Author

Topic: Is Bitcoin really censorship-resistent if they can't reach Canadian truckers (Read 393 times)

legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Anti-Bitcoin trolls will spread disinformation, and make you believe that Bitcoin is not a solution by using "phrases, and terms" to replace censorship-resistant, which is what Bitcoin truly is as a protocol, as a medium of exchange, and as a store of value.



No centralized, and all poweful entity should be given full control of our ability to transact.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
If we extrapolate this to the extreme: governments can also simply state 'now all (opposed to coming from addresses a,b,c,d,e) BTC is illegal', banning anyone from trading BTC for products (buying stuff) or fiat (exchanging currency). It would be a purely legal thing, so no technological changes or advancements can prevent that.

'simply'? um not so simply

some countries have laws where by a government cannot just make a law that causes a sector of industry loss flat out, for no good reason.. without the government compensating the businesses. for its loss of business for their compliance

EG the only reason the the covid restrictions were implemented was because there was a real risk of life to people if businesses didnt go into lockdown, but businesses would be compensated.

a government cant just stop something without first weighing the risks/benefits of such actions.

take the american code 5318A(4)
Quote
(4) Process for selecting special measures.—In selecting which special measure or measures to take under this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury—
(A) shall consult with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any other appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) [1] the Secretary of State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration Board, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may find to be appropriate; and
(B) shall consider—
(i) whether similar action has been or is being taken by other nations or multilateral groups;
(ii) whether the imposition of any particular special measure would create a significant competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or burden associated with compliance, for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States;
(iii) the extent to which the action or the timing of the action would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, or on legitimate business activities involving the particular jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions, or type of account; and
(iv) the effect of the action on United States national security and foreign policy.

and other international laws(foreign policy) where industries can sue a government
research ICSID  International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

so the government cant just throw any decision around without showing good lawful reason for enacting a new law/policy. and if there is significant loss to the sectors being limited/halted in operation. the government could/should compensate for this.

.. its things like this that make it next to impossible for countries to say "ok by Xdate in 2023 every utility company has to go green"
and instead the government has to say by X date in 2030-2050. to mitigate potential losses due to their policy. and also offer 'grants' and rebates' for those companies that do follow policy. to mitigate any potential lawsuits.


basically..
its easier and cheaper to blacklist an address or a name of a MSB customer then it is to ban a whole currency system.
its easier and cheaper to blacklist an individual company from operating then it is to ban a whole currency system.
but they still need to show good lawful reason

to ban a whole currency system a government cannot just have some flimsy reason. it has to show good reason that the harm of the industry is more then any possible benefit the industry can offer.

china for instance used the "climate" effect.
america is trying to show that bitcoin is bad for the environment as reason to then possibly regulate it.
but they cant just implement it at a whim. they have to go through all the pro's and cons and seek guidance/judgement from many departments before enacting any change. why do you think china took from 2014-2021 to finally act

they dont just turn up and say "tomorrow you stop"
they dont just email a MSB and say. "we dont like this address, its just spelled wrong so we dont like it"
they still need to show good lawful reason
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 5834
not your keys, not your coins!
But for that we have mixers.  Grin
We have mixers and CoinJoins, sure. But we also have exchanges that freeze coins that originate from known mixers, casinos, and whatnot. I expect this is going to become a trend in the future. Regulatory pressure will force centralized exchanges to consider funds that came from such services as being dirty, illegal, and laundered. You will be asked to prove that you are not a criminal and not the other way around. For that reason we have decentralized exchanges...until they find a way to blacklist those coins as well. When and if they do that, we are left with face-to-face deals.   
If we extrapolate this to the extreme: governments can also simply state 'now all (opposed to coming from addresses a,b,c,d,e) BTC is illegal', banning anyone from trading BTC for products (buying stuff) or fiat (exchanging currency). It would be a purely legal thing, so no technological changes or advancements can prevent that.

Hence, it's not an issue of Bitcoin / the technology.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin does allow to circumvent such laws without an easy way of detection, through the support of the Tor network, Lightning, etc.... it does get tricky if trying to buy something like a house, nice car or similar with it, since you often have to declare these types of purchases. Then again, in such a scenario, you might ask yourself the question if you like to continue living in such a country.. But that's OT now. Grin
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
in response to a similar post in a different topic
You are just trying to justify the dictatorship. The "fact" if you have ever bothered to do some research, is that it had nothing to do with radicalism or even any anti-government move. The cases are simple as liking a photo of truckers protesting mandatory jabs some of them on private profiles.

seriously.. try to read the court order!!
no minister has been involved in the mareva injunction.

the actual time line of events that lead up to the mareva injunction has nothing to do with any politician
you do realise that normal citizens can file lawsuits too.. .. well i hope you realise it

it was a woman in her 20's claiming she was victimised by the protesters on like feb 3rd. where she claimed the honking and disruptions affected her health and mental wellbeing by keeping her up at night and she started an action that the neighbourhood could join into the claim. her claim was just for a $100 a day fine
"The estimated damages per Class Member is $100 per day of the continued use of the unlawful horn tactic."
(feb 4th 'honking injunction (just asking them to stop honking at night))
 it didnt really get her any result.. as it only lasted like a few peaceful nights before the noise started again.

then other local businesses entered into the claim and seen the compensation opportunity and added their own experiences of how the protest affected them.. but at this point the judge was not really in the mindset to actually allow the court order at that point either.
becasue it wasnt much different then the already issued 'honking injunction'

so they added in some extra details like the links of the organisers to some radicalist group of political separatists and showing how the organisers had a tendancy to cause mischief and political threat.. and how fundraising would suport their radical acts. and how by fundraising shows they didnt want to stop causing mischief, showing how they were not willing to stop their mischief, and how the truckers were also causing more mischief beyond a simple 'peaceful' protest (and other things added on)

this was not due to the government over reaching.
and if it was just a "noise complaint" of honking truckers expressing their rights. then the court would have gone in a different direction

all that would have happened was the truckers get a noise complaint fine (much like a parking ticket)
the reason it escalated in such a big deal about freezing funds in relation to possible criminal/radicalised activity was due to the organisers other side hobbies/past history of political motivated malicious acts
legendary
Activity: 2828
Merit: 1497
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
No government can stop a Bitcoin transaction. They can only tell exchanges to not accept deposits from certain addresses, so the solution is to use mixing and use decentralized exchanges and p2p trading. It's bad that on practice you will want to exchange Bitcoin back to fiat, because it's hard to spend it directly, but Bitcoin is the only chance to avoid government control, everything else operates on KYC principle so accounts and funds can be instantly frozen.
They have tried. Did you see what Kraken had responded to their government's address of telling their exchange to ban accounts that have been interacting with connections to funds pertaining to the donations to the protestors?
If they all sent those donations to a non-custodial wallet and not from an exchange which has KYC, then they wouldn't have this problem of the seizing  bitcoins/freezing of accounts in the first place.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
They even contacted one of the wallet providers to share the data they have on the donators and stop funds and they wrote back that they only provide software allowing users to access money on the blockchain, they don't freeze anything and don't have access to any funds Cheesy One would think they'd put someone tech savvy in charge of the investigation. Someone who knows that a wallet provider cannot access private keys.

a private individual (coffee shop owner) got the court to order crypto platforms offering different services to provide any and all info they have on the suspects. and ordered that anyone that could/would aid the suspects in moving, spending, transferring coins directly/indirectly to stop aiding the suspects or face punishment.
(this does not mean the platform had to have physical access to the keys, it can be as simple as knowingly providing software or technical support)

it was a generalised order for all platforms.. not a specific order per platform where by they would need to specifically order an exchange for different requirement vs a specific order of different requirements for a software provider

it was just a general order of stop assisting the suspects in any way, and then listing all possible ways any service could possibly aid the suspects

the reason these details need clarifying is so that people can learn from experiences.
too many people try to ignore facts, just to cry and scream, while learning nothing from their emotional outbursts.

if people actually read the court order, people can learn the pitfalls of how these suspects got found and how they got ordered to halt their actions, so that people can learn what not to do next time
EG
dont make yourself publicly known as a tinfoil hat separatists that wants to segregate a country.
dont wait 14 days to even just talk to protesters on the last days of a protest.. to then 'plan' how to pay the truckers weeks after the protest ended
dont announce the services you intend to use.
dont announce your name
DO speak to protestors that need reimbursing from day one
DO shift the funds to them protestors same day, thus funds no longer your responsibility

bitcoin is not anonymous. its pseudonymous. learn from this experience why the difference caused such an event
its not bitcoins fault. its the fundraisers fault of wanting fame and glory and to push their other public agenda

a badly organised protest"we are a politically motived group wanting to segregate canada in half these are our names these are our services we will use. we will eventually talk to protestors and if all goes well we will pay out after shifting funds around which will be atleast 48 hours after we have done things, if all goes well"

a good organised protest
"we have had some random volunteers who have already spoke to protestors and the protestors were paid within 3 confirms of setting up their bitcoin address, none of the volunteers had funded keys. as for the fundraiser keyholders, they no longer have the funds. protestors are happy, been paid. job done"
legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 1192
The article on Coindesk, provided by stompix, says the money was raised in cryptos, but that the the Deputy Prime Minister said banks CAN freeze bank accounts tied to truckers. First, bank accounts and crypto wallets are two different things, so I suppose nobody's seizing the wallets themselves. Second, there's no rule that banks MUST freeze bank accounts, they are simply allowed to do that if they see it fit. And theor police ordered regulated firms to cease facilitating transactions from those wallets. So, based on all this, it seems that the wallets are still in the hands of the protestors (if the wallets are non-custodial), and the problem is with making big names accept payment from these wallets or with converting this money into fiat through regulated exchanges. It limits the options, but I don't think it shows the wallets being censored.

They even contacted one of the wallet providers to share the data they have on the donators and stop funds and they wrote back that they only provide software allowing users to access money on the blockchain, they don't freeze anything and don't have access to any funds Cheesy One would think they'd put someone tech savvy in charge of the investigation. Someone who knows that a wallet provider cannot access private keys.
You're correct about banks in Canada and anywhere else. If these people really want to get their money they can arrange a cash exchange. They can also send coins to a bank in another country and access it from there. The coins donated to truckers were obtained legally and donated legally. In any other country they'd be able to have access, so other countries are not obliged to freeze these funds like they would with money from a hack or a ponzi scheme.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
Bitcoin (network) is censorship-improbable and anonymous
bitcoin (btc) allotment of coins, is censorship-resistant and pseudonymous

resistance, is not the same as improbable or impossible

i personally am a bitcoin maximalist. but im not a wishful dreamer.
bitcoin is great. no one can touch your coins without the keys..  ..but be prepared and aware of the points of failure about how the keys can be found.
they cant brute force the blockchain for your coin. but they can bruteforce your front door, PC, devices, and interrogate you under punishment of prison for staying quiet

this second part is because of the human flaw of humans that decide who, how, they transact. and how foolish they are about making their activity publicly tied to their real life
legendary
Activity: 2730
Merit: 7065
But for that we have mixers.  Grin
We have mixers and CoinJoins, sure. But we also have exchanges that freeze coins that originate from known mixers, casinos, and whatnot. I expect this is going to become a trend in the future. Regulatory pressure will force centralized exchanges to consider funds that came from such services as being dirty, illegal, and laundered. You will be asked to prove that you are not a criminal and not the other way around. For that reason we have decentralized exchanges...until they find a way to blacklist those coins as well. When and if they do that, we are left with face-to-face deals.   
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1402
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
The article on Coindesk, provided by stompix, says the money was raised in cryptos, but that the the Deputy Prime Minister said banks CAN freeze bank accounts tied to truckers. First, bank accounts and crypto wallets are two different things, so I suppose nobody's seizing the wallets themselves. Second, there's no rule that banks MUST freeze bank accounts, they are simply allowed to do that if they see it fit. And theor police ordered regulated firms to cease facilitating transactions from those wallets. So, based on all this, it seems that the wallets are still in the hands of the protestors (if the wallets are non-custodial), and the problem is with making big names accept payment from these wallets or with converting this money into fiat through regulated exchanges. It limits the options, but I don't think it shows the wallets being censored.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 5834
not your keys, not your coins!
1) They can just mix the coins, thus getting new addresses that are not blacklisted, if they want CAD so bad.

2) They are only banned to get CAD from those addresses. The coins are not 'censored' really. Just some banks don't want to give them CAD for their coins. Anyone can deny anyone else business for whatever reason. I could sell something on eBay but not like a person, so deny to accept their $$$ for my 'object I'm selling'. That's not an argument to say that USD can be censored.

3) Bitcoin is not only a means to get fiat, but it can be used as money by itself, so any business selling stuff for BTC will accept payments from those addresses. They can easily get food at restaurants that accept BTC, can buy cars at dealerships that take BTC, they can even get Bitrefill Amazon gift cards or refills for clothes stores and order whatever they need(wasn't that the idea of the fundraiser?). The truckers could even get themselves BTC credit cards, load them up with however much they need & pay with those anywhere.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
anyway this is worth a read
https://fortune.com/2022/02/18/freedom-convoy-protests-canada-lawsuit-freeze-crypto-wallets-ottawa/

https://ottawaconvoyclassaction.ca/order-mareva.pdf

basically
locals from ottowa(a coffee company) petitioned the courts to hold the freedom convoy organisers to a court order whereby they, nor anyone acting on their behalf can move/spend/touch the bitcoin donations

point 1-2 basically says anyone in the fundraiser group, their associates, servants, people known to/by them. or other intermediaries including any exchanges, banks or other services, shall not move disperse, sell or spend the funds.

point 3 any amount above $20m. the organisers can do with as they please.

and in point 6 the coffee company says the fundraisers can request an order allowing them to explain and get consent for a certain allotment of the $20m to be spent on the fundraisers own normal living costs, legal costs

point 10 continues to list those that cant move, touch, spend the funds
namely services like
Bull Bitcoin, TallyCoin, Bitbuy, Shakepay, Satoshi Portal, Bylls, Binance Smartchain, PancakeSwap, Nunchuk

point 12 mentions the fundraisers and/or associates that have access to the funds are to hand the bitcoin to the court

Quote
1. THIS COURT ORDERS that this motion is properly returnable today as the motion is
brought without notice.

Mareva Injunction
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Mareva Respondents and their servants, employees, agents, assigns, officers, directors and anyone else acting on their behalf or in conjunction with any of them, and any and all persons with notice of this Order, are restrained from directly or
indirectly, by any means whatsoever:
   (a) selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring, assigning, encumbering,
        or similarly dealing with the assets of the Mareva Respondents listed in Schedule “A”
   (b) instructing, requesting, counselling, demanding, or encouraging any other person
         to conduct themselves contrary to paragraph 2(a) above;
  and
   (c) facilitating, assisting in, aiding, abetting, or participating in any acts the effect of
        which is to contrary to paragraph 2(a) above, until final disposition of this action or further Order of this Court.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that paragraph 2 applies to all of the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order, whether or not they are in the Mareva Respondents’ own names, whether or not they are solely or jointly owned, and whether or not the Mareva Respondents have exclusive control over the asset. For the purpose of this Order, a Mareva Respondent’s assets include any asset which he or she has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were his or her own. The Mareva Respondent is to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the assets in accordance with his or her direct or indirect instructions.

4. THIS COURT ORDERS that if the total value free of charges or other securities of the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order exceeds $20 million, the Mareva Respondents may sell, remove, dissipate, alienate, transfer, assign, encumber, or similarly deal with them so long
as the total unencumbered value of the Mareva Respondent’s frozen assets remains above $ 20million.

Undertaking as to Damages
5. THIS COURT ORDERS that the requirement in Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the moving party to provide an undertaking as to damages potentially arising from the granting and enforcing of this Order is hereby dispensed with.

Ordinary Living Expenses
6. THIS COURT ORDERS that any Mareva Respondent may apply for an order, on at least twenty-four (24) hours notice to the Plaintiffs, specifying the amount of funds which the Mareva Respondent requires from the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order to spend on
ordinary living expenses and legal advice and representation. The Mareva Respondent may also be provided with access to the assets it requires to spend on ordinary living expenses and legal
advance and representation with the written consent of the Plaintiffs.

Disclosure of Information
7. THIS COURT ORDERS that each Mareva Respondent shall prepare and provide to the Plaintiffs, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, a sworn statement describing the nature, value, and location of his or her assets worldwide, whether in his own name or not and
whether solely or jointly owned, which are being used, have been earmarked for, or are intended to be used to fund, directly or indirectly, activities associated with the Freedom Convoy protests in or around the City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada which began on or about January 29, 2022 worldwide, including but not limited to any digital assets (and any associated cryptocurrency wallet addresses).

8. THIS COURT ORDERS that each Mareva Respondent shall submit to an examination under oath within 7 days of the delivery by the Mareva Respondent of the aforementioned sworn statement referred to in paragraph 7.

9. THIS COURT ORDERS that if the provision of any of the information set out in paragraph 7 is likely to incriminate the Mareva Respondent, he or she may be entitled to refuse to provide it, but is recommended to take legal advice before refusing to provide the information. Wrongful refusal to provide the information referred to in paragraph 7 is contempt of court and may render the Mareva Respondent liable to be imprisoned, fined, or have his or her assets seized.

Intermediaries
10. THIS COURT ORDERS that the entities listed in Schedule “B” as well as any banks, financial institutions, money service businesses, fundraising platforms or websites, cryptocurrency exchanges or platforms, or custodians of any cryptocurrency wallets, (collectively, the “ Intermediaries”) shall, upon being provided with notice of this Order, forthwith freeze and otherwise prevent any removal, dissipation, alienation, transfer, assignment, encumbrance, transaction, or similar dealing with any of the assets identified in Schedule “A” to this Order.

11. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Intermediaries shall forthwith disclose and deliver up to the Plaintiffs any and all records held by the Intermediary concerning the Mareva Respondents’ assets, including the existence, nature, value and location of any monies or assets
or credit, wherever situate, held on behalf of the Mareva Respondent by the Intermediaries.

Alternative Payment of Security into Court
12. THIS COURT ORDERS that this Order will cease to have effect if the Mareva Respondents provide security by collectively paying the sum of $20 million into Court, and the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice is hereby directed to accept such payment.

Variation, Discharge or Extension of Order
13. THIS COURT ORDERS that anyone served with or notified of this Order may apply to the Court at any time to vary or discharge this Order, on four (4) days’ notice to the Plaintiffs.

14. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiffs shall apply for an extension of this Order on or before February 28, 2022, failing which this Order will terminate.
hero member
Activity: 1106
Merit: 912
Not Your Keys, Not Your Bitcoin
The canadian truckers are unable to get a hold of the 21 bitcoin that have been donated to them recently because the wallets associated with the fundraising have been tracked and banned from all regulated financial institutions (including banks and exchanges). Two questions for discussion:
1. Is bitcoin really censorship resistent if the government can track and ban addresses? Bitfinex hackers being tracked and caught is another example (though most people would argue that this is an example of "positive" censorship resistence, unlike the canadian truckers example).
2. Can bitcoin be both censorship resistent and transparent at the same time?

I am late to this post, I wanted to continue a thread from the previous donations that were made last two weeks.
I am concerned about the exchanges that gave out the details of contributors to Canada's federal police force, other external wallet could simply mix their bitcoin and moved their sats to another wallet without any worries. Centralized Crypto exchanges are not different from banks, they make trading easier but they are more dangerous than banks, they can snitch on you and stab you in the back when any country bribes them.
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10
Problem They taint the Bitcoins with chainanalysis tools,if they can track bitfinex hack,that means they can make it..Thats the truth
 

Solution is marriage

use Grin>Bitcoin>Fiat. They cant taint the Bitcoin this way.
What if the Bitcoin I receive from Grin > Bitcoin are tainted as you say?  The 'tainting' strategy works similar to a Ponzi scheme: it works until it does not.  You can not taint addresses because it ultimately leads to all addresses having a tainted history.  The Bitcoin you hold may have been part of a drug deal before.  We probably all own a coin with tainted history.  If you want a Cryptocurrency that is truly fungible, it is Monero.  But you have to pay in Monero directly, if you do not want to spend possibly dirty coins.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Monero already HF to ring size 16. you need to run 10's of terabytes nodes to run full node Monero. it is 20x heavier than Bitcoin. Sorry.

Grin runs  full node on a mobile phone. it is below 5 gb. Grin will be used more for sure with deep liquidity and tainted bitcoins would be no problem becuz atomic swaps and dex will cure this.
legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1352
Cashback 15%
Canadian truckers can still get their bitcoins and exchange them to fiat outside of Canada if they want, or some group supporting their cause can buy those coins OTC and their problems are essentially gone. The government can only send orders to banks to not allow any fund (fiat) transfers to known accounts of the truckers, but even then the banks and exchanges can still wish to choose whether they cater to these requests or not. The government is playing as the bullies here in this case, and no matter what, those coins and funds will still reach the truckers if those holding the funds wishes to direct the funds to them.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
but government doesnt "stop" a transaction..

government sends a court order request to a bank service telling the bank service not to make a transaction or get penalised if they do.

there is no "red button" thats connected directly to a SWIFT(international wire), RTGS(fedwire('wire transfer')), .. its always a case where 'government' get the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction. just with regulation. it only takes the equivalent of a formal email rather than a swat team
Getting the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction is still stopping the transaction, is it not exactly what this is called?  If I am getting you not to exit the house, I am stopping you from exiting it.  It is their power to stop transactions.  No, I was definitely not talking about a 'red button' either.  The idea still is that they can not stop a Bitcoin transaction from happening while banks can always close your account, freeze your funds et cetera..

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

point is the government has no red button on the fiat network. it has an email to the fund custodian with a court order because regulations make it easier then needing a swat team to knock on doors of a fund custodian.. but in both cases(btc/fiat) the government can get the fund custodian to never make a transaction by coming into contact with the fund holder.

government do not need a network red stop button, they always have got the fund holders to not transact under fear of punishment

too many people think the pentagon/sec has a fiat network red button.. they dont.
bitcoins main safeguard is not the protocol the main safeguard is the pseudonymity of people not revealing what address they have keys for

again be cautious of funds you hold, bitcoin can stop hackers from brute forcing the network. but it doesnt stop someone brute forcing your homes front door


comparing bitcoins lack of a network red button vs fiat court order threatening a fund custodian.. is 2 different methods..
if you want to compare same methods
a) fiat red button, vs bitcoin red button... government has no red button for both..
b) fiat coerce fund holder with court threat, vs btc coerce fund holder with court threat.. the government can do both.

but you are only more safe in bitcoin if you stay anonymous(not be lazy / lax about your personal info.)
as seen by the fear of the convoy organisers who had to absolve themselves of responsibility as they realised they are too publicly known.
as seen by the bitfinex thieving couple that got caught last week
as seen by many examples of people that think bitcoin is so safe they can be lazy about personal privacy and security as they wrongly think bitcoin is untouchable in all circumstances.

its not, so still be careful

in a 4 of 4 multisig. the funds can be stopped. just arrest one of the key holders. he cant sign. meaning the funds cant move. interrogate him until he discloses the other 3

its the same government tactic just wrapped in a swat vest instead of a SEC vest

whether its fiat or bitcoin. the network is not the flaw. its the key holders at the corners.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 1873
Crypto Swap Exchange
but government doesnt "stop" a transaction..

government sends a court order request to a bank service telling the bank service not to make a transaction or get penalised if they do.

there is no "red button" thats connected directly to a SWIFT(international wire), RTGS(fedwire('wire transfer')), .. its always a case where 'government' get the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction. just with regulation. it only takes the equivalent of a formal email rather than a swat team
Getting the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction is still stopping the transaction, is it not exactly what this is called?  If I am getting you not to exit the house, I am stopping you from exiting it.  It is their power to stop transactions.  No, I was definitely not talking about a 'red button' either.  The idea still is that they can not stop a Bitcoin transaction from happening while banks can always close your account, freeze your funds et cetera..

-
Regards,
PrivacyG
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
government cant stop a bitcoin transaction thats already sent. but if they know the identity of the current fund key holders. then governments can stop the key holders from making a transaction.. its called handcuffs.
I suppose hatshepsut93 was referring about the government stopping a Bitcoin transaction the same way they can stop a bank transaction.  

but government doesnt "stop" a transaction..

government sends a court order request to a bank service telling the bank service not to make a transaction or get penalised if they do.

there is no "red button" thats connected directly to a SWIFT(international wire), RTGS(fedwire('wire transfer')), .. its always a case where 'government' get the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction. just with regulation. it only takes the equivalent of a formal email rather than a swat team
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 1873
Crypto Swap Exchange
government cant stop a bitcoin transaction thats already sent. but if they know the identity of the current fund key holders. then governments can stop the key holders from making a transaction.. its called handcuffs.
I suppose hatshepsut93 was referring about the government stopping a Bitcoin transaction the same way they can stop a bank transaction.  Obviously, they can force you to be physically incapable of broadcasting a transaction but even then, if the wallet is set up properly, they will not be able to stop the money flow.

Consider a multi-sig setup or someone close to you has the private key, the coins can be gone long before they get to brute force the devices.  Yes, you may now rot in prison for staying quiet but the point I am trying to make is that even for your example of handcuffing they still do not have the power to enforce a freeze of coins.  They have the same power over your coins that they have over your clothes.  In fact, if a multi-sig is set up, they have even less power over them.  It is like they seize a t-shirt from your wardrobe and suddenly it gets stolen.  They can do nothing about it except following its traces and looking for it again until they find the thief's identity.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
No government can stop a Bitcoin transaction.

government cant stop a bitcoin transaction thats already sent. but if they know the identity of the current fund key holders. then governments can stop the key holders from making a transaction.. its called handcuffs.

the bitfinex thieves were not able to move their 90k stash when there was a knock at the door

if they can find where you put your key. they can come after the key. or handcuff the keyholder.

yes its possible to have a 3of4 multisig.. and hope you find out which 1 of the 4 key holders got arrested first when they get arrested. to have time for the other 3 keyholders to move the stash to new people.. before the other 3 get a 'knock and enter'
.. but you have to HOPE that S.W.A.T dont do a synchronised 'knock and enter' on all 4 people at same time. and you better have organised the next 4 people to be ready to take control before you hear a knock.

i personally am a bitcoin maximalist. but im not a wishful dreamer.
bitcoin is great. no one can touch your coins without the keys..  ..but be prepared and aware of the points of failure about how the keys can be found.
they cant brute force the blockchain for your coin. but they can bruteforce your front door, PC, devices, and interrogate you under punishment of prison for staying quiet
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 1873
Crypto Swap Exchange
Problem They taint the Bitcoins with chainanalysis tools,if they can track bitfinex hack,that means they can make it..Thats the truth
 

Solution is marriage

use Grin>Bitcoin>Fiat. They cant taint the Bitcoin this way.
What if the Bitcoin I receive from Grin > Bitcoin are tainted as you say?  The 'tainting' strategy works similar to a Ponzi scheme: it works until it does not.  You can not taint addresses because it ultimately leads to all addresses having a tainted history.  The Bitcoin you hold may have been part of a drug deal before.  We probably all own a coin with tainted history.  If you want a Cryptocurrency that is truly fungible, it is Monero.  But you have to pay in Monero directly, if you do not want to spend possibly dirty coins.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG
legendary
Activity: 3024
Merit: 2148
No government can stop a Bitcoin transaction. They can only tell exchanges to not accept deposits from certain addresses, so the solution is to use mixing and use decentralized exchanges and p2p trading. It's bad that on practice you will want to exchange Bitcoin back to fiat, because it's hard to spend it directly, but Bitcoin is the only chance to avoid government control, everything else operates on KYC principle so accounts and funds can be instantly frozen.
member
Activity: 94
Merit: 10

Problem They taint the Bitcoins with chainanalysis tools,if they can track bitfinex hack,that means they can make it..Thats the truth
 

Solution is marriage

use Grin>Bitcoin>Fiat. They cant taint the Bitcoin this way.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 1873
Crypto Swap Exchange
Bitcoin is censorship resistant and transparent simultaneously even now.  It is censorship resistant if you make transactions peer to peer.  Once you get your coins transferred to a third party, they are no longer under your control and depending on who the third party is, even an authority may have access or the right to seize them.

It is why China's and India's theoretical crackdown on Bitcoin is impossible to truly accomplish.  An user experienced enough can avoid the ban without a doubt.

Bitcoin is as resistant in the face of authorities as drugs are.  They can prohibit their use, but they can not truly stop it once and for all.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
9 hours ago. the 'unknown multisig keyholders'
consolidated 14.679btc to this address:
bc1q42t9dhpgc6du9pjmdkvxvmke82fl34jadqaxtq

then 10 minutes later split it up into 101 addresses.. where
it moved
100 addresses of amounts of 0.004
            ~7 addresses of 0.004 were (since spent)
            93 addresses of amounts of 0.004(remain unspent at time of post)
14.279 remaining which which went to:
bc1qa04luw7uqfurrcu4qjsc8nvlg9eddu5ye4p447

it then 10 minutes later
bc1qa04luw7uqfurrcu4qjsc8nvlg9eddu5ye4p447
split up into 101 addresses.. where
1 address of 0.279
bc1qflmltfkkyjd07x6cjq7l62a3wc23z8nntav4zp
100 addresses of amounts of 0.14
where by
~7 of the 100 addresses of 0.14 and the ~7 of the previous splits of 0.004 in last paragraph consolidated into little groups
examples like:
3NNYf4XvBufLNrWMaA19V6pxG3WqSvP68K - 0.144
which appears to be coinbase deposit address

then half a dozen 0.144 - unspent(as time of posting)
bc1qjd9245dv0jzfqu0z9f2kxsltj5hjfzc3a7wwzc
bc1qmxpqdlfe4fmdge9yasxwt4ujuj288mnzwcp8rr
bc1qs63v2vznlx0fq9te2jq85ft0wrnx0hplluhmje
bc1qxagk2r5xzszz528e5l6dvmptca6c09pk6ckukq
bc1qjd9245dv0jzfqu0z9f2kxsltj5hjfzc3a7wwzc
bc1qfjns4tjz39leydh4urtlc8fx7z69mxumdmz9q7
bc1qqw8mvxncl7uhehfw97er93k4zchhkvd87swk97

leaving 13btc unspent in ~ in 93 addresses of 0.14 and 93 addresses of 0.004
hero member
Activity: 2702
Merit: 672
I don't request loans~
It's not like the Canadian government has gotten hold of the funds from the fundraising though. What the government did was something like block the most obvious path that the money could move, but it isn't necessarily the only path. There are a lot more methods the fundraisers could do to bring out the money and convert it to Canadian dollars, just that it's gonna take a bit more time and probably effort to do so. Plus, it was honestly expected that it'd receive some censorship if users were to actually use centralized exchanges to do their transactions, which is outside of what Bitcoin is. s
sr. member
Activity: 1274
Merit: 293
Bitcoin doesn't have the full authority on the Internet, there's governments and other managing organizations on the Internet so I don't think that your definition of censorship resistant is a bit different. Also, it's the CEX that don't want those bitcoins, they can still use DEX to sell the bitcoins and give it to the truckers.
full member
Activity: 616
Merit: 161
This is not a Bitcoin or a Crypto issue. BTC was not developed with the intention of transferring those funds to regulated banking systems, converting them into FIAT, or even withdrawing. So, if their crypto assets (the truckers) have not been sized, then this is more of an issue where people are trying to bend crypto to fit their needs in ways in which it was not intended in the first place. And that brings us to another issue, and that is can BTC and crypto stay censorship-resistant and at the same time gain mass adoption and acceptance from governments? I don't think it can. Those are some of the things that will have to give for it to become more widespread and not frowned upon by governments.
legendary
Activity: 2450
Merit: 4415
🔐BitcoinMessage.Tools🔑
the wallets associated with the fundraising have been tracked and banned from all regulated financial institutions (including banks and exchanges).
If I am not mistaken, the Canadian government banned bitcoin addresses (not wallets) that are associated with the fundraising in favor of those who so far have been peacefully protesting. They can't ban self-hosted bitcoin wallets because it would require seizing or destroying all the backups of seed phrases and private keys which are things with which you ensure control over a specific wallet. Since they haven't seized or destroyed anything, users, who were supposed to be affected by such a ban, can continue to use their wallets without any friction. The Canadian government can't ban specific bitcoin addresses either because users, who happen to have their addresses banned, can create as many additional addresses as they want because it costs nothing, and they can move banned coins to another address that is not yet banned. While it is costless to create another bitcoin address, the costs of enforcing such a ban, the costs of monitoring and updating a blacklist, and costs of other things that different platforms have to do to comply with regulations, are considerable and they can become an unbearable burden for taxpayers, which may result in social unrest and even more protests.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
I asked about this question in another thread on the subject. Not being able to spend the Bitcoin directly, but exchanging it in exchanges, I doubted if the government would not order them to freeze those accounts as well. I simply see that it will cost them more work, but they will be able to make use of the money eventually:

...in Canada. They don't have complete jurisdiction all over the world.

They're only banned from selling the coins on centralized platforms like Kraken and Coinbase, but they're still totally free to move the funds around. Heck, then can even still sell the funds in a peer-to-peer manner if they chose to.

As for the tracking, there's a reason why CoinJoins and mixers exist, and why developers are still trying to work on making Bitcoin more private.

Even if it takes time and work, at least with Bitcoin there are ways to escape the clutches of the state.
legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Bitcoin is "Censorship resistant" IF you only transfer bitcoins outside of third party Fiat linked services. These FIAT services are not part of the Bitcoin technology, but services that were created to strip anonymity and censorship resistance and to cash in on profits on top of this technology.

Exchanges and wallet providers are not part of the Bitcoin protocol, they simply receive bitcoins and they link those bitcoins to people that are identified within their own database. (that data is not on the Blockchain)

So, once you use those services, you opt out on the benefits and the protection that this technology provides for you.  Wink  
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
The way I understood is that there was a donation platform (similar to GoFundMe) and the donations were sent there so you can't really say the "truckers received bitcoin" because they didn't.

Besides the Canadian government didn't "ban" addresses, they banned "bank accounts" of those who sold bitcoin for fiat and the authoritarian government thought were linked to the protests.

'tallycoin' didnt manage a privkey. they are just a website where people type in a public address. a target to achieve. and a title for the campaign.

tallycoin just block 'explores' the public address and tally's the total transactions put into the address as a display on the website. without actually having to know the privkey.

the fundraisers (actual privkey owners) had the keys to ~20.6 btc upto valentines day. and they moved the coin to ~3dozen other keys presumed to now be owned by 'unknown people in a group of multisigs'

where these new 'unknown people' have the keys to move the coins split over 3dozen addresses.

..
as for the government.. much like publicising a FBI 'most wanted' watch list of terrorist suspects. the government also now has a bitcoin address suspect watch list. which all exchanges that are (regulated) money service businesses have to not only KYC their customers but also..  to watch any donations coming into those exchanges and if its one of these "watchlist" suspect taints, report details of what account is associated with such suspect deposit.

its then up to the report to describe events, also note value deposited, value already in account, trade history, ip, email and ofcourse the KYC ID. and send this report to the government. there is no government, not even in china, that spies on every account(they dont have the ability nor manpower to do so). they rely on regulated businesses reporting SUSPECT customers or be punished if found to have failed to report on something that should have been reported. not every account is sent to government. just suspect accounts

its then upto the government to read the suspect report and to decide what actions need to be taken. such as to order the exchange:
to freeze the account completely
not offer any service to the account user apart from withdrawal of same format currency via same method as deposit
restrict some services/features of the exchange
allow transactions/trade/exchange/withdrawal by other means to continue.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
The canadian truckers are unable to get a hold of the 21 bitcoin that have been donated to them recently
The real distinction is whether the donation went to the miners or did it go to some third party centralized fundraising platform that could be attacked by the government.
The way I understood is that there was a donation platform (similar to GoFundMe) and the donations were sent there so you can't really say the "truckers received bitcoin" because they didn't.

Besides the Canadian government didn't "ban" addresses, they banned "bank accounts" of those who sold bitcoin for fiat and the authoritarian government thought were linked to the protests.

Quote
1. Is bitcoin really censorship resistent if the government can track and ban addresses? Bitfinex hackers being tracked and caught is another example (though most people would argue that this is an example of "positive" censorship resistence, unlike the canadian truckers example).
2. Can bitcoin be both censorship resistent and transparent at the same time?
Bitcoin is censorship resistant and transparent at the same time and nobody can ban your address. They can put pressure on their own centralized places like a centralized exchange or their banks but they can't prevent you from spending bitcoin or others from receiving it.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
the fundraiders.. oops i mean fundraisers.. (now passed to 'unknown key holders' in a multisig) can still pass bitcoins direct to truckers who give the keyholders bitcoin addresses. . then the truckers can find their own methods of converting.

supposedly the fundrai?ers say '20% of funds will be put onto a hardware wallet for immediate needs' which translates to.. 'we wont hand out 80% of funds immediately'. yet even the 20% has not been distributed out immediately..

all of this stems not from the convoy itself. but mainly the original fundrai?ers had ties to political ideologies of wanting to separate from the french controlled eastern canada to want nationalisation by the british colonial western canada.

the original fundrai?ers know the identities of the new key holders. so government can court order the original fundrai?ers to disclose the new keyholder identities.. should the government decide to take that course of action

in short..
fundrai?ers and new key holders:
if you were at the convoy talking to truckers you must know how they want to get contacted/paid. as part of your job was to finance the truckers.
.. that was the whole point of your role!..SO PAY THEM. you should have already known how to communicate with the truckers already to get their payment method and/or bitcoin address. contact them now to get a bitcoin address.. to PAY THEM.. so no excuses. PAY THEM.

absolve your responsibilities of the funds by paying the the truckers. not hiding behind anonymity and excuses of inability to exchange. just pay the truckers, and be done with it

keyholders, you are only at risk of court orders to hand funds to government. if you continue to hold the funds. so pay the truckers. absolve yourself. then let the government run around trying to find all the truckers(if government should choose to).
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1860
Strictly speaking, can a government ban an address? No, I don't think so. What the government can do is to ban banks and regulated exchanges from getting involved with a certain address. Could they impose anything on an address? No, not at all. Their imposition could only affect the regulated entities. What if the address were to send Bitcoin to other destinations outside these highly regulated entities? Could it be done? Yes, of course. However, the condition is that the address is actually owned by the one who uses it. If it belongs to a custodial wallet or to a centralized crowdfunding platform like GiveSendGo, then it could be frozen or censored and the funds be stopped from going out or even seized. But that's not Bitcoin's fault.

As to question number 2, yes, I think so.
mk4
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 3873
Paldo.io 🤖
They're only banned from selling the coins on centralized platforms like Kraken and Coinbase, but they're still totally free to move the funds around. Heck, then can even still sell the funds in a peer-to-peer manner if they chose to.

As for the tracking, there's a reason why CoinJoins and mixers exist, and why developers are still trying to work on making Bitcoin more private.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
The canadian truckers are unable to get a hold of the 21 bitcoin that have been donated to them recently because the wallets associated with the fundraising have been tracked and banned from all regulated financial institutions (including banks and exchanges).

...in Canada. They don't have complete jurisdiction all over the world.
Edit:
Here is the news source before anybody asks:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/02/16/canada-sanctions-34-crypto-wallets-tied-to-trucker-freedom-convoy/

Bitcoin is censorship resistance, nobody can stop the transfer of Bitcoins, so if the crowdfunding platform would choose to donate bitcoins directly to the truckers no ban could ever stop this from happening. What FINTRAC can do in this situation is try to stop any exchange from BTC to CAD with coins coming from a backlist of addresses, and that's a thing bitcoin was never designed to bypass nor could it ever do.
But for that we have mixers.  Grin

1. Is bitcoin really censorship resistent if the government can track and ban addresses?

Banning bitcoin addresses is almsot as futile as banning spammers on this forum.
member
Activity: 159
Merit: 72
The canadian truckers are unable to get a hold of the 21 bitcoin that have been donated to them recently because the wallets associated with the fundraising have been tracked and banned from all regulated financial institutions (including banks and exchanges). Two questions for discussion:
1. Is bitcoin really censorship resistent if the government can track and ban addresses? Bitfinex hackers being tracked and caught is another example (though most people would argue that this is an example of "positive" censorship resistence, unlike the canadian truckers example).
2. Can bitcoin be both censorship resistent and transparent at the same time?
Jump to: