Nostr Web Client

I've coinjoined those, as they were subsequently comingled with funds I previously owned.

Again, there's a big different between a public company trying to be transparent about THE ENTIRELY of their holdings vs a private individual who is beholden to only themselves.

If my net worth were public and all finances were transparently reported moving forward, then there would be no ADDITIONAL risk posed by making addresses public. All the risk would already be taken on by announcing the amounts publicly in the first place.

Wonteet Zebugs 7mo ago 💬 1

So people can better see what that company then does with the btc. Maybe they want to sell some and send it to an exchange. You can then front-run that.

And do you want the precedent of having public companies disclosing their addresses? Do you want to have authorities tell you : "if big companies can do it, why can't you?". Do you want to have to argue about that?

I can't stop them from disclosing their addresses. But I certainly won't be recommending that or praising companies for doing that.

It's a bad precedent and a bad idea.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

BTC Sessions 6mo ago 💬 2

I disagree entirely. I think those tasked with managing the wealth of others (govs, public co's, etc) should be held to the upper-most height of scrutiny and transparency.

I believe that those dealing with their own personal finances should be afforded the maximum privacy.

With Bitcoin we have the ability to do both, if the market so demands.

DRE 6mo ago

They are audited by the big 4 accounting firms, and companies announce their buys publicly. Every measure to be transparent without putting the company at additional risk, many of which I listed in my other reply, has been taken. Every shareholder should rest easy knowing Saylor is not running a Ledger Nano S from the back of a Taco Bell.

Wonteet Zebugs 6mo ago

I went back and forth on your arguments for a while.

- I don't think govs should have reserves. If they can save, it just means they stole too much and should give it back. If they insist on pumping my bags, I'll take it, but I wouldn't vote for that.

- For public corporations : I would just abolish securities laws. I would let the private market figure it out. And since I'm really not someone who would ever invest in a public corporation, I guess it's hard to imagine what I would prefer to invest in.

But proof of reserves means publishing the public key, which is a security risk if you have billions sitting on that address. If you say you'll move the funds afterwards, it defeats the purpose because it could just be moving funds around (people do that all the time in the fiat world to qualify for mortgages or visas, etc).

And again, it's not proof of liabilities.

Even more importantly, it's not proof of the "legalese". I can control an address but have signed a contract that makes that bitcoin vulnerable to The Great Taking (David Webb explains really well the interaction of UCC section 8 and bankruptcies).

Basically, it's security theater.