Jacopo Graziuso

Bitcoin as a social good: conscious confidentiality, not secrecy. When viewed beyond simplifications, a key point often overlooked emerges: Bitcoin is not designed to guarantee secrecy. It does not hide transactions, obscure value flows or offer invisibility. Its operation is explicit, verifiable and based on public rules. Therefore, reducing it to a tool for concealment misunderstands its nature. Bitcoin can be understood as a social good insofar as it introduces an infrastructure that separates value from direct identity control. It does not require you to reveal your identity in order to participate, but it does require everyone to respect the rules equally. While this feature does not eliminate power, it does reduce its arbitrariness. Rather than delegating trust to a central authority, it is anchored to the verifiability of the rules. In this context, confidentiality is not automatic. It is a possibility. It depends on how individuals relate to the infrastructure and their level of knowledge and awareness of the limits. Bitcoin neither protects those who use it unwittingly nor condones opaque behaviour. It provides an environment in which informational self-determination can flourish, but does not enforce it. The difference with secrecy is clear. Secrecy aims to withhold information in order to create power imbalances. Confidentiality, on the other hand, protects the individual's dignity by enabling them to decide what information to disclose and what to keep private, within a system of rules that apply to everyone equally. In this sense, Bitcoin is not an escape from social order, but rather an alternative form of order that is more explicit and less discretionary. For this very reason, it can be bent to different ends. It can be used to integrate control, monitoring or regulatory pressure mechanisms, or to reduce arbitrary dependencies and strengthen economic autonomy. Technology does not decide which path will be taken. It provides an infrastructure; the direction is a collective and individual choice. To accept Bitcoin 'at 360 degrees' is also to recognise its ambiguities. Neither idealise nor demonise it. Understand that it does not replace human judgement, but makes it more visible. In a transparent system, responsibility cannot be hidden. Confidentiality is a choice. Freedom begins when you embrace it. #confidentially #choice #freedom #bitcoin #social #good #possibility #awarness #technology #infrastructure #conscious #secret

Transparency and pseudo-anonymity: understanding how Bitcoin transactions really work. The most common mistake when talking about Bitcoin transactions is to imagine a system that 'hides' the movement of value. While this representation is intuitive, it is inaccurate. It stems from the automatic association between confidentiality and invisibility, and between protecting the individual and keeping data secret. In reality, however, Bitcoin works in the opposite way. It is based on a public and verifiable ledger. Every transaction is visible, permanently recorded and accessible to anyone. There are no hidden transactions, opaque channels or confidential balances. This feature is structural, not incidental: transparency allows for the verifiability of rules and the absence of trusted intermediaries. Without a public ledger, Bitcoin could not function as a reliable infrastructure. In this context, it is appropriate to speak of pseudo-anonymity. Transactions are not inherently linked to a civil identity, but to cryptographic addresses. An address does not reveal your identity, but shows the activity associated with that address over time. This is a subtle but fundamental distinction. There is no such thing as absolute anonymity because transactions can be traced. Identification is not direct because identity is not embedded in the protocol. Pseudo-anonymity does not promise invisibility; it is a consequence of the separation between personal identity and system rules. Bitcoin does not require knowledge of your identity in order to function. It only requires that the rules be followed. While this reduces dependence on identity as a control tool, it does not eliminate the possibility of analysis, correlation and ex-post reconstruction. Another common misunderstanding is confusing traceability with surveillance. Traceability is a technical property of the ledger. Surveillance, on the other hand, is a social and political practice. The former is neutral, whereas the latter depends on who is observing, what tools are being used, and what the purposes are. A transparent infrastructure can be used either to ensure widespread trust or to exercise concentrated control. The difference lies in the context, not the code. From this point of view, Bitcoin does not offer secrecy. It does not hide transactions. However, it potentially offers confidentiality, providing the possibility of operating without disclosing one's identity to a central authority in advance. This protection is conditional, not absolute. It requires knowledge, attention, and an awareness of its limitations. Understanding pseudo-anonymity means accepting a less reassuring and less idealised reality. Bitcoin does not make you invisible. It makes the rules visible and separates value from identity. This difference completely changes the meaning of the debate. Transparency does not eliminate power. Instead, it changes its form and location. #trasparency #pseudoanonymity #bitcoin #transaction #timechain #identity #secrecy