For David Friedman, Bitcoin and other digital currencies would make identity tracing more difficult in a more private world where there are also more risks
For the economist and writer David friedman, whose intellectual work has focused on aspects of anonymity, Bitcoin and others digital currencies have something important to contribute in a hypothetical world with better privacy for citizens.
During his speech at the Congress of Hackers Parallel Polis (HCPP), Friedman spoke about the utopia of “A Strong Privacy World.” And in his view, the existence of Bitcoin and other digital currencies has a role in that world, despite the fact that neither guarantees complete privacy or anonymity.
Friedman started from the idea of systems that do not depend on government intervention as a way to maintain a world with greater privacy guarantees. Whether for the fulfillment of agreements, commercial exchanges and even the money issue. And that’s precisely where Bitcoin comes in.
“The beauty of Bitcoin is that it does not require an issuer, no bank required. Code only“reflected the book writer as “The machinery of freedom” or “Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World”.
For the economist, the level of privacy and anonymity of digital currencies should be increased
However, Friedman considered that Bitcoin is “the least anonymous of all” money options, by keeping a public and open record of all transactions running on the network. Of course, public information is nothing more than addresses without personal data, he qualified in this regard.
But “someone who looks carefully – and dedicates a lot of resources – can probably break your anonymity” in Bitcoin, the intellectual said. He also considered that “there is no [moneda digital] perfectly anonymous “despite its various privacy offers, with cases like Monero, yes” they can make it as difficult as possible for those who are searching.
Privacy, anonymity and compliance with agreements
The problems in creating that world with privacy and anonymity guaranteed They are many. And one of the main ones is that “no government wants an anonymous currency.” That would take away their power over citizens, in terms of control and even tax charges to finance the state.
David Friedman in Paralelni Polis
Indeed, governments around the world have stood up to attempts to increase privacy through digital currencies. In particular, the United States has redoubled its efforts and resources to that end in recent months.
The world’s governments are joined by companies that engage in espionage in blockchains, establish behavior patterns and identify relationships between transactions in cases of various digital currencies, mainly in Bitcoin, given its higher volume compared to the rest, indicated CriptoNoticias
In a more anonymous world, these signatures would have no place or their performance would be very limited. But complete anonymity would also increase risks, both in the digital and physical world. On the one hand, there would be more freedom. But on the other hand, it would be easier to commit crimes and escape unscathed in the process. “For better or for worse, there would be less government control,” Friedman finally assessed.