2251
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares and anonymity
« on: February 16, 2014, 08:32:04 pm »Governments decide laws on behalf of special interest, not society as a whole.
> I totally agree here. "Society as a whole" is an approximation.
As far as philosophy is concerned, I do not subscribe to end justifies the means approach even though many (most?) do.
> The concept is meant to take into account different goals and different means: The means of government survailance for my perscoallny doesnt justify the end of security because another goald is compromised on the way.
I described "means to ends" as opposed to idiology which has no goals but to have a stable perspective on the world and make sense of the world this way.
So if the market demands privacy then voluntary transactions will produce this result and make a profit by doing so. If the market demands transparency then I suppose we shall have transparency; however, such lack of privacy over financial matters could be worse than the scenarios you are concerned about.
> Could be. I didnt say what is worse or better. What I said was: Let's not just look at one side. The other thing I said was: Idiology makes you do that (having pre known solutions without analyzing pros and cons of a solution).
> I totally disagree about the market being able to deliver a transparency solution because this would need an agreement to have it. In a world of individuals no one would have an incentive to compromise his privacy if the other ones doent. So there has to be an agreement by all to compromise their privacy. This is a freerider problem and can NOT be served by a market.
Remember, lack of privacy is only *one* means of achieving the end of 'accountability'.... after all, suppose someone took out a short position and profited as a result of food being poisoned. That doesn't prove knowledge or involvement and without some other kind of evidence is not even a basis for violating their rights or a warrant.
> Doesnt prove it, right. But if the attacker is having 99% of the shorting volume in a day/week/month and he is known. Law enforcement would have a starting point. And the system would work if law enforcement would do a good job plus if it would not be corrupted in some way in that perticular respect. [to demonstrate what I mean by ideology: Some liberal idiologist (not to be confused with someone that is highly valuing liberal values!) would have an opinion here right away as soon as he hears the words "law enforcement" and "coruption" in one sentence. Law enforcement is often corrupted but that doesnt mean it mostly is. Tha's why I said "that perticular respect"]
I would suggest that the deterrence against such attacks can be achieved through
some other means than the one suggested. Privacy need not be sacrificed in the name of public good.
> Do you have some of these other means on your mind?