Slashdot Mirror


Bitcoin Is Not Anonymous After All

Taco Cowboy points out a new study that shows it is possible to figure out the IP address of someone who pays for transactions anonymously online using bitcoins. "The Bitcoin system is not managed by a central authority, but relies on a peer-to-peer network on the Internet. Anyone can join the network as a user or provide computing capacity to process the transactions. In the network, the user's identity is hidden behind a cryptographic pseudonym, which can be changed as often as is wanted. Transactions are signed with this pseudonym and broadcast to the public network to verify their authenticity and attribute the Bitcoins to the new owner. In their new study, researchers at the Laboratory of Algorithmics, Cryptology and Security of the University of Luxembourg have shown that Bitcoin does not protect user's IP address and that it can be linked to the user's transactions in real-time. To find this out, a hacker would need only a few computers and about €1500 per month for server and traffic costs. Moreover, the popular anonymization network "Tor" can do little to guarantee Bitcoin user's anonymity, since it can be blocked easily."

70 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Aw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that hitman I hired to kill my bookie's drug dealer is going to be able to hire a hacker to find me.

    1. Re:Aw man by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      I think the hitman knows who you are and wants for cash to cover costs on top of the fee.

    2. Re:Aw man by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Well then you should have kept your wallet on blockchain.info and accessed that website from tor.

      Oops...derp...I accidentally rendered TFA's point moot.

    3. Re:Aw man by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Bilgecoin...the preferred choice of money for murderers!

    4. Re:Aw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only thing that is truely anonymous is this slashdot post. (tons and tons of sarcasm.)

    5. Re:Aw man by catmistake · · Score: 1

      You're fooling yourself. No one is safe from researchers.

    6. Re:Aw man by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You're fooling yourself. No one is safe from researchers.

      Yeah, especially the taxpaying American public in recent years, it seems.

    7. Re:Aw man by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we don't need any research you already know everything! We should just all come to you with our questions. Explain to me again the thing about the earth being a perfect black body or something.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  2. News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Researchers at the Laboratory of Algorithmics, Cryptology and Security of the University of Luxembourg wake up one morning and realize what any high school computer science student would have known.

    1. Re:News flash by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Science can often mean to prove things that seem relatively obvious. In not so few cases, they then turn out to be wrong, and in the other cases they turn from speculation to fact.

      Without science, we would still believe the earth was flat, and that bloodletting was a good medical procedure to cure everything. After all, these things were obvious back then.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:News flash by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Don't flaunt, I'm sure we'll get with the "earth is flat" (some words in the bible that can be interpreted this way are there) once certain US school authorities finish rooting out evolution (which is obviously wrong because it's not explained that way in The Book).

    3. Re:News flash by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Since I am based in Europe, I do observe these tendencies with some level fascination. It is just as if the US envies Europe the dark ages of non-enlightenment and wants to go into something similar to compensate.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:News flash by murkwood7 · · Score: 1

      Since I am based in Europe, I do observe these tendencies with some level fascination. It is just as if the US envies Europe the dark ages of non-enlightenment and wants to go into something similar to compensate.

      I don't know that it is envy.

      We do have a segment of the population believing that "we can do it better". Whether or not "it" is worth doing at all.

      --
      - X/Y -
    5. Re:News flash by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Makes sense.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. It never was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only idiots thought it was anonymous.

    1. Re:It never was by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      No one ever expects anonymous!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re: It never was by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Given how many of the transactions were on Silk Road (kiddie porn and drugs)...

      But I guess maybe that is just consistent with the idiot speculators and the value bubble.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:It never was by cgimusic · · Score: 1

      Yep. It was never anonymous and it never claimed to be. This isn't news. Anyone concerned about their privacy was already relaying their transactions via another host.

  4. Duh by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anonymity was never a feature. Whoever thought that didn't read the bitcoin summary. ;) You not only know where it came from, you know where it has been, too.

    The only reason it is popular is that governments didn't have tracking in place so it gained popularity as a currency for drug purchases. They do now have that tracking in place, however, so that ship sailed.

    I think the paranoid anti-government crowd are just not good enough at comprehension to know what they're saying or why. They heard that bitcoin was anti-government, so they decided it must be full of magical anonymous unicorns with anonymous rainbow farts.

    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No,

      Bitcoins is an improvement in that it is centralized and the government can't prevent the transfer of coins. A government might say it is illegal to receive/spend/use bitcoins, but there is and always has been an underground economy that has ignored such laws. This gives those people the ability to do that in the same way that cash does. The government can easily prevent paypal, master card, etc from allowing people to send money to “lawless” foreign casinos. They can't do that with bitcoins. They can merely outlaw it. That won't stop people from creating them nor selling them. It may come at a risk, but so does every underground transaction.

      It's not in its anonymity. It is its enablement say no I won't abide by that unjust law and/or other abuses by government (wikileaks is a good example).

      Besides that even if none of this were the case. It's always been a step in the right direction toward anonymous payment transfer and those who say that the anti-government types think otherwise are morons. IE YOU!

      There are solutions being implemented to solve the anonymity problem with bitcoins. One real solution is zerocoin. It's an extension to bitcoin protocol. Unlike most alt coins zerocoin is not just another altcoin. It's not an altcoin at all actually. It might be adopted by altcoins or by bitcoin itself. However it's a real world mathematically correct solution to anonymity you can't easily argue with. I'd go as far to say bitcoin was not even psudo-anonymous. Zerocoin on the other hand is mean to add provable anonymity to bitcoin and/or altcoin.

    2. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It can be as anonymous as you want it to be. Want it to be super anonymous? Transmit the signed transaction in a coffee shop. Nobody knows anything. More anonymous? Transmit the signed transaction from an open wifi access point. Keep in mind that transmitting the transaction does not allow anyone seeing this to do anything with your Bitcoins themselves, since you have the private key.

    3. Re:Duh by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      They should call it an Exhibitionist, not a Crypto, currency.

    4. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Most coffee shops I know of have their Wi-Fi either locked down with some username/password info, require a password that changes daily, or require a credit card (a la Tengo.) There has just been too much abuse of open APs, especially where I live. Even the "open" ones try to MITM connections sometimes (interesting how 192.168.168.168 presents a self-signed key presented for Exchange transactions, for example.) If someone did something bad enough, it isn't hard to NSL the camera logs (most shops have them or they are risking legal liability), go trace MACs, or just find who it is by browser fingerprinting. There is a reason why telcos were sticking a Broadcast UID on every HTTP transaction, and 99.99% of browsers can be uniquely identified as per the EFF's panopticlick. Just your font list and list of browser plugins will ID your ass, and once ID-ed on one site, it is trivial to keep it identified as per cross-site tracking sites (like all those inbrain and outbrain sites that URLs go through.)

      BitCoin was a nice toy made by some anonymous organization or person. It paid off damn well for the first people in who were cranking coins out via regular computers or even FPGAs. Now, you can't really bother mining coins, and if you do, the whole BitCoin ecosystem is easily controlled by one party that has 51% of it. Since every transaction has a bulletproof signature, all the popo has to do is find who physically owns the wallet, send the nearest guys with the shotguns and the MRAPs, and herald to the press about a cyber-criminal getting arrested.

      One can play wallet shell games, but that is just obfuscation, and all it takes is just meticulously following the blockchains from wallet to wallet and any physical links get the rubber hose treatment (xkcd.com/538), and LEOs will get their man eventually. If the link jumps to another country, the last person in the chain will face some stiff charges and will be a "guest" of the local prison/jail system for a long, long time.

      BitCoins have their use. Since PayPal and Swipe dumped online gun companies, a lot of people have turned to BitCoin to buy their ammo and firearms online, which is legal in the US (provided the gun is delivered to a registered dealer.) However, for illegal use, it isn't a matter of if, it is when for people getting caught. Right now, it is the big guys, but as time progresses and a better infrastructure is in place, maybe even Joe Pothead may end up getting a visit because of a silk road visit a few years ago.

    5. Re:Duh by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ...around here(Asia) finding an open AP is simple as finding apple pie. the wifis are either open or the password is something simple that never changes(phone number of the place usually), there's no way of telling if the person is inside the restaurant either or 50 meters down the street - only the expensive establishments have one time use code systems and such.

      also, in most western countries buying a data capable simcard anonymously is easy as pie as well and buying a phone to use it with anonymously is easy as well(after you do that, you just keep both of those separate from your usual sim and phone). additionally, all the 3g connections are natted to hell and back so that's an extra hurdle, needing nasty parsing of the logs since just the ip doesn't tell anything.

      besides though, mostly the feds care about who it was(the dealer) getting paid to than who paid(the client).

      I don't get their point about TOR though, since they say that it could be easily blocked. blocked how? within your network? who cares about that though? and if you can't use TOR how are you getting hooked up with your dealer in the first place?

      browser fingerprinting isn't that good though. it's a crap way, suitable for selling what's almost(mostly) fake user tracking data.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Duh by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They have confiscated enough bitcoins that they can actually track most of the market now, for various reasons that have been explained on slashdot in the bitcoin-related stories.

      No noticeable country says that bitcoin is illegal. Barter is legal almost everywhere, so currencies are also legal. And the fact is, when it comes to bitcoin the US Government is a major market participant at this point.

      Bitcoin is way less anonymous than US Dollars, there is no question of that. No question at all. So if you're self-identifying as one of the "anti-government types," then yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. You believe something less anonymous to have been a step towards anonymity. You seem to fail to notice that I didn't pass any judgment or present any opinion on if anonymous payment is good or bad. I'm just pointing at the popular set of opinions that contract themselves. I would expect people who really believe in anonymous payment to use only non-electronic payment, at least until there is some sort of central authority that is trusted to maintain anonymity can back an electronic currency. You can't have a fiat currency without trust; you either need a trusted central authority, or the ability to track units of currency back to their original source, as in bitcoin. Lacking those, the most anonymous you can be is with cash, and things like CC cards purchased with cash, gift cards, or even money orders using an unknown alias.

      And how can bitcoin be a protest against unjust laws, when bitcoin is legal? That makes no sense at all.

    7. Re:Duh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In the US most phones don't have interchangeable sim cards, but you can buy a dumb phone with cash for $15-20 at a convenience store, and buy cards there to pay the account.

      TOR is encrypted but it isn't anonymous if the government knows about at least n nodes, which they do. And they control a large number that they have seized, it is broadly believed that the NSA owns enough of the nodes to see all the network traffic.

    8. Re:Duh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They don't need a rubber hose, that is for the spooks. Law enforcement can easily just get a court order and you'll turn up at their office with your lawyer and blockchain data.

    9. Re:Duh by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You won't find many open APs in China, since the official policy there is that all Internet users must be identifiable. Certainly not in cafés or what have you. Generally you have to register for username/password and receive it by email.

      What I usually end up doing in such places is flirting with the girl behind the counter until she offers to let me use hers. Unless my wife is with me, of course. ;)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:Duh by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What about letting your browser lie about its data when you're doing something nasty and showing real data when you're not? ... and then?

    11. Re:Duh by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The point of Bitcoin is to remove control from governments, and to make pseudo-anonymous transactions possible online. Sure, in real life cash is better, but if you want to transact over the internet you need something like Bitcoin.

      Notice that I said pseudo-anonymous. An IP address does not identify an individual, it could be a shared connection, free public wifi, a VPN, or Tor. You need to take additional steps to become anonymous, but Bitcoin is still better than a credit card which conveys your name and billing address to the merchant, and informs the government for taxation/oppression purposes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Duh by murkwood7 · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is money with metadata.

      Would it be more accurate to say: "Bitcoin is cash with metadata"

      --
      - X/Y -
  5. Duh... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    What next?!! Water is wet?

    1. Re:Duh... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      What next?!! Water is wet?

      That depends how much scotch its in.

  6. Well... by Agares · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    By its nature it should be obvious that bitcoin is not truly anonymous. Mod me down if you like, but when you think about it it's easy to see.

  7. FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bitcoin was NEVER meant to be anonymous. EVER.

    1. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by IT-newb · · Score: 1

      That means someone has to make an Altcoin that fixes this problem.

    2. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Of course it was meant to be anonymous. Why in Sam Hill would people be using Bitcoins to pay for hit men, drugs, and sex trafficking if it wasn't thought to be anonymous?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by Desler · · Score: 1

      IP address != person

      Maybe in less than 1% of cases. All the rest of the time, the only one using the IP address is the person who pays for the internet access.

      So it's reasonable anonymous if you consider your identity.

      It's only reasonable if you think shoving your head in the sand gives you reasonably anonymity.

    4. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      It's still crypto-currency, although I think "decentralized digital currency" is a better description, since the crypto is really just an implementation detail, not a feature. Crypto is used to validate the integrity of the currency and transactions, not to provide anonymity.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting question actually. Can we make a cryptocoin that is anonymous? Or at least more anonymous than Bitcoin?

    6. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I believe there are some extra crypto additions proposed which would make it much more anonymous rather than pseudonymous. I can't find the article off hand though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Because it's trivial to move over borders and easy to launder.

    8. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the point is. The article is about money laundering, and describes how it's easier to launder digital currencies and how they're controversial because of this.

      Bitcoin is at best pseudonymous, each wallet is a pseudonym with a very carefully documented and very public ledger. When the bitcoins are converted to or from hard currency, a trail of that transaction is likely recorded.

    9. Re:FUCK SAKE! It was NEVER anonymous by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the point is.

      The point is that Bitcoin was supposed to be anonymous but it isn't.

      Then someone says, "But wait ... it wasn't meant to be anonymous, it was meant to launder money."

      Guess what's needed for laundering money that Bitcoin doesn't have?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They do not have such tracking in place. If you look at _every_single_ case of bitcoin-related criminals being busted, none of them were found through bitcoin or tor. They're found through stupid mistakes and old-fashioned police work - e.g., people use use the same username on Silk Road and eBay get busted, because they're stupid.

  9. Every single transaction is broadcast to the world by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2, Informative

    And you can absolutely guarantee that the three letter agencies remember every one of them. They can look at who you've made transactions with and usually get a very good idea just from that who you are. I imagine they get more from fronts and hacked/infiltrated organizations. If they need more and you've ever transacted with a commercial entity within their jurisdiction, you are a National Security Letter or local equivalent away from being identified.

    This IP address thing is like discovering that the back door is unlocked and open when the front door is secured by a piece of string.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  10. Re:Every single transaction is broadcast to the wo by Agares · · Score: 1

    Exactly, and this is the reason why I never believed that Bitcoin was truly anonymous.

  11. The article is wrong. by ASDFnz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apart from the whole "bitcoin is only pseudo-anonymous" anyway, the article is wrong.

    The IP you can trace a transaction back to is only the IP of the person that told you about the transaction. So unless you're connected directly to the person that made the transaction on the p2p network you're just getting the IP of the client that told you about it. Even then, you don't know if that is the person making the transaction or someone telling you that the transaction was made.

    Bad research by people who should know better.

    1. Re:The article is wrong. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      The IP you can trace a transaction back to is only the IP of the person that told you about the transaction.

      Try reading the paper.

      The crucial idea is that each client can be uniquely identied by a set of nodes he connects to (entry nodes). We show that this set can be learned at the time of connection and then used to identify the origin of a transaction.

      The crucial
      idea of our attack is to identify each client by an octet of
      outgoing connections it establishes. This octet of Bitcoin
      peers (entry nodes) serves as a unique identier of a client
      for the whole duration of a user session and will dierenti-
      ate even those users who share the same NAT IP address.
      We showed that most of these connections can be learned if
      the attacker maintains connections to a majority of Bitcoin
      servers. Then we show that the transaction propagation
      rules imply that the entry nodes will be among the rst
      that report the transaction to the attacker. As soon as the
      attacker receives the transaction from just 2-3 entry nodes
      he can with very high probability link the transaction to a
      specic client. Moreover a sequence of successfully mapped
      transactions can help the attacker to track dynamic changes
      in the entry node set, to keep the client identier fresh. The
      cost of the deanonymisation attack on the full Bitcoin net-
      work is under 1500 EUR.

      /all spelling mistakes are in the original text

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:The article is wrong. by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

      Even then there is no way to tell if the transaction is coming from the node you are connected to OR another node that is connecting to it.

      In some circumstances it could even be from a node that you are connected to but passed through another node you are connected too.

      You have no way of knowing.

    3. Re:The article is wrong. by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

      The network favors well connected nodes, so you can make it very likely that a client will choose your node to enter the transaction into the network.

      So?

      You still don't know if the transaction came from that node or is just being passed on by that node.

    4. Re:The article is wrong. by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

      Saying "No way to tell" without stating a reason doesn't advance the discussion.

      You first, I say there is no way to tell, if you (or anyone) has a way please tell me.

  12. clickbait study by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    I find it hillarious that they so easily conclude tor doesn't fill these gaps because they deem it too easy to break. That right there is some pretty extraordinary claim, I would want to see them do it if its so easy.

    I don't think there is any evidence that tor, in this particular use case, is actually so easy to break. So far all evidence is that weaknesses lie in the services behind hidden services, in browsers used to use web based services in particular, and potentially in hidden services themselves.

    A bitcoin node transmitting transactions really should be pretty safe, and if they have any evidence to the contrary, that would be much more interesting than their hand waving clickbait claims.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  13. Re:Every single transaction is broadcast to the wo by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Yes an ip will change or can change. Unless the ISP gives the details of that user. Who can request that?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. And that killed the whole article by dindi · · Score: 2

    " Moreover, the popular anonymization network "Tor" can do little to guarantee Bitcoin user's anonymity, since it can be blocked easily"....

    What does this sentence even mean?

    Bitcoin (Litecoin, Maxcoin, *coin (ok, most) ) can use a proxy. This proxy can go through TOR, I2P, 55 VPNs zig-zagging over the globe.

    Bitcoin is Anonymous as you don't need to provide your identity. All transactions are however public: visible in the blockchain. It is like imagining a big mess of encrypted emails that everyone hosts on their machines, but you can only read the ones (spend bitcoins from) you have the key for.

    Did I mention: you don't need to run a full node, and you can also use an on-line wallet.

    Simple recipe:
    1. mine some bitcoins
    2. get a VPN
    3. Use the VPN to get a free email address (google, riseup or else)
    4. Use the VPN to get a VPS hosting
    5. set up TOR on VPS hosting (hidden service)
    6. and/or set up I2P on VPS hosting (eepsite)
    7. Install Bitcoin, Litecoin, *Coin on the machine and run a full node through the VPN, TOR, I2P or combination of them
    8. Use the VPN, TOR, I2P (or a combination of them) to access the machine where
    9. Use the command line interface to send funds
    10. Use any of the libraries to write your own web service to talk to the daemons to manage your funds

    There ... find the IP where it came from.... found it ?

    Rinse, repeat:

    1. buy raspberry PI
    2. buy throw-away anonymous SIM online (through VPN, I2P, TOR, with bitcoins)
    3. install TOR, VPN, I2P, solar panel, gsm modem, Bitcoind, *coind on raspberry PI
    4. Take a long ride from home where there is still reception, climb a tree/rock/old building/tower. Install it there ...

    Found my IP ?

    and so on ...

    Or did they mean: if you just run a full node from home and accidentally connect to one of their servers they propagate, they can see where the transaction was coming from the first time ?
    bitcoind --printtoconsole

    1. Re:And that killed the whole article by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 2

      Read the article. They have a way of forcing disconnection of a server from the Tor network. They concede it's quite noticeable and it may not work if no non-tor fallback is used.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  15. bitcoin price manipulation by pbhj · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone is trying to push the price of bitcoin down again.

    1. Re:bitcoin price manipulation by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 2

      As a big holder and long-time user of bitcoins, I'm in favor of the price not being pushed down. That said, TFS is inflammatory. TFA, which is open access, is actually an interesting read, and it's a clever attack. They also discuss possible mitigations. It's worth a read if you're into bitcoin.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    2. Re:bitcoin price manipulation by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I'd make some sort of metaphorical comparison, except that when referring to things demonstrating instability my stock phrase is 'up and down like the price of bitcoin.'

  16. News flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be perfectly fair, computer science has a lot of things that "any student can tell you are true" that have not been proven to be true, and the difference is a really big deal in academia (where a significant portion of your job is proving things and publishing the paper explaining the proof).

    For example P!=NP is widely believed, highly intuitive, and the bases for some high profile algorithms (cryptography) but has never been proven.

  17. Re:Every single transaction is broadcast to the wo by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    It's even simpler than that... the IPs are in a limited pool, and are used for all your network transactions during the period. All there needs to be is an IP correlation between the transaction and that check of your GMail account during the same time period, and the IP links the two, flagging who you are. No need to track back through the ISP who was supposed to have that IP at that time (although that's trivial with a warrant too).

  18. What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who thought bitcoin was anonymous? It is a detailed, immutable list of transactions... it is downright transparent...

    1. Re:What?! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I think the general reason people feel that Bitcoin is anonymous is that there are never real names attached to the transactions.

  19. Re:Every single transaction is broadcast to the wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Makes sense that you would believe that, being that the Bitcoin "developers" themselves even say so. You know, on their own website (bitcoin.org):

    "Some effort is required to protect your privacy with Bitcoin. All Bitcoin transactions are stored publicly and permanently on the network, which means anyone can see the balance and transactions of any Bitcoin address. However, the identity of the user behind an address remains unknown until information is revealed during a purchase or in other circumstances. This is one reason why Bitcoin addresses should only be used once. Always remember that it is your responsibility to adopt good practices in order to protect your privacy."

    If you ever believed that Bitcoin was anonymous it was either your own fault for not educating yourself on the topic, or the fault of Bitcoin proponents trying to sell it as a risk-free means of buying drugs online. Bitcoin never has been "truly anonymous," it's never been the goal of Bitcoin to be "truly anonymous."

    Maybe the real problem with Bitcoin is that the people who obsess over it don't seem to have any clue how it works.

  20. This has been known for some time actually by davydagger · · Score: 1
    This has actually been known for sometime that bitcoin is not anonymous. There are still many advantages to BTC.

    1. It offers the same level of anonymitty as posting on a website. They can get your IP address. It solves the problem of paid services that get your full name, address, and a credit card number that can be repeated. So, its actually possible to charge money for a service that respects your privacy, instead of having to rely on free anonymous services, which will become unfeasiable at scale. Either they will include advertising to track you, or mine your data to get funding, either through advertising or clandestine services. funding with BTC, either paid service or donation is no less anonymous than using a website.
    2. it offers money, outside the banking system. You can transfer money online without having to go through any third party, especially the banking system and affiliated companies such as paypal. The banking system cannot boycott things it does not like. Nor can anything else for that matter.

    Also, masking your IP is not hard. As is concealing the source of transfering BTC. But, because bitcoins are considered monetary instruments, doing so just might be considered "money laundering" which is a pretty serious offense, and its not something I will discuss because

    1. I am not offering anyone advice on how to commit such a serious offense
    2. I am not willing to do the time for such myself

  21. Re:uh? what? by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

    Actually, anonymity is very easy. Have you ever identified the author of a bathroom stall poem using only their writing? It's useful anonymity that's hard. In the case of transactions, total anonymity is impossible.

    This is actually very simple. So simple, in fact, that I'm surprised everybody doesn't already understand it. Electronic anonymity is entirely dependent upon electronic security, and electronic security is inversely proportional to usefulness. Your computer is most secure disassembled in boxes before you use it the first time. And you can't even guarantee malware isn't already present on an embedded chip, while back doors are almost certainly built into some of the hardware.

    Electronic anonymity is not a term that should be used to mean, "Nobody at all can tell who I am." It's only useful and not misleading when it's used to mean, "Random people who have no reason to care who I am don't know who I am."

  22. Re:Whatever by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    In this case the actual red flag for government agencies would be that you have some reason to hide simple pizza transactions behind 7 proxies.

  23. Re:Every single transaction is broadcast to the wo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And you can absolutely guarantee that the three letter agencies remember every one of them.

    Wait I thought the fundamental point of the blockchain was that everyone remembers every transaction. Isn't this open and the history a fundamental part of bitcoin?

  24. Use your damn head by shadowcomer · · Score: 1

    Seriously, anonymity was never expected out of bitcoins; more so, it was expected to be able to track them. If you know who paid who, you can discover if it was a legal payment or not. Also, people worried about privacy: your payments are already known, shared, put into predictive software... you're not losing any privacy by using bitcoin. Licit use of money is more important than supposedly breaching 'rights' that have already been breached by a different source. And to the reporter / poster: please research what you're sharing. News are a very dangerous thing if they're miscommunicated or misused.