Edward Snowden Final Warning for Bitcoin

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: DooMAD on May 13, 2024, 04:22:35 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

It's a complex issue with various perspectives to consider, including technical, regulatory, and philosophical aspects. Discussions like these are important for shaping the future direction of cryptocurrencies.

But, just so it's clear, the conversation could be completely disregarded if someone finds a way within the current consensus rules to offer greater privacy and people choose to use it. Actions ultimately speak louder than words. Privacy isn't something we have to ask permission for. It could just be something we take if a good enough solution is found. A discussion isn't going to deter those who truly want privacy.

Just FYI, you're trying to have a conversation with AI. This account will never respond to you or anyone else in a meaningful manner.

Regardless, I do agree with you. True to cypherpunk ideals is the concept that privacy should be a right. Privacy & the right to do what you want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the privacy or rights of others.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: DooMAD on May 13, 2024, 04:22:35 AM

Actions ultimately speak louder than words. Privacy isn't something we have to ask permission for.

Hell yeah!!! So you're going to run your own coinjoin coordinator too, DooMAD? What info do I use to connect to it?

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: ?? on ??

It's a complex issue with various perspectives to consider, including technical, regulatory, and philosophical aspects. Discussions like these are important for shaping the future direction of cryptocurrencies.

But, just so it's clear, the conversation could be completely disregarded if someone finds a way within the current consensus rules to offer greater privacy and people choose to use it. Actions ultimately speak louder than words. Privacy isn't something we have to ask permission for. It could just be something we take if a good enough solution is found. A discussion isn't going to deter those who truly want privacy.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: crwth on May 12, 2024, 08:12:26 AM

Well, it's always going to be a factor when it comes to every Edward Snowden-related stuff. Privacy, he has always been on the watch out for something that could be detrimental to the general public.

Like what the other members said, it's going to be another concern to have that kind of addition to the development, it might take even more time.

There are better coins for privacy IMO. BTC is already an asset.

It's probably mere FUD for engagement farming from a person who was never a Bitcoin Core Developer, nor did he contribute code for the network. Plus many people like to post/complain about what the developers should do, but they have no intention of making a proposal or to provide a solution to the "problem" that they have indicated.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

redsun114

hero member

Activity: 2730

Merit: 585

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Ben Barubal on May 10, 2024, 10:41:16 AM

As far as I understand it, Bitcoin is the only visible and transparent one that all the transactions we start with the address we use are the ones that are not anonymous instead visible in the blockchain network.

Yeah and that is why many are concerned about it that they wish Bitcoin is more anonymous.

Quote from: Ben Barubal on May 10, 2024, 10:41:16 AM

the identity is anonymous, unless they investigate where it came from, it can be matrace whether it is from CEX or DEX, or it can also be from any crypto gambling platforms and other custodial wallets.

It was CEX or CEW (Centralized Wallets) are the ones that are more traceable but as long as you use a fake info and don't submit your own KYC, I guess you will still be fine.

@OP, maybe yes that it was intentional because if not, then they already changed it a long time ago even if there are no suggestions from other people but if let say it happened, I think there will still be people who will complain or wish that BTC will only be like this ( the current that we have now ) because its already in our nature to be like that. Anyways, there are still tools that can make us more anonymous and then there are still more private coins out there that someone can use instead of BTC.

cryptosize

sr. member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 310

Quote from: NotATether on May 10, 2024, 08:30:46 AM

Quote from: cryptosize on May 09, 2024, 06:25:04 AM

Quote from: alani123 on May 09, 2024, 03:28:44 AM

If Bitcoin forks to be more like Monero, all the above benefits though are lost in an instant. Are anonymous payments worth that much over destroying what has already been built on bitcoin? I'd argue that this change would only bring more censorship by giving credence to FEDs and legislators to destroy all BTC infrastructure as it could more easily be deemed a notorious market.

Infrastructure = miners/nodes ?

LOL, in that case, good luck with that. Feds have no chance of banning Bitcoin worldwide even if Core developers merge a privacy protocol. That would destroy all crypto businesses and could actually contribute to a recession in many countries.

Recession in which countries?

BTC has had 3 huge bear markets so far and no country was affected.

I agree that no one can ban it, but with 1% global adoption it's hyperbolic to claim it's going to cause recession in many countries.

crwth

copper member

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1280

https://linktr.ee/crwthopia

Well, it's always going to be a factor when it comes to every Edward Snowden-related stuff. Privacy, he has always been on the watch out for something that could be detrimental to the general public.

Like what the other members said, it's going to be another concern to have that kind of addition to the development, it might take even more time.

There are better coins for privacy IMO. BTC is already an asset.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2024, 06:50:27 AM

The correct ways is not linking your identity to your coins.
I have coins I received in addresses I've published on this forum and are linked to my identity. I have "other" coins that aren't. I spent some of those "other" coins in the past 24 hours. Nobody including chain analysis firms can tell which transaction belonged to me even though I just significantly narrowed the search space with this information...

That comes down to using anonymity tools, because as I mentioned in other places, even chain analysis firms cannot de-obfuscate the transactions that pass through a mixer barring some catastrophic privacy mis-configuration like keeping a log of all the addresses used with a session, or access to the entire historical UTXO set by means of some wallet running in a full node used by said service.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 12, 2024, 03:55:04 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2024, 02:47:49 AM

Bitcoin already provides a good level of privacy to those who use it correctly.

What's the "correct" way to use it? For if you go with coin control only, you're easily traceable by chain analysis firms.

The correct ways is not linking your identity to your coins.
I have coins I received in addresses I've published on this forum and are linked to my identity. I have "other" coins that aren't. I spent some of those "other" coins in the past 24 hours. Nobody including chain analysis firms can tell which transaction belonged to me even though I just significantly narrowed the search space with this information...

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Strictly speaking, there's no solution that can provide 100%, absolute privacy, but there exists realistically impossible to break solution. Similarly as to finding an address collision being not completely infeasible, but realistically, practically infeasible. You wouldn't ever argue that it is possible to generate somebody else's private key, even though it is. Instead, for the sake of simplicity, you would say it is simply impossible.

Monero does not provide absolute privacy, but it is realistically infeasible to break it.

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: ABCbits on May 12, 2024, 04:22:01 AM

Quote from: Kruw on May 11, 2024, 08:10:02 AM

This is COMPLETELY FALSE, you get complete privacy on Bitcoin by spending your coins in WabiSabi coinjoins. There are absolutely no shitcoins required, read the explanation from gmaxwell:
--snip--

Just like there's no thing such as 100%, absolute or complete security, there's no thing such as complete privacy.

BlackHatCoiner says otherwise:

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 12, 2024, 03:55:04 AM

it is also true that through the use of privacy technologies, they accomplish ideal anonymity.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: cryptosize on May 09, 2024, 06:25:04 AM

Quote from: alani123 on May 09, 2024, 03:28:44 AM

If Bitcoin forks to be more like Monero, all the above benefits though are lost in an instant. Are anonymous payments worth that much over destroying what has already been built on bitcoin? I'd argue that this change would only bring more censorship by giving credence to FEDs and legislators to destroy all BTC infrastructure as it could more easily be deemed a notorious market.

Infrastructure = miners/nodes ?

At very least, they could slow down block generation if government go after centralized mining pool. I say slow down since someone will create new centralized mining pool and maybe even revive P2Pool.

Quote from: Kruw on May 11, 2024, 08:10:02 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 09, 2024, 03:45:07 AM

You can get privacy with Bitcoin already, you just need to trade it for an altcoin.

This is COMPLETELY FALSE, you get complete privacy on Bitcoin by spending your coins in WabiSabi coinjoins. There are absolutely no shitcoins required, read the explanation from gmaxwell:
--snip--

Just like there's no thing such as 100%, absolute or complete security, there's no thing such as complete privacy.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Kruw on May 11, 2024, 08:10:02 AM

This is COMPLETELY FALSE, you get complete privacy on Bitcoin by spending your coins in WabiSabi coinjoins. There are absolutely no shitcoins required, read the explanation from gmaxwell

It is true that they change the security model and make the system less scalable, but it is also true that through the use of privacy technologies, they accomplish ideal anonymity. WabiSabi, Samourai, Joinmarket are all easier to attack than Monero, so there's robustness too.

But, who am I talking to. "Monero is a shitcoin". OK, lol.

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2024, 02:47:49 AM

Bitcoin already provides a good level of privacy to those who use it correctly.

What's the "correct" way to use it? For if you go with coin control only, you're easily traceable by chain analysis firms.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Lest we forget all this "privacy" talks began when centralized services got shut down! If people were worried about their privacy they should have been worried about it when these centralized services were up and they used those services not when they got shut down.

In fact in this context the Wasabi mouthpiece @Kruw pointed this out without realizing it. The part of the tweet that OP cut off is another centralized service that is known for cooperating with deanonymizing services (ie. blockchain analysis companies) that supposedly shut down its CoinJoin coordinator.
That is what the former employee of United States Armed Forces (ie. NSA which is part of DoD) Snowden replied to.

In other words people who are reacting these days have already realized what the actual problem is but their opinion is being swayed in a different and wrong direction making them think "privacy features" have to directly be added into the Bitcoin protocol itself.
Bitcoin already provides a good level of privacy to those who use it correctly. Meaning the problem is not the Bitcoin protocol, it is that people use it wrong and through centralized services that invade their privacy, some of them in the name of improving their privacy!

Kruw

member

Activity: 378

Merit: 93

Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 08, 2024, 05:50:30 PM

It's ironic how the Bitcoin community prioritizes ETFs, regulations, and wealth accumulation over privacy-- the very essence embedded in the cypherpunk manifesto and its core principles.

Don't forget all of the hateful members of the Bitcoin community that prioritized scamming people with custodial "mixing sites" while purposely attacking trustless open source privacy software like Wasabi, BTCPay Server, and Trezor.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 08, 2024, 05:50:30 PM

Was that Bitcoin thing presented as an anarchist movement that was supposed to overthrow the government and operate without any oversight? Must have been my mistake. Roll Eyes

Do something about it then and run a coinjoin coordinator yourself. I already am:

Quote from: Kruw on May 03, 2024, 07:33:34 AM

I run my own coordinator. You can connect to it by adding this line to your Wasabi config file:

Code:

"MainNetCoordinatorUri": "https://btcpay.kruw.io/plugins/wabisabi-coordinator/",

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 09, 2024, 03:45:07 AM

You can get privacy with Bitcoin already, you just need to trade it for an altcoin.

This is COMPLETELY FALSE, you get complete privacy on Bitcoin by spending your coins in WabiSabi coinjoins. There are absolutely no shitcoins required, read the explanation from gmaxwell:

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 08, 2024, 03:29:53 AM

Existing "privacy coins" change the security model pretty substantially-- a DLP break results in unbounded undetectable inflation. They also tend to have scaling/scanning problems that in practice obliterate much of the privacy gains-- e.g. because huge numbers of users hand over scanning keys who might well just be selling them to your adversaries (whomever they are).

There is no free lunch, at least not yet-- though there is a lot of research ongoing.

Meanwhile there are ways to use bitcoin much more privately with little cost-- and yet few users avail themselves of them. So technology isn't the limiting point or at least not the only limiting point.

martinex

full member

Activity: 392

Merit: 130

PredX - AI-Powered Prediction Market

Quote from: davis196 on May 03, 2024, 07:27:46 AM

Turning Bitcoin into a privacy coin would lead to a mass government ban of BTC around the world.
The BTC price would most likely go back to the levels before 2015. I'm sure that 90% of the Bitcoin investors don't want this to happen.
They prefer big profits over privacy. I kinda understand them. Bitcoin being a speculative financial asset with a potential future price of 100K USD(or even more) is way more exciting than BTC being a privacy coin used only by shady people and criminals, with a price in the range of 100USD-1000USD. Achieving full privacy in the modern day internet is almost impossible.

Of course, turning Bitcoin into a privacy coin makes governments sultry and is perceived as a threat to their financial regulations. However, in practice it seems to me that the depiction of privacy coins is necessary but not to be used like irresponsible criminals but in the context of normal circumstances. as needed.

You're right and that's one of the fundamental things why it's not really needed and considered important by some investors because it understates they profits.

dkbit98

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 7064

Quote from: nutildah on May 04, 2024, 07:33:14 AM

Litecoin, which signaled MWEB into activation in May 2022, has always been something of a test environment for features later implemented in Bitcoin. Litecoin was the 1st to have SegWit, a Lightning Network, and now MWEB, which is an optional privacy enhancing feature, used by Grin as default.

I like what Litecoin is doing with mimble wimble, but they only have one wallet supporting it so far (Litecoin Core), and there is no support for mobile wallets yet.
Another important thing to say is that for mweb addresses to be more private we again should use coinjoin for them.

Quote from: nutildah on May 04, 2024, 08:36:14 AM

Eventually - if/when - we get invaded by aliens, a one-world government might not be such a bad idea. We'll really need to get our shit together. Until then we'll continue to argue with anyone who holds different beliefs than we do.

Aliens are a scam, and they could try creating fake alien invasion, but one world government is never a good idea.
It's stupid utopia with goal to make all people into slaves.

Quote from: NotATether on May 05, 2024, 02:36:38 AM

No point in using Tor, VPN, private email, Graphene OS, Bitcoin, Tails if everyone can see your financial history. That is all that is needed to take you down.

Yeah, it would all be just a security theater, but I think some people are scared they could value of their coins if bitcoin changes anything related with privacy Roll Eyes

Quote from: MeGold666 on May 05, 2024, 03:34:18 AM

Everyone needs privacy, everyone loves privacy. Even Satoshi wanted to add it.

Sure, he even clearly mentioned Privacy in Bitcoin Whitepaper section 10, but who reads that right... Tongue

Ben Barubal

member

Activity: 560

Merit: 17

Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!

As far as I understand it, Bitcoin is the only visible and transparent one that all the transactions we start with the address we use are the ones that are not anonymous instead visible in the blockchain network.

But the identity is anonymous, unless they investigate where it came from, it can be matrace whether it is from CEX or DEX, or it can also be from any crypto gambling platforms and other custodial wallets.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: cryptosize on May 09, 2024, 06:25:04 AM

Quote from: alani123 on May 09, 2024, 03:28:44 AM

If Bitcoin forks to be more like Monero, all the above benefits though are lost in an instant. Are anonymous payments worth that much over destroying what has already been built on bitcoin? I'd argue that this change would only bring more censorship by giving credence to FEDs and legislators to destroy all BTC infrastructure as it could more easily be deemed a notorious market.

Infrastructure = miners/nodes ?

LOL, in that case, good luck with that. Feds have no chance of banning Bitcoin worldwide even if Core developers merge a privacy protocol. That would destroy all crypto businesses and could actually contribute to a recession in many countries.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 08, 2024, 03:29:53 AM

As far as the tweet goes-- I doubt any bitcoin developer has ever heard from Snowden, I can imagine if they had they'd be quite exited. Don't read too much into hyperbole.

Perhaps reading Snowden's post was different for a pleb like me from a person who actually developed and contributed to Bitcoin Core. From the plebs viewpoint, we immediately think that he might be right. But from a Core Developer's viewpoint - active, inactive, or retired - they're probably reading it as mere engagement farming by Snowden. Snowden never developed in Bitcoin, nor did he contribute code.

Topic: Edward Snowden Final Warning for Bitcoin (Read 1767 times)