You mean exchanges.
Exchanges != crypto.
Individuals can use btc anonymously. It's public, but only the person you deal with know who owns your wallet.
Exchanges != crypto.
Individuals can use btc anonymously. It's public, but only the person you deal with know who owns your wallet.
Otherwise, Libra can be used "anonymously" just like Bitcoin. You download a client, you generate an identity and then you can receive/send it.
https://developers.libra.org/docs/my-first-transaction#creat...
That's why the whole money laundering issue comes up in the first place, because Libra is a cryptocurrency much like many others.
Its distinction is really that it's not decentralized (like Ripple), that it's backed by real assets (like Tether - supposedly) and that Facebook and some other big corps are involved.
Those are all reasons for crypto-idealists to hate on it and spread FUD, which the Facebook-hating rest of the interest readily gobbles up.
In practice, those are all reasons for Libra to actually work as a means of exchange, as opposed to a highly speculative risk asset. Ripple transactions are instant. Tether price is stable, despite its sketchy background. Big corporations can influence points-of-sale.
Ripple (or rather XRP, which I referred to as "Ripple") is widely referred to as cryptocurrency. It uses a distributed ledger and cryptography, like a cryptocurrency. It is traded on cryptocurrency exchanges and can be sent/received like a cryptocurrency (requiring no account registration like Paypal). Also, like most cryptocurrency it is backed by nothing and its price fluctuates and moves along with broader cryptocurrency market trends. For most intents and purposes, it is a cryptocurrency.
Of course one can make the distinction that a "true" cryptocurrency should be fully decentralized, but that's besides my point.
Of course the market says both of these tokens are worth billions in market cap. It treats it exactly like a cryptocurrency, feeding on the cryptocurrency hype. Clearly the market doesn't value decentralization to the point where XRP is shunned.
If you look at how we generally solve problems in the world, the idea that the untrusted general public should be involved as a matter of principle is ludicrous, because that requires significant defenses against bad actors at multiple levels.
Bitcoin didn't even solve this problem, it just raised the economic barrier for bad actors to cause trouble. In practice, many smaller cryptocurrencies are highly vulnerable to 51% attacks, but even Bitcoin mining power is highly centralized to a few companies.
I think the way XRP or Libra solve things (in principle) has very strong arguments going for it, but they are pragmatic, not idealistic. I haven't heard any good arguments on how the way Bitcoin solves things is so beneficial that it becomes a worthwhile tradeoff. I don't see why it should be the defining factor on what is or isn't considered a cryptocurrency.
A decentralized cryptocurrency would not reward economies of scale the way Bitcoin does.
Bitcoin can be used anonymously if you avoid KYC on/off ramps and specific transactions tied to your identity. Hard but possible. From Libra's white paper this appears impossible. That's a big difference.
How so? Can you be specific? I quote the whitepaper:
"The Libra Blockchain is pseudonymous and allows users to hold one or more addresses that are not linked to their real-world identity."
The only difference that I see is that you could mine Bitcoin anonymously. You could also buy Bitcoin with cash in a private transaction, but the same can be said for Libra.