Let's skip the "shitcoins" debate. Would it be better if Bitcoin was "completely confidential" ™️?
Assuming it was like that from the beginning and that we had certainty of no inflation bugs being possible. Lots of hypotheticals, but to center the debate around full confidentiality vs. the state.
The idea comes from #1571256. The thought behind it is whether "privacy" coins are a bad idea because they become a clear target for the state or actually the opposite because they "force" people to opt-out. Maybe there are many other considerations.
The question is, if you had a magic wand and could make Bitcoin have been completely confidential from the beginning without bugs, would you?
Yes50.0%
No50.0%
Other (comment)0.0%
14 votes \ 1 day left
Under the hypothetical assumption of no inflation bug, yes, that would be the literal perfect digital cash. You don’t know how much is in my physical wallet and neither do I know what’s in yours.
However I’m told that can’t prove there’s no inflation bug without an open blockchain so I’m inclined to believe that it’s better to delegate privacy into a L2 instead.
Regardless of any inflation bugs, there is a trade-off between confidentiality and market cap, because governments don't like the former and will stop large players from getting involved.
For drug purchases there is XMR. We don't need Bitcoin to fill that use case.
I think that's the biggest problem right? You cannot prove that an inflation bug isn't being exploited. With Liquid it was obvious because of the size.
IMO keeping it pseudonymous on the base layer and privacy enhancing on upper layers is best.
Just look at Monero and Liquid for the answer
Without that hypothetical the answer is a clear "no" to me. But I'm curious about what people think independently of that.
No, transparency is a feature, Bitcoin is the nuclear inspection treaty for money