the case yet.

If you look at it from the perspective of a merchant, rather than from a "consumer protection" point of view, then a merchant generally does not know who defrauded them with stolen credit cards. In general, it is rarely worth investigating and businesses will generally count their losses. Entities like Paypal are notoriously bad for the seller as they side with the buyer most of the time - it isn't their money so they don't need to take it seriously.

Bitcoin will benefit merchants, who can take payments which are irreversible, except by their own decisions for refunding. Consumers will need to take a bit more responsibility to vet the reputations of the merchants they deal with, instead of always being bailed out for their poor decisions.

Sure it is possible in Bitcoin. But Monero is frequently used as prime example of an untraceable cryptocurrency. The reason is because of Monero's technology. But in the same vein any stolen Monero cannot be traced.

Yes they are fair counterpoints.

> If you buy something from a bitcoin merchant, they will have a record of your purchase. How is that different?

Sharing your data with multiple merchants is much better than allowing one or two entities track all your digital payments, like your credit card provider and your bank.

Regarding your last point: it’s different because it’s relatively trivial to create as many wallets as you want and or use a form of ring sharing. That allows an individual to express financial visibility and transparency in the way they see fit.

Thank you. Assuming you buy something that requires shipping, there would still be some sort of paper trail though, right? If so, this assertion would only stand when the goods were digital or counterparties were physically present and wearing masks.

Even if it was physical you wouldn’t tie the financial picture to the user. The wallet I purchase the physical good with tied to my address may only show $50 worth of coin for example. Compared to my entire net worth.

You also to have to ensure that the two wallets are not connected to each other by other means, such as feeding them with currency from the same exchange, or revealing the same IP with them to the same merchant, or the like.

This is trivial with zksnarks. And that looks like some form of that idea will become standardized.