The researchers claim the ideas driving the conclusions found in the original paper were based on flawed assumptions about the nature of Bitcoin. Here are the most important things to know about this claim:
1. The original paper made assumptions about Bitcoin’s anonymity that were not accurate. The researchers argue that the paper assumed that Bitcoin transactions were completely anonymous, when in fact they are pseudonymous. This means that while users’ identities are not directly linked to their transactions, it is still possible to trace transactions back to specific users through various means.
2. The original paper also assumed that Bitcoin was primarily used for illegal activities. The researchers argue that this assumption was based on a limited understanding of the cryptocurrency’s uses and ignores the many legitimate uses of Bitcoin, such as online shopping and international money transfers.
3. The researchers believe that these flawed assumptions led to inaccurate conclusions about the potential for Bitcoin to be used for money laundering and other illegal activities. They argue that while Bitcoin can be used for illicit purposes, it is not inherently more susceptible to such activities than traditional forms of currency.
In summary, the researchers have criticized the original paper’s assumptions about Bitcoin’s anonymity and uses, arguing that these flawed assumptions led to inaccurate conclusions about the cryptocurrency’s potential for illegal activities. While Bitcoin can be used for illicit purposes, it is not inherently more susceptible to such activities than traditional forms of currency.