📅 Original date posted:2015-03-27
📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle at outlook.com> wrote:
> Yes I agree, also there is talks about a government body I know of warming
> to bitcoin by issuing addresses for use by a business and then all
> transactions can be tracked for that business entity. This is one proposal I
> saw put forward by a country specific bitcoin group to their government and
> so not allowing address reuse would neuter that :(
I hope you're mistaken, because that would be a serious attack on the
design of bitcoin, which obtains privacy and fungibility, both
essential properties of any money like good, almost exclusively
through avoiding reuse.
[What business would use a money where all their competition can see
their sales and identify their customers, where their customers can
track their margins and suppliers? What individuals would use a system
where their inlaws could criticize their spending? Where their
landlord knows they got a raise, or where thieves know their net
worth?]
Though no one here is currently suggesting blocking reuse as a network
rule, the reasonable and expected response to what you're suggesting
would be to do so.
If some community wishes to choose not to use Bitcoin, great, but they
don't get to simply choose to screw up its utility for all the other
users.
You should advise this "country specific bitcoin group" that they
shouldn't speak for the users of a system which they clearly do not
understand.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 15:32:15
in reply to nevent1q…puca
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:15Event JSON
{
"id": "8ead315dd013a020cdd3609713b244d71d8257cc0d79e06d88a6a9394361292d",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686151935,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"13ba2dac7eec5154e8f99682c168a8cede79e5ef5e0b1fe726762657ed73749d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"221a2ef90b42a70e29946f7df5c9fef68e63782763abd439033cec835ed29955",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3c7421b6a5b9065ef5ba5b113416bc212a389a58853f668baffb4a8a04f2b35f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-27\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Thy Shizzle \u003cthyshizzle at outlook.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Yes I agree, also there is talks about a government body I know of warming\n\u003e to bitcoin by issuing addresses for use by a business and then all\n\u003e transactions can be tracked for that business entity. This is one proposal I\n\u003e saw put forward by a country specific bitcoin group to their government and\n\u003e so not allowing address reuse would neuter that :(\n\nI hope you're mistaken, because that would be a serious attack on the\ndesign of bitcoin, which obtains privacy and fungibility, both\nessential properties of any money like good, almost exclusively\nthrough avoiding reuse.\n\n[What business would use a money where all their competition can see\ntheir sales and identify their customers, where their customers can\ntrack their margins and suppliers? What individuals would use a system\nwhere their inlaws could criticize their spending? Where their\nlandlord knows they got a raise, or where thieves know their net\nworth?]\n\nThough no one here is currently suggesting blocking reuse as a network\nrule, the reasonable and expected response to what you're suggesting\nwould be to do so.\n\nIf some community wishes to choose not to use Bitcoin, great, but they\ndon't get to simply choose to screw up its utility for all the other\nusers.\n\nYou should advise this \"country specific bitcoin group\" that they\nshouldn't speak for the users of a system which they clearly do not\nunderstand.",
"sig": "f939ac4ca7cbe886e2ada9bbde9f658350efe0829bfa89480641117d7e1420e4e00264916bc8e1de61a9bf2def022c54c62781be273935afbe34326adb3fe1f1"
}