Technology

60071 readers

3592 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

260

How a 27-Year-Old Codebreaker Busted the Myth of Bitcoin’s Anonymity (www.wired.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"This is the story of the revelation in late 2013 that Bitcoin was, in fact, the opposite of untraceable—that its blockchain would actually allow researchers, tech companies, and law enforcement to trace and identify users with even more transparency than the existing financial system."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't think this story is correct, just to chime in with everybody else. It was explicitly stated that bitcoin was a public ledger in the whitepaper.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What part do you not consider correct?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That someone busted the myth of Bitcoin four years after it was made public knowledge that bitcoin was not anonymous.

There was no myth to bust. Bitcoin was explicitly public from its inception.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I guess you hadn't read the article. The point wasn't that the ledger is public, but that the accounts allegedly were deemed anonymous.

My point is read the article then criticize it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I read it, the point is that people who hadn't even read the basic information about Bitcoin presented by its creator assumed Bitcoin was anonymous.

This is not as groundbreaking as you seem to think it is.

Some people didn't take the time to read closely or think critically and then made poor assumptions.

Like you, for instance, with your comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But it wasn't deemed anonymous by anyone who read the bitcoin white paper from 2008. That's the point... that was never a myth to bust because anonymity was never a promoted feature of this chain.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

It's paywalled.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

There's a difference between "bitcoin is a public ledger" and "we can determine that Alice paid Bob 1 bitcoin".

The bitcoin devs thought they could achieve the "public ledger" part while avoiding the second part. It turns out they couldn't.