I believe Bitcoin is intentionally transparent, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is the anonymity set delta.
The smaller you are, the larger your anonymity set.
The larger you are, the smaller your anonymity set.
This makes it expensive for governments to hide their actions, but cheap for individuals.
I agree, and hadn't heard it put this way.
While that's true and I even share the idealism behind it, it doesn't come by default. The bigger you are, the less the rules count for you as well. What hinders coinbase to make handshake or even contracted deals with Blackrock ? How do we know which outflows are for sure related to certain instance ? Just because a wallet address holds small doesn't mean the actual owner does. Aside from the fact that anything prohibited by someone is often used by exactly that someone.-> tornado cash
The anon are not the problem w bitcoin chain.
Is how it can be centralize w enough money. Wonder if bitcoin can fit w those megaplan about money and credit score for those evils thinktank like world economic fu ?
People need to learn, in starwars : senate are a freedom system nobody cant control it...palpatine...
This films start in 1977. Bitcoin is freedom tech...chuckle
Interesting point.
Never heard this take, provocative fren
I don’t think this choice was intentionall in this manner rather that Satoshi needed transparency for the sake of audability. But hey, interesting thought.
It’s like a chess game where you can’t see your opponent. You are forced to play the board, not psych out your opponent.
This is senseless. There's no correlation between size and anonymity set. Anyone can track everything all the time.
It was done this way due to technical limitations, ones which no longer exist.
