Pages:
Author

Topic: Edward Snowden Final Warning for Bitcoin - page 4. (Read 1767 times)

jr. member
Activity: 28
Merit: 37
...sorry Edward Snowden, we know you mean good but for now, convenience is king.

If convenience is the king, then we should switch to paypal.

The true king here is FIAT evaluation and big investors who seem to indirectly control what Bitcoin is.

We don't want to upset the money flow from this big investors, aren't we ?
hero member
Activity: 2184
Merit: 891
Leading Crypto Sports Betting and Casino Platform
The thing is that there isn't really much threat nowadays to bitcoin, and unless some super sentai hackerman from the Power Ranger's Universe intervenes and does the unthinkable, there wouldn't be much need for increased privacy.

Especially nowadays when the main selling point of bitcoin is the anonymity that it provides, but not so much anonymity that it hampers with the government's attempts at regulating it, we wouldn't really be able to implement such a major change in bitcoin's system nowadays, especially since governments are just starting to understand and accept how bitcoin works. Doing something as major as this will make countries who were once tolerant of bitcoin immediately pull out from their decisions.

Plus heightened privacy means heavier to deal with transactions, and I don't need to tell you how much fucked up the transaction traffic of bitcoin is, so yeah, this thing's getting canned for the meantime, sorry Edward Snowden, we know you mean good but for now, convenience is king.
sr. member
Activity: 1666
Merit: 310
Imagine if Satoshi was a scared little P***Y as some people around here when he was designing Ditigal CASH...
Maybe he was scared:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/s/pLhd7mF9IX
jr. member
Activity: 28
Merit: 37
Imagine if Satoshi was a scared little P***Y as some people around here when he was designing Ditigal CASH...

He would be like "This could be used by criminals.. and used for money laundering.. we don't need it, people don't need anonymous cash, privacy like this would be abused and we already have paypal"

Dear cryptocurrency friends, grow some balls. It was never about conforming to regulators.
You've lost your way or you never were on the right path.

If Bitcoin does not include privacy, it must not be because of regulators but because of technical issues.

With privacy by default on protocol level, you still have option to provide view keys for anyone you wish - so it can be transparent when you want it to be.

There's really no reason to not have privacy like this on Bitcoin, don't let fear of regulators shape your future because they will never stop until they have full control - which will be achieved on mining level and black listing of transactions.

But maybe you won't even care about freedom when your BTC will be worth 10x...
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
Privacy sidechain? Liquid network might be what you're looking for since they implement Confidental Transaction. For something easier or lighter on Bitcoin on-chain, MimbleWimble or other form of non-interactive CoinJoin probably are better option than CT.
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 don't think it applies in this case. Looking at bitcoin-dev mailing, there's no serious plan to implement MimbleWimble on Bitcoin.

Here's a pretty in-depth article about how it all works. I honestly don't see why this can't also be integrated with BTC, if miners signaled for it... maybe there's a good reason but I don't know what it is.

It's not in-depth and only small part of the article actually talk about MimbleWimble.
newbie
Activity: 70
Merit: 0
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/05/03/rYV9H.jpeg
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127

Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this  Tongue
The clock is ticking...


Snowden's tweet certainly raises important concerns about privacy in Bitcoin transactions, especially given his background in cybersecurity and privacy advocacy. It's intriguing that despite these concerns being highlighted for years, there hasn't been significant action taken on a protocol level. I wonder what the potential reasons for this delay might be—are there technical challenges or perhaps differing priorities within the Bitcoin community? And Jameson's comment adds a bit of humor to the discussion, but it also begs the question: why might it take so long to address such a critical issue? I am looking forward to hearing more insights on this!
jr. member
Activity: 28
Merit: 37
if privacy was made at the protocol level of the bitcoin network...

Again, it's fear talking - maybe we should get rid of all privacy like protonmail / and other encrypted services ? because it could be used for nefarious things.
Why are you so concerned about centralized exchanges banning Bitcoin when there are decentralized exchanges around and using Bitcoin on CEX is like using regular banking system.

adding privacy at protocol layer would kill bitcoins utility.

What is it's utility ? stacking and praying for number go up ? yep, due to no privacy it has no utility outside of being a speculation tool.

we see many idiots advocate for privacy but promote themselves transparently.

Being transparent on demand about what you think and giving up your privacy are two different things, you should know better.

privacy breaks not at the currency layer, but at the human layer.

Yes, that's why it's needed at the protocol level because people are not savvy enough to use all the manual techniques to stay private.
Even having Bitcoin as a donation address can reveal how much you have and where you spend your Bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need any added privacy.. it needs users to be private themselves and use bitcoin properly and understand how privacy really works

Tools that are used for making Bitcoin private are getting seized by the FBI and people get their accounts banned on CEX because they used them, that's not a great way.

For some unfathomable reasons some people need to have everything private.
What happened to the opensource movement, they are anti privacy?

Privacy is centralized in a sense.

Among many private aspects of life, financial privacy is the most important one.

Thank you for the context, I understand now lol.

Do you, my friend ? I think we need at least five more copy/paste of this image that proves he was talking about Bitcoin.
hero member
Activity: 1386
Merit: 599
I wonder exactly what he means by "the clock is ticking"

Snowden is referring to the default coinjoin coordinator of Wasabi Wallet shutting down. dkbit98 cropped this information out of the screenshot:

Why did you crop the context out of the screenshot? Snowden's post is about Wasabi Wallet's default coordinator:



This isn't as hopeless as he originally thought. Anyone can run a WabiSabi coinjoin coordinator because the code is open source. I run one myself, all you have to do to connect to it is add this line to your Wasabi config file:

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



Thank you for the context, I understand now lol. I think that ultimately privacy is very important and people will go to great lengths to get it, even using mixers to help guise their funds and paying a premium to do so. I’ll be interested to tune into the Bitcoin conference in Nashville where apparently Snowden is going to be attending and speaking. Which I don’t know how he will do that isn’t he not able to step foot in US soil after the NSA whistleblow ?
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
if privacy was made at the protocol level of the bitcoin network. bitcoin is no longer treated by regulators as a open ledger, but instead a AEC (Anonymity Enhanced Currency) by which all users of bitcoin become suspicious an become watchlisted and investigated and all services then will stop using bitcoin due to the headache of that...
(its why exchanges dont do monero, to avoid all the extra requirements because monero is a AEC)

adding privacy at protocol layer would kill bitcoins utility.
adding privacy wont actually give privacy because people will always be dumb to publish their payment/donation addresses and talk about the stuff they use a coin for

we see many idiots advocate for privacy but promote themselves transparently.
if you want to stay private, stay quiet

privacy breaks not at the currency layer, but at the human layer.

those mixer services seized by government were not seized via locating them physically due to bitcoins blockchain. they were caught via other communications outside of the bitcoin network

bitcoin does not need any added privacy.. it needs users to be private themselves and use bitcoin properly and understand how privacy really works
sr. member
Activity: 1666
Merit: 310
For some unfathomable reasons some people need to have everything private.
What happened to the opensource movement, they are anti privacy?

Privacy is centralized in a sense.
What do you mean by that?
member
Activity: 672
Merit: 16
Looking for guilt best look first into a mirror
For some unfathomable reasons some people need to have everything private.
What happened to the opensource movement, they are anti privacy?

Privacy is centralized in a sense.
jr. member
Activity: 28
Merit: 37
Kruw - could you post it one more time, I think my eyes aren't what they used to be...
YES, we know it was in relation to what Wasabi devs posted on their twitter, but he was talking about Bitcoin protocol, not Wasabi.

Because if Bitcoin did it on a protocol level, there would be no need to do it by Wasabi and putting them in danger of money laundering.
Maybe that's the true reason we won't see privacy tech in Bitcoin, because there is a company behind Bitcoin and they are afraid of money laundering accusations.

Unless you really think he was warning Bitcoin developers 10 years ago, about privacy on protocol level for.... Wasabi wallet that was created in 2017....

Yeah, makes sense.
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Edward wasn't talking about Wasabi

Yes he was, he directly quoted the Wasabi Wallet account. dkbit98 just cropped it out of the screenshot:

Why did you crop the context out of the screenshot? Snowden's post is about Wasabi Wallet's default coordinator:



This isn't as hopeless as he originally thought. Anyone can run a WabiSabi coinjoin coordinator because the code is open source. I run one myself, all you have to do to connect to it is add this line to your Wasabi config file:

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

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
it's clear saylor, blackrock etc will never allow consensus for it

it's clear saylor, blackrock etc will not support the softfork, and their sweet money won't pump our bugs
FTFY.
sr. member
Activity: 652
Merit: 321
anyone who cares about privacy has moved to monero

it's clear saylor, blackrock etc will never allow consensus for it

if there was going to be privacy on base layer, it would have happened already
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
It's a free world (still) and as much as I respect Bitcoin for what it did, I prefer to use other means for transacting and storing my money.
Everyone in the crypto space no longer sees Bitcoin as the ideal medium of exchange, myself included. With privacy being the exception, Bitcoin is the best form of money that humanity has designed and engineered. In other words, it's so good, that you don't spend it.

Like a Trojan horse obviously what the rest of us expect as any addition seems to be unnecessary and users become skeptical about additions to the network as soft forks, which is seen to have no value as things will always return to normalcy with time based in on-going activities.
We can softfork; we can have privacy on the main chain by default. Stealth addresses, ring signatures, CT, all these can be implemented in a softfork way. "We" just don't do it, because "we" are afraid.

Edward reacted happily when he learned about this, he liked my Tweet about my WabiSabi coordinator: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1786217133279412385
Edward wasn't talking about Wasabi, he just used it as a triggering event. He is clearly talking about main chain privacy by default. Anyway, could you disclose us your liquidity?
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
Kruw - You have already posted this and even with full context, it still remains the same (Bitcoin protocol change to include privacy).

Edward reacted happily when he learned about this, he liked my Tweet about my WabiSabi coordinator: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1786217133279412385

jr. member
Activity: 28
Merit: 37
Kruw - You have already posted this and even with full context, it still remains the same (Bitcoin protocol change to include privacy).
member
Activity: 378
Merit: 93
Enable v2transport=1 and mempoolfullrbf=1
I wonder exactly what he means by "the clock is ticking"

Snowden is referring to the default coinjoin coordinator of Wasabi Wallet shutting down. dkbit98 cropped this information out of the screenshot:

Why did you crop the context out of the screenshot? Snowden's post is about Wasabi Wallet's default coordinator:



This isn't as hopeless as he originally thought. Anyone can run a WabiSabi coinjoin coordinator because the code is open source. I run one myself, all you have to do to connect to it is add this line to your Wasabi config file:

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

full member
Activity: 203
Merit: 106
Why not? RingCT in Monero wasn't a thing back in 2016, and it got implemented in January 2017. XMR amounts hidden, boom. More privacy gained. Bitcoin could have optional privacy with softforking to confidential transactions and ring signatures. It's just that we want it to enter the system like a trojan horse, therefore we can't risk with stuff like that.
Like a Trojan horse obviously what the rest of us expect as any addition seems to be unnecessary and users become skeptical about additions to the network as soft forks, which is seen to have no value as things will always return to normalcy with time based in on-going activities.

It won't solve anything for the same reason people are still using P2PKH/P2Sh addresses even though we added SegWit many years ago and it offers a lot of benefits.
An opt-in option is not going to help much with privacy specially in a world where centralized places are rejecting CoinJoin transactions (opt-in) they can reject the said opt-in privacy feature too hence forcing its adoption to remain low which means it won't solve anything.
While it doesn’t solve much, if their is a chance that it could help provide more options, then it could have been something what trying but, as complicated as humans would be especially given the adoption of innovations and policies, most times it’s best to live things as it is and have people build a behavioral pattern about it’s nature and usage.
Pages:
Jump to: