From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TfYjn-0003Ii-Qy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:19:19 +0000 Received: from mail-la0-f67.google.com ([209.85.215.67]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1TfYjm-0001DX-Uq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:19:19 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f67.google.com with SMTP id i5so560332lah.10 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:19:12 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=covPcfirHMjYPXgkWXxFF0hDbV20dB+1hVOUHPmbQBI=; b=OC/cWqcV5GEGM15echbvi8e9NcvczQwnVQmUwe0eXUFjU8/l1uc2pDlcY4g4qEyBFi KFtbZ8eyMRTqbXdx26HDnFEE/08pa7TmVIM/z+bFJVD2KPl6tVtObE9ZdrCutbvOiB6/ 4XvI/CE7vlGj6v+zyAhqp/ROa4I/b/QDrzCxz03viNAHiUyvlzqK0tSkpwQOgCGFa8/W wzW0j6JJDXE4khkfwVlZIZ1cCiCTyV/eMRCIlTQhNMgJ4KbEv4iXGIWL9Hj+EpyENK1J MtTPR4QXAzAyFlrHSWZVQBDVR7NLf1nGT3j+j0IlfqSG+txDpcZODgw2KUoGlvJg/sT8 mloQ== Received: by 10.112.87.194 with SMTP id ba2mr4617004lbb.84.1354551552349; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:19:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k7sm999184lbf.4.2012.12.03.08.19.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id u2so2340618lag.34 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.110.42 with SMTP id hx10mr10046567lab.0.1354551548592; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:19:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.4.197 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:18:27 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [71.204.90.78] In-Reply-To: References: <80648682-E34A-455E-B34A-6BC24652C3EA@ceptacle.com> <9CEDE4D4-3685-4F70-953E-15CC50A8AA3F@ceptacle.com> <50BCC28A.4060503@gmail.com> From: Stephen Pair Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:18:27 -0500 Message-ID: To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee8a4e243cf04cff51be3 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkGy2rNKmHLptzFM0Vm0cLNbkQdnQF1LLF5f5elzghbW7gXO4mY2WWiu6JsRKMfoRwtiVh X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1TfYjm-0001DX-Uq Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Chain dust mitigation: Demurrage based Chain Vacuuming X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:19:20 -0000 --bcaec54ee8a4e243cf04cff51be3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "anonymity" from > "privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it says > so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to > my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then > that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want > privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy > is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from > users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are > asked to provide ID proofs. I would like to second this point...privacy is essential because the market demands it. If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that it doesn't today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it better and that would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. Debates about whether it was or wasn't a core feature are pointless. --bcaec54ee8a4e243cf04cff51be3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 a= t 10:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Second thing, it's best to carefully separate "a= nonymity" from
"privacy". Privacy is supposed to be a feature of the system (it = says
so in Satoshis paper) because people demand it. If I loan a tenner to
my friend and he is able to find out what I earned last month, then
that trade was neither anonymous nor private. In this case I want
privacy but anonymity isn't useful. Mixing up anonymity with privacy is not only a public relations problem, but can lead to confusion from
users when they, eg, try and buy Bitcoins from an exchange and are
asked to provide ID proofs.

I would like to= second this point...privacy is essential because the market demands it. = =A0If Bitcoin doesn't do it well (and I would argue that it doesn't= today), then eventually a competitor to Bitcoin will do it better and that= would be the beginning of the end for Bitcoin. =A0Debates about whether it= was or wasn't a core feature are pointless.
--bcaec54ee8a4e243cf04cff51be3--