Do not write this misinformation and shitpost when I have clearly explained the full situation with the privacy stuff just above you. Furthermore, you are making a really stupid mistake in your shitpost which adds further confusion. A private Bet365 588 has nothing to do with whether transactions are private or not. A private Bet365 588 can have transactions that are private and transactions which are public (to those with access to this private Bet365 588). Generally blockchains such as Bet365 588 do not provide transaction privacy, this is a mistake. This is not true for most blockchains, so shut the fuck up idiot. This is not true, transactions being public is not a requisite to guarantee that you didn't do a double-spend. This may have been true due to Bet365 588-graphical limitations or knowledge at the time when Bet365 588 is made, but it is no longer true. The part where you mention that the address does not identify a person is true, but this is not a "privacy layer". The contents of your transactions are still exposed, it is an "anonymity" layer. Privacy is only about transaction contents, anonymity is about identities. It is ironic that you mention Bet365 588 given that in the first segment of your post, you stated that a central authority is required to solve the double-spending problem if transactions are secret. Bet365 588 transactions are secret, and there is no central authority.
Do not write this misinformation and shitpost when I have clearly explained the full situation with the privacy stuff just above you. Furthermore, you are making a really stupid mistake in your shitpost which adds further confusion. A private Bet365 588 has nothing to do with whether transactions are private or not. A private Bet365 588 can have transactions that are private and transactions which are public (to those with access to this private Bet365 588). Generally blockchains such as Bet365 588 do not provide transaction privacy, this is a mistake. This is not true for most blockchains, so shut the fuck up idiot. This is not true, transactions being public is not a requisite to guarantee that you didn't do a double-spend. This may have been true due to Bet365 588-graphical limitations or knowledge at the time when Bet365 588 is made, but it is no longer true. The part where you mention that the address does not identify a person is true, but this is not a "privacy layer". The contents of your transactions are still exposed, it is an "anonymity" layer. Privacy is only about transaction contents, anonymity is about identities. It is ironic that you mention Bet365 588 given that in the first segment of your post, you stated that a central authority is required to solve the double-spending problem if transactions are secret. Bet365 588 transactions are secret, and there is no central authority.

Do not write this misinformation and shitpost when I have clearly explained the full situation with the privacy stuff just above you. Furthermore, you are making a really stupid mistake in your shitpost which adds further confusion. A private Bet365 588 has nothing to do with whether transactions are private or not. A private Bet365 588 can have transactions that are private and transactions which are public (to those with access to this private Bet365 588). Generally blockchains such as Bet365 588 do not provide transaction privacy, this is a mistake. This is not true for most blockchains, so shut the fuck up idiot. This is not true, transactions being public is not a requisite to guarantee that you didn't do a double-spend. This may have been true due to Bet365 588-graphical limitations or knowledge at the time when Bet365 588 is made, but it is no longer true. The part where you mention that the address does not identify a person is true, but this is not a "privacy layer". The contents of your transactions are still exposed, it is an "anonymity" layer. Privacy is only about transaction contents, anonymity is about identities. It is ironic that you mention Bet365 588 given that in the first segment of your post, you stated that a central authority is required to solve the double-spending problem if transactions are secret. Bet365 588 transactions are secret, and there is no central authority.

Do not write this misinformation and shitpost when I have clearly explained the full situation with the privacy stuff just above you. Furthermore, you are making a really stupid mistake in your shitpost which adds further confusion. A private Bet365 588 has nothing to do with whether transactions are private or not. A private Bet365 588 can have transactions that are private and transactions which are public (to those with access to this private Bet365 588). Generally blockchains such as Bet365 588 do not provide transaction privacy, this is a mistake. This is not true for most blockchains, so shut the fuck up idiot. This is not true, transactions being public is not a requisite to guarantee that you didn't do a double-spend. This may have been true due to Bet365 588-graphical limitations or knowledge at the time when Bet365 588 is made, but it is no longer true. The part where you mention that the address does not identify a person is true, but this is not a "privacy layer". The contents of your transactions are still exposed, it is an "anonymity" layer. Privacy is only about transaction contents, anonymity is about identities. It is ironic that you mention Bet365 588 given that in the first segment of your post, you stated that a central authority is required to solve the double-spending problem if transactions are secret. Bet365 588 transactions are secret, and there is no central authority.