Quote from: bitcoindusts on August 27, 2018, 04:11:09 AM

Thank you for the time BitcoinFX. The video by the way was not bitcoin related, yet is one of the free ideas of thinkers & visionaries that may appall others while making other free thinkers applaud, pretty much like how bitcoin came to be.

Going back to your reply though, as much as peer-to-peer transactions within four walls may be the securest form of passing information, the necessity of internet connection is pretty much needed.

Bitcoin transactions need confirmation & distribution. I think it would impossible to do that offline. The design was for a peer network to decide that the transaction is legit and pass that information to everyone else and make sure the transaction is recorded on everyone else's ledger.

So i guess we really could not take the internet out of the equation at all.

Indeed. I'm well aware of the fact that that video is not directly related to Bitcoin, although perhaps we spelled peer-to-peer 'wrong'. Cheesy

I was just trying to get folks to think outside the box in this regard.

Yes A goes to B, but does it always need to go directly? What alternative channels of 'trust' might we utilize, circumvent, protect or obfuscate between parties and how?

Think steganography, mesh networks, radio frequencies, morse code, sending physical hardware through the postal system etc.,

At one time it was thought that finding a solution for the double spending problem was impossible or improbable, until Satoshi came along.

Your OP question asked if we lost blockchain's gift of pseudonymity - not directly if we lost speed, security, privacy or trust (and for some the ability to transact freely and openly without hindrance, fear or oppression) - which are obviously all related factors when using Bitcoin, in this regard.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country_or_territory
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship