One of which is simply incorrect (or maybe was correct at the time but no longer is):
"The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party.
The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous.
The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone.
This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were."
This is simply not applicable anymore because it has never been implemented at the protocol level and is not effectively achievable these days without the use of Mixer services (which have been made illegal in various jurisdiction)
The other is something that has never been implemented:
"As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner."
What this effectively means is that the wallet address (i.e. the public key) should be single use and the same address should not be allowed (at the protocol level) to be re-used once it has been used to send or receive bitcoin.
I'd really like to hear the thoughts of bitcoin industry veterans on this topic (as I am definitely not one) especially if I have misunderstood anything based on what I said above.
These are very important points, thank you for elaborating.
I can't offer any further elaboration of my own on these matters, and I fear I will be upending the topic by continuing, but it is my understanding that, rather than transaction privacy, which as you have stated is spoken about only in one small section of the Bitcoin white paper, one of the principle motivations for and what the Bitcoin implementation seems to have successfully achieved is the elimination of the trusted third party, vis-à-vis:
"The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party."
Compliments and congratulations! A fantastic discussion, I learnt so much from listening, thank you so much. I must go through the transcript and revisit many particulars simply because the discussion was so information-dense and the knowledge presented was more than my modest capacities could deal with in the one sitting. Again, sincere compliments, and thank you so much.
It's not an exaggeration, not in the least, but with the importance and pervasiveness of technology, while at the same time, the general ignorance of its workings and the nefarious purposes it is being put to, your work is of the greatest value.
Already an adult in the 1990s, being the first opportunity I could get access to them, I was an enthusiastic adopter of the PC. Almost completely, even obtusely ignorant as I was, I nonetheless immediately pulled them apart to familiarise myself with the components and their interrelationships before reassembling them again. Sometimes, they even worked. In any case, it simply isn't my disposition to accept a Deus ex Machina. Also immediately, feeling straitjacketed by it, I eschewed the Microsoft Windows 3.11 GUI for a DOS 6.2 console, and soon entirely dispensed with Microsoft Windows operating system altogether, cutting my own code for the operations I wished to perform on the device instead, which is the approach I have kept ever since.
Be that as it may, I had intense misgivings about the cell phone entering into widespread usage, almost as if some kind of 'there be dragons' technology adoption threshold was being crossed, and I now see how this has indeed occurred - the genie has been let out of the bottle and it cannot now be returned (apologies for mixing metaphors). This is why I recognise and fully appreciate how important what you are doing is.
I actually wish that you will be so successful in your endeavours and the world becomes sufficiently educated that - and I mean this in the best possible way - you'd need to find yourself another job. However prodigious and worthwhile it may be, I don't believe that objective can ever be achieved. Nonetheless I still strongly encourage you to pursue it, and I will spread the word to others. I wish I could materially show my gratitude, but the events of the past four years have left me without work, let alone career, and the income it provided me. I'm very sorry about not paying for subscription - I know of few others as deserving as yours.
I want you to know that I greatly appreciate feedback and encouragement and you've helped me a great deal by writing this all out. It is incredibly validating when I hear from others who have been or are incredibly knowledgeable who seem to understand what I'm trying to do and show appreciation.
Dang, I notice I always say bland things like "technology this" or "technology that" and never mention specifics like the centralization of supply and control, the pervasive and malign presence of military and intelligence below, owning and guiding Big Tech and the prevalence of Big Tech devices, services, strategies and philosophies in operation at all times and throughout all our daily (and nightly) activities, and therefore the necessity for decentralization and for advocating and supporting non-aligned, non-gridded, even (or especially) non-digital alternatives - and I would even go so far as to advocate for the necessity of devolution of the city, with wide-scale scattering and distribution of urban populations into community clusters, but that's another topic. So I'd like to show that while I haven't mentioned these specific things, I am mindful and I do in fact imply them.
I think it's important that you know that your message is getting across and that there are others who genuinely connect with it and the purposes of Libre Solutions Network, as I understand them. This is also necessary because of the proliferation of bot activity; you need a response from us carbon-based lifeforms. Which is why I though it worthwhile to share my own personal account, as insufferably long-winded as I am.
It's also important, I think, to let you know that what you're doing - communicating the message, and the approaches and techniques for dealing with technology - is a lofty goal, is recognisably not easy, is certainly not fully-replicable (your considerable talents, that is), and almost certainly it will be an at least partly, but I hope not wholly frustrating goal as well, neither during nor especially at its completion. Nonetheless, I immensely admire you and what you're doing.
In truth, I don't really know how many of us are out here who are as sensitive to, and as deeply concerned about technology as obviously you are, and as I profess to be as well. I've been banging on about the concept of responsibility with the adoption and deployment of technology with the (ever decreasing number of) people I have known for decades, but my informed opinions and warnings have almost never been heeded. On the contrary, I've been derided as a "techno-Quaker," whatever that was meant to mean, and even a Luddite by people who have never even serviced a bicycle brake let alone hacked a script for a handful of common tasks on any of their digital electronic devices. Accordingly, I hope your audience is already large, and I wish it grows steadily.
I mentioned in our chat that the Bitcoin whitepaper didn't mention the word privacy once.
I had a look again after we recorded and it is actually mentioned in its own small section (Section 10 on page 6).
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
The section says two things.
One of which is simply incorrect (or maybe was correct at the time but no longer is):
"The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party.
The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous.
The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone.
This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were."
This is simply not applicable anymore because it has never been implemented at the protocol level and is not effectively achievable these days without the use of Mixer services (which have been made illegal in various jurisdiction)
The other is something that has never been implemented:
"As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner."
What this effectively means is that the wallet address (i.e. the public key) should be single use and the same address should not be allowed (at the protocol level) to be re-used once it has been used to send or receive bitcoin.
I'd really like to hear the thoughts of bitcoin industry veterans on this topic (as I am definitely not one) especially if I have misunderstood anything based on what I said above.
These are very important points, thank you for elaborating.
I can't offer any further elaboration of my own on these matters, and I fear I will be upending the topic by continuing, but it is my understanding that, rather than transaction privacy, which as you have stated is spoken about only in one small section of the Bitcoin white paper, one of the principle motivations for and what the Bitcoin implementation seems to have successfully achieved is the elimination of the trusted third party, vis-à-vis:
"The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party."
Absolutely correct.
Bitcoin has indeed managed to achieve the removal of the need for a "trusted third party" (e.g. a bank or a payment provider like Stripe or PayPal).
The industry term for that is: "Disintermediation".
Compliments and congratulations! A fantastic discussion, I learnt so much from listening, thank you so much. I must go through the transcript and revisit many particulars simply because the discussion was so information-dense and the knowledge presented was more than my modest capacities could deal with in the one sitting. Again, sincere compliments, and thank you so much.
You're very kind! Thank you so much for this. ☺️
It's not an exaggeration, not in the least, but with the importance and pervasiveness of technology, while at the same time, the general ignorance of its workings and the nefarious purposes it is being put to, your work is of the greatest value.
Already an adult in the 1990s, being the first opportunity I could get access to them, I was an enthusiastic adopter of the PC. Almost completely, even obtusely ignorant as I was, I nonetheless immediately pulled them apart to familiarise myself with the components and their interrelationships before reassembling them again. Sometimes, they even worked. In any case, it simply isn't my disposition to accept a Deus ex Machina. Also immediately, feeling straitjacketed by it, I eschewed the Microsoft Windows 3.11 GUI for a DOS 6.2 console, and soon entirely dispensed with Microsoft Windows operating system altogether, cutting my own code for the operations I wished to perform on the device instead, which is the approach I have kept ever since.
Be that as it may, I had intense misgivings about the cell phone entering into widespread usage, almost as if some kind of 'there be dragons' technology adoption threshold was being crossed, and I now see how this has indeed occurred - the genie has been let out of the bottle and it cannot now be returned (apologies for mixing metaphors). This is why I recognise and fully appreciate how important what you are doing is.
I actually wish that you will be so successful in your endeavours and the world becomes sufficiently educated that - and I mean this in the best possible way - you'd need to find yourself another job. However prodigious and worthwhile it may be, I don't believe that objective can ever be achieved. Nonetheless I still strongly encourage you to pursue it, and I will spread the word to others. I wish I could materially show my gratitude, but the events of the past four years have left me without work, let alone career, and the income it provided me. I'm very sorry about not paying for subscription - I know of few others as deserving as yours.
Your encouragement couldn't be more timely!
I want you to know that I greatly appreciate feedback and encouragement and you've helped me a great deal by writing this all out. It is incredibly validating when I hear from others who have been or are incredibly knowledgeable who seem to understand what I'm trying to do and show appreciation.
Dang, I notice I always say bland things like "technology this" or "technology that" and never mention specifics like the centralization of supply and control, the pervasive and malign presence of military and intelligence below, owning and guiding Big Tech and the prevalence of Big Tech devices, services, strategies and philosophies in operation at all times and throughout all our daily (and nightly) activities, and therefore the necessity for decentralization and for advocating and supporting non-aligned, non-gridded, even (or especially) non-digital alternatives - and I would even go so far as to advocate for the necessity of devolution of the city, with wide-scale scattering and distribution of urban populations into community clusters, but that's another topic. So I'd like to show that while I haven't mentioned these specific things, I am mindful and I do in fact imply them.
I think it's important that you know that your message is getting across and that there are others who genuinely connect with it and the purposes of Libre Solutions Network, as I understand them. This is also necessary because of the proliferation of bot activity; you need a response from us carbon-based lifeforms. Which is why I though it worthwhile to share my own personal account, as insufferably long-winded as I am.
It's also important, I think, to let you know that what you're doing - communicating the message, and the approaches and techniques for dealing with technology - is a lofty goal, is recognisably not easy, is certainly not fully-replicable (your considerable talents, that is), and almost certainly it will be an at least partly, but I hope not wholly frustrating goal as well, neither during nor especially at its completion. Nonetheless, I immensely admire you and what you're doing.
In truth, I don't really know how many of us are out here who are as sensitive to, and as deeply concerned about technology as obviously you are, and as I profess to be as well. I've been banging on about the concept of responsibility with the adoption and deployment of technology with the (ever decreasing number of) people I have known for decades, but my informed opinions and warnings have almost never been heeded. On the contrary, I've been derided as a "techno-Quaker," whatever that was meant to mean, and even a Luddite by people who have never even serviced a bicycle brake let alone hacked a script for a handful of common tasks on any of their digital electronic devices. Accordingly, I hope your audience is already large, and I wish it grows steadily.