The fact that I can see the value of your wallet on this website by just going to your profile doesn't exactly scream privacy, I'd say they value transparency.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The fact that I can see the value of your wallet on this website by just going to your profile doesn't exactly scream privacy, I'd say they value transparency.
Transparency does not always afford more security. In fact, the wrong kind of transparency only increases the security costs. For instance the burglars can know who to rob by finding out who owns a gun, who has a safe, what the net worths are, where they are, and guess what? Smart phones report location, and when you combine that with other useful info (actionable intelligence) it doesn't necessarily reduce the cost of security.
If security is about protecting rights and we want to protect property rights by protecting owners of property from theft, then it's likely not transparency which helps with that. At the same time if a token is completely anonymous to the point where someone can steal it and you have no way to prove where you got it from or that you ever owned it then that isn't good for security. Also there are many grey areas, such as if you are kidnapped then you probably want your phone to report your location, or if you're the victim of theft you probably want the ability to reverse the loss, so the people who favor absolutes aren't actually in favor of security.
Perfect example is the DAO situation with Ethereum where a smart contract had a bug which a hacker took advantage of to violate the property rights of tens of thousands of people and potentially take away $100 million dollars possibly destroying the credibility of Ethereum to millions. The result was the Ethereum community did a hard fork because the Ethereum community values property rights and security, and because it is ethical. Of course many would say this violated "code is law" and "immutability" but those two concepts aren't as universal as property rights and the ethics of the situation.
In the future autonomous agents (bots/AI) will manage resources. These will not be under the direct control of any human being. If one of these AIs were to become hostile to human interests, or begin violating rights on a massive scale, we would expect humans to join forces to shut the AI down. Of course there will be humans likely on the other side of that debate, debating that the AI has rights to self determination and freedom, but this is both an ethical debate as well as a debate on what to do to improve security for human beings (protect human rights). If cryptography is not protecting human rights then it's not so easy to justify ethically, and anonymity, cryptography, privacy, these protect human rights like life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, but when these same tools violate human rights then in my opinion we need to know how to violate the sanctity of the code which exists only to protect rights in the first place. I don't believe there are absolutes and in the world of grey we have to choose between least bad outcomes.