Bitcoin doesn’t want “anonymous” (II)

Why is Bitcoin better off without anonymity? Why is it best to know who the owners of the Bitcoin addresses are and where the money goes?

In this world there are only two ways to get resources: A) by force, or B) by offering something in return. If Bitcoins are a valuable resource, then everyone will know what to adjust to, in terms of this moral dichotomy.

Today, some people – who call themselves “government” – invest time and effort investigating rich people’s accounts and transactions because they want to get their resources via method A. At the same time, another very different group of people are trying to work out how to obtain resources by means of the B method. The first group care about their own anonymity, but not about the anonymity of those whom they rob through taxation or currency devaluation; while the latter group care about their own anonymity, to avoid being robbed, but they don’t care about their rulers’ anonymity.

Time and labour are resources that each group employs, and will employ, to “de-anonymize” the other, to assess their resources and the ways they use them. When misuse is made public, the other group will have dealt a moral blow to its opponent with the possible consequence of extracting their resources directly or indirectly. Even in democracy opposing parties – although they share a common desire to appropriate the same farm – employ similar resources in order to gain advantage, for example, by funding journalistic research aimed at staining reputations. So this is a battle that the political body is not immune to.

Bitcoin will appreciate in value whilst state currencies will depreciate; the rulers will migrate to Bitcoin. So, who has a greater incentive to break the defences that allow the use of Bitcoin to be anonymous?

Any anonymity expert on the Internet knows that this battle is not decided.

What incentive will those who took advantage of the confusion of a complex financial system have – a system purposely made to provide anonymity and immunity to the thief, who believes that everyone is like him? Will they want Bitcoin use to be anonymous or not?

And what incentive will an honest company, striving to gain their customers trust and loyalty have? Will they want to hide their accounts, make commercial contracts with multiple Bitcoin addresses and pay to conceal their transactions and anonymize their executives?

If you know the answer to these questions, you’ll know how things will go.

Then, apart from the incentives, there are the possibilities: which of the two groups –  government or business – will have greater financial resources, not to mention technology, to win the battle with those who try to hide in a Bitcoin ruled world? Furthermore, which of the two groups runs the risk that a deserter will derail their attempts?

And aside from the possibilities, we have the pure force of the market: which of the two groups will gain a higher turnover – not to mention being able to relax a little while doing so?

If this is not proof enough, I appeal to your sense and reason. In an increasingly Internet dependent world, we are either all anonymous or not – including the scoundrels who use state violence. Why would you, who are supposedly honourable, wish to hide in the long term?