I wouldn't say that it is anonymous, but rather the connection between a Bitcoin address and a person is weaker.

For a bank account you need to provide identification and address details, whereas you can just create a new Bitcoin address ad-hoc. You have ownership of that account.

But with the Bitcoin address, it is simply a reference point that you choose to use, maybe for a few minutes, maybe for months. But it would take a lot to pin an actual person to that particular address, even if they post it with their forum handle etc.

I would describe Bitcoin as being much more lightweight than services like PayPal or banks, much more like digital cash transactions.

IMO it is not the anonymity of each specific transaction that matters.   It is more so important that the government doesn't have eyes on, or can at the click of a button seize all your liquid assets.   Anonymity is important to protect your net worth. 

It provides neutrality for everyone whether you are wealthy or not, and it provides protection from oppressive governments.

With the combination of decentralization and anonymity, a true democracy is suddenly within reach.

the answer to bitcoins anonimity is the same question people ask about governments trying to remove bank notes, where everyone is forced to use debit cards.

do you really want your bank selling your personal information to businesses
do you really want to have your wife finding out about that expensive gift you bought your mistress
do you want banks to inform the tax man of that $£100 your gran sent you as a birthday gift, where they would bite £$20+ out of it
do you really want you bank manager knowing you frequent casino's when you try to apply for a loan and be told that your a financial risk
do you really want to have no privacy?

There is a new anonymous cryptocurrency called Darkcoin that uses the "coinjoin" technology. Sound promising so far. There are many reason to have an anonymous blockchain. Think Wikileaks, Gambling, Whistle blowers, Investigative Journalism etc...

Article on Darkcoin: http://razorsforex.blogspot.com/2014/02/darkcoin-anonymous-cryptocurrency.html

It is being developed as an independent stand alone crypto separate from bitcoin.

Fungibility. Good money needs to be fungible or the whole system of that money is inefficient as a medium of exchange and will inevitably break down.

It is not about anonymity per se but traceability. In the realm of digital money it must be untraceable to be fungible. Any piece of bitcoin must be indistinguishable from any other piece of bitcoin.

Anonymity can be a natural side-effect of untraceable digital money but is not necessarily a goal in itself.

That's because they stupidly tie themselves to their identity in some way. If you want to remain anonymous you can do.

Yes - I can see the benefit there.




The idea being that if I (Practical Dreamer) deposit 2 BTC to Wikileaks, and its traceable back to me - then those 2 BTC then become worth a different amount (less) on the open market than they would if they had been 2 BTC transferred from the Queen of England to Barack Obama ??
 How does that work ?

  I can understand the idea of it being desirable for the BTC transaction to be untraceable (for our idealist purposes lets say a donation to Wikileaks) - but why would it make those 2 BTC any less fungible in the event of that transaction being transparent/traceable/not anonymous ? Why would they be worth any more or less ?

   In other words, wouldn't BTC still be fungible without anonymity ?