Topic: Risk of jail for developers. Should you be anonymous? - page 2. (Read 1564 times)

Very true that is.

I highly appreciate your belief and unwavering confidence in Bitcoin which is definitely an outstanding digital asset with potential to outclass all trade able assets in coming months and years. I trust Bitcoin has already entered in Bullish zone when it broke 200 DMA and upcoming halving event scheduled in 2024 will definitely take it to new highs and hopefully we can see it above 100,000.

You are not really describing what you are wanting to say very well hexan123.  

Of course, it is already becoming quite difficult for any normies to really accumulate at least one bitcoin without any decently large commitment towards either accumulating over time or being able to reallocate some other investments or cash that such normies might have available... and also when we are referring to smaller levels of items we might have to start to refer to sats or fractions of BTC... just to clarify.. and it is even becoming a bit more cumbersome to consider that anyone might be spending whole BTC at a time, even though on the settlement level or just the holding and moving value around, it still seems reasonable to talk in terms of BTC, but even then, we might be better served to refer to sats or to be more particular regarding how many times we are going to be getting into fractions of a BTC rather than one whole BTC when we refer to some things that we might buy... so a truck load of potatoes might be one BTC, and surely several ounces or even kilograms of gold might considered as one BTC, so it would not be likely one gold coin would be one BTC, unless there were some collector's angle or valuation to such coin or we might say that this bucket of gold coins is currently worth one BTC.

By the way, personally, I don't really have any problem or issue in terms of saying that "I transacted in bitcoin" and thereby using the singular of the reference, even if there might be some vagueness as to the quantity of bitcoin that I transacted being greater than 1 bitcoin or less than one bitcoin, so in that regard, there sometimes can be some references to transacting in bitcoin that might actually refer to either several bitcoin or to fractions of a bitcoin.

I don't really give too many shits about ethereum or whether it might have staying power or not, since there are a lot of weak points in terms of its ability to defend itself; however, I suppose if ethereum continues to exist in bitcoin's shadows, then we likely are going to be able to see various ways in which systems are being built around it and being built around bitcoin too.. and perhaps even inter-related.. and there could be some senses that if ethereum is crashing more and controlled more, then there could be worries then the focus of enemies of bitcoin would be to come after bitcoin in the various ways in which people can be targets.

So, yeah 2025 is not really that far from now, and the extent to which BTC's price is going to continue to appreciate is not exactly guaranteed, even though we continue to witness a lot of vulnerabilities in traditional systems, their reliance on debt and the lack of clarity regarding various aspects in which there might be collateral to back up the various kinds of debt that can be vulnerable to falling and towards cascading.

I do have doubts about whether banks will disappear, even though they are likely going to continue to be challenged and likely have to change in a variety of ways that may well cause them to need to back themselves with sounder forms of money and sounder collateral.. and bitcoin seems to be the best of collateral... in respect to considering how some of these systems might evolve in the coming years, and the theme of this thread that involves how much activists (or developers) might be targeted in regards to their work on some of these various kinds of products, especially if there are ambiguities in regards to how much hostility that government officials have - including their likely ongoing desires to protect status quo institutions, such as banks.. and some banks are more hostile towards bitcoin and various crypto than others, and surely it seems that the evidence seems to be showing increased hostilities in recent times, including that even within the banking system, there seems to be more hostility towards banks that are touching upon bitcoin and crypto - which is not really a new development, except that there is ongoing growth and attempts at stamping out or directing that growth at the same time.

>>after 2025 BTC , ETH and so on will be worth real 0.


if you give me one potato for my one bitcoin my bitcoin will by worth one potato
if you give me one gold coin for my one bitcoin my bitcoin will by worth one gold coin

fuck bank

But is this really surprising to any of us?  Would it surprise you if you heard they were on the Government's list?  After all, I think we are as well.  All of us for using Bitcoin and trying to pave a different path.  We are just very low on their list of priorities for now and they can do really nothing about it without making it seem like they do not care about freedoms.

Is it wrong to partially see the risks of being a Bitcoin developer somewhere near the risks of being a hacker and exposing Governments and their wrongdoings?  I see them pretty close.  As a Bitcoin developer, you are helping the world choose an alternative to dirty Fiat.  Of course some countries will come with a backlash for them.  In their eyes, you are not helping the world.  You are trying to destroy their power!

But listen, when Bitcoin developers will be in jail.  And Monero will be banned.  And Mixer users will be particularly investigated for crime.  And they will make Bitcoin usage illegal unless the Government implements a layer of KYC over Bitcoin and requests owners of every single Address to report to the Government.  When all of this happens.  There will be more freedom in jail than in the 'free world'.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Reading this thread is not without fun.
Most crypto holders are outside of the so called 1st world. In the 3rd world, or the developping world to open a bank account is not easy. Even to open a company is harder than in the 1st World.

It is outside of the 1st world where its decided if Crypto has a chance or not.

What a nice batch, a suspected Spammer

I wouldn't be surprised if they did, in fact they already did it before with tornado cash developer Alexey Pertsev.
While it's unlikely that they would waste resrourses on small fish, but any dev working on similar projects is at risk, it all depends on the outcome of Pertsev case, and how it's going to shape the road forward.

That's about priorities and you are right. At this point their priority is more about services and either shutting them down (like shutting down mixers) or applying maximum surveillance on that service (like payment processor, custodial wallets and exchanges).
But that doesn't change that fact that developers are also on the governments' list...

Doesnt matter, we should be developing privacy tech to make their efforts futile.

Does anyone really think the governments will be interested in going after random crypto developers now that fresh juicy mixers are on the table?

I think that governments have one common problem, there aren't smart people there. Every successful company, every successful invention, etc was always done by non-government individuals after the end of war. Before and during the war, governments had great scientists.
So, to clarify, governments don't have talented individuals that will create something competitive of bitcoin or altcoins. Also, people in government aren't that smart to solve their, let's call it, problems, in a smart way.
So, people have advantage here, government only has power and authority. So, as a result, power and stupid people can't have an advantage here, that's why CBDCs are a failure.

Government is using all means to fight and bring down cryptocurrency but they are losing the fight day and night. CBDC can not withstand with bitcoin in the test of time. Many countries have already abandoned they CBDC because natives / Citizens are not using to do any transactions. So in many countries they are failed project. And also the developers also need be improved.
The only way CBDC can do well is when it links with cryptocurrency Ecosystem for free transaction like exchange platforms then people might use them to transact funds daily. If not it will becomes a doom project.

The point is no one is forcing anyone to do something if they don't have the stomach, or the heart, for it. The other point is if someone decides to do it, be a developer for privacy-enhancing technology or a censorship-resistant application that utilizes public key cryptography, then they do not need to be doxxed if they are fearful for their own lives, and their loved ones' lives. Anonymity doesn't necessarily follow fraudulent behavior. Satoshi was judged for is work in Bitcoin, yet he remained anonymous. Doxxed shitcoin developers stole from their own communties, yet they had their identity public.

Plus if you truly believe I'm wrong, and that everyone should be fearful of the State Attackers, then who will take over to be the rightful stewards of Bitcoin Core, to continue its legacy, and to keep maintaining/upgrading it to be a multi-generational protocol?

I have my doubts regarding if you are really even attempting to grapple with the issue that is presented Wind_FURY.. in terms of the extent to which any one person might end up standing up and become a target of controversy and therefore sometimes situations devolved into real battles with real world consequences in terms of livelihood, employability, de-platforming and/or various ways that someone might consider himself/herself to be doing normal work that is actually within the realm of controversy and consequences, and there are all kinds of areas in life in which anyone can end up becoming a threat to the status quo or a threat to a side that has resources sufficient enough to cause difficulties for the one who spoke up or who got involved in certain kinds of work that are "deemed to be threats" to the status quo or even threats to some other project or world view.

Choices are made along the way, and sometimes a person can find himself/herself in a position/situation in which s/he becomes a target... For sure, there are folks who might never stand up and never become controversial and perhaps even continuously choose mentors who are in "powerful" positions, and if the mentor becomes a subject of controversy, some of these folks will just find new mentors, and surely there are choices in life, and sometimes folks do not necessarily realize that they are making choices that are to "take the easy way" and perhaps never really having as much conflict in their lives, because they avoid conflict.  I would not even suggest necessarily that such choices to always avoid conflict are bad ones because they are somewhat in the discretion of individuals regarding how much conflict are they ready, willing or able to tolerate, and do they actually believe in anything besides just getting along.. and likely there can be principle in those kinds of choices of non-choices too, and even questions regarding the extent to whch some folks who might have purposefully lived a sheltered life might have a bit of difficulties if they are put into another environment or they might have difficulties understanding or relating to other perspectives in which someone might end up being a target because s/he spoke up too much... if you are always agreeing with the boss, maybe the boss likes that, or maybe the boss might end up firing folks who are too agreeable.. Where is the balance?  How much can we tolerate someone who rocks the boat?  And is that "rocking" necessary?

I totally agree with you on this. As the Op asked should we remain anonymous or not. than the real question should be like, is it possible to remain anonymous. Because "anonymity" is term that governments and organizations do not like if ordinary peoples are using it. Well yours point are so legit. because new things take time and i think that 1/3 of that time has gone. There are numerous developers of blockchain base projects enjoying there lives. i do not understand what's harm in there for developer. because it is not necessary for CEO of a platform to be developer if yes than developers could sign an agreement with the team leader that if things go south then i am out of this and i need your sign on this agreement. hahah i know in order to accomplish this, developers have to be worthy enough to gain leaders or his/her employer. well that will no doubt increase the quality of platform's coding. 

Your post reminded me of someone's post well let me mention it here: post is in URDU so i will interpret it in English in short.

A government officer is accused of taking bribe in crypto and an investigation is started by FIA. well crypto is ban and no fix punishment is declared for user of crypto, in Pakistan. so the gov officer did not mention in the statement of property that he own 30,000$ of crypto in his wallets. Well the investigation team after taking 15 Lac PKR bribe from that accused person, freed him, well the turning point in the story is during the investigation they (FIA team) withdrawal all the 30k$ worth crypto from his wallets. And when the accused officer asked the FIA about his money than they simply replied. You said you have only the mentioned property in statement then how can you demand us the money that you do not own. hahaha. well these are the scenarios are going on here. 

In result, no doubt if there is good use of crypto there than bad use is also there. the results depend on the uses.

It's a choice, and it doesn't have to be a war that has to be doxxed to be fought. Cryptography-based, censorship-resistant and privacy-enhancing tools were invented to empower anyone, and to leverage anonymity to make the war more on equal ground. Developers don't have the arms nor the armies to protect themselves, just their anonymity and privacy. It's those tools/technologies that could bring forth the path to real social change, and to weaken political strongholds.

Well, it's a war and maybe those who don't have the stomach for it shouldn't participate.

Bitcoin's very existence where it gives the option to the average Joe to stop using the corrupt banking system is a threat to the corrupted entities. Everyone should know that they won't just stand around and watch. Sometimes it is just propaganda and FUD, sometimes it is legal battle, and sometimes it is outright banning. On top of that we also have the abusers, trolls, criminals, scammers, etc. who would stop at nothing to do damage.

That doesn't mean we should stay silent either or discourage others from joining in the battles. Sometimes people forget the Bitcoin ethos and need to be reminded of them. They need to be reminded that bitcoin isn't just something you buy to make profit...

Sounds to me as if you (Greg) are trying to talk normies (and perhaps others) out of getting involved in bitcoin developing ..

Each of us likely have different callings in life, and surely sometimes, we might go down a path in which we are involved in one area in which we develop some specialties and skills, and frequently there will be career path changes in the lives of many people too.. and some people might not achieve real high levels of specialization due to changes in their paths in their lives (or maybe how high that they might rise within their specialty areas.. whether talking about software, technical or other kinds of skills/knowledge and or abilities that they might develop - and surely some skills/knowledge and abilities are more useful than others, depending on whether we are on a farm or if we are in software development or if we might be considered part of the "parasite" financial class. .I am not claiming to be a parasite.. hahahahaha)..  ..

Since I had already a full career, I am not likely to learn very much about coding, even though through the years and through osmosis, I have learned about some of the trials and tribulations of bitcoin coders and some of the difficulties in funding and/or political battles or other forms of harassing that might come through any kind of disruption of the status quo information/value paradigms  (there are ways that we are at war, so war has casualties, too, no?), so in some ways, I have considered some ways in which I could help to fund some developers.. or even to fund some of the legal defense matters that might come up from time to time, so it is not like I am convinced about "not getting involved" even though sometimes, there can be a difference between talk and action, and also different ways that normies might be able to contribute towards bitcoin even if they might not be able to code (or feel that they can learn), even though you are likely referring to some of the more hands on aspects ways that normies might get involved in bitcoin such as writing/reviewing code and/or getting involved in the discussions regarding code direction preferences that might be battled (cost and benefits of different code implications that have potential political ramifications too.. or that some no coiners, pre-coiners, bitcoin naysayers, shitcoiners consider the bitcoin proponents as a legitimate targets (maybe Vitalik came up the denegration term of bitcoin maximalist because he was thinking about Greg Maxwell.. hahahahaha?), and so targeting can surely come through a variety of kinds of pressures and oppressions, and surely some of the legal threats (abuse of patents and legal systems and lawsuits) are likely not very fair to normies and to people who might not have a lot of financial (or even time/energy) resources to deploy in order to participate.. and surely there have likely been some attempts to help developers through some legal fund initiatives (and surely maybe that is not close to enough resources that are spent or specifically deployable to help normie developers, as you seem to be suggesting.. because I do surely understand about various ways that rich people - and or those with access to resources (including governments and quasi-government entities - and I am not anti-government) are able to use legal instruments to cause injustices by punishing normal people in terms of causing legal costs on them (which takes a lot of time, energy and financial resources to defend.. including potentially zapping mental and creative juices too).

But trust and respect doesn't, or shouldn't, come if a developer/coder is doxxed or not. It should come from the work he/she has showed and done. Because Satoshi could be the Drug Dealer Paul Le Roux, but it will not matter because of his anonymity. Who the community truly respects is the man who dedicated his time in building Bitcoin.


I believe just let each developer do what he/she wants to do. Satoshi did it best. He probably pretended to be an Englishman, logging in the forum not in his real time zone, building Bitcoin in Windows because he was probably a Unix/Linux user, and changing his coding style.


Although, a respected developer like you needs to protect your family too, especially from the State. It's too much risk in my opinion.


That's why we in the community have the utmost respect for you and the Core Developers, and consider you and them, the rightful stewards of the network. Thank you ser.

Being anonymous doesn't eliminate the risk of being targeted, at best it might reduce it but the protection is fragile.  At worst being anonymous denies you access to a multitude of protections including the trust and respect of friends and the sympathy of the public.  In some countries it may even meaningfully deny you to the protection of due process.

Unless you carefully throw something over the wall and vanish it's essentially impossible to remain strongly anonymous:  Everything you write leaks information about your identity.  With the world population being less than 8 billion people, just 33 bits is technically enough to identify a person.  If you suppose attackers that have the power to seize and search your home at gunpoint then they don't even have to be particularly sure who you are-- they just need to reduce the list of candidates to one small enough they can search without too much trouble, and protecting your anonymity against an attacker that has physical possession of your computers is probably not possible.

Instead, I think sane people just shouldn't participate:  There is very little incentive to do so. Forget state attackers: you'll be aggressively attacked by the mentally ill, by crapcoin scammers and their bagholders who view you as an impediment to their dreams of riches and no one will stop them, you'll be exploited by "journalists" that would think nothing of ruining your life with some falsehoods just to gain a few pieces of click-stream silver.  The community as a whole will do little to protect you, mostly just pat itself on the back saying honey badger don't care and developers were a liability anyways.

As I've learned first hand the vulnerability created by participating isn't eliminated completely by stopping.  You can't change your mind later and go "gee, I don't really want to spend the few years I have left fending off scammers"-- once you've given someone a hook to go after you you're just stuck with it.  Especially in the modern world, saturated by fractal bureaucracy-- the best way to stay safe is to be invisible to those who would do you harm: Institutions won't protect you and don't permit you to protect yourself against attacks with adequate force.  The public is too mired in the drama of the week, whatever nonsense fake crisis the applicable media is shoving down their throat, to stand up and protect their own.  And being masked isn't invisible, it may well increase your visibility.

People like to imagine specific attacks that will draw an overwhelming defense, visions of Bitcoiners protesting the state house or whatever.  But attackers aren't limited to behaving 'honestly', they're not limited to attacking in ways they are sure to lose-- no, they'll attack in ways that won't draw a response if any exist and clearly such avenues do exist.

Ultimately, if it was too risky to participate relative to the rewards under your well known identity then you should reach almost the same conclusion assuming anonymity.

Bitcoin's prior lead developer has ended his involvement, specifically saying that he regretted ever participating because he's been awarded a pile of abuse including multiple lawsuits as a result.  That should be a thermonuclear wake up call, but few seem to hear it over inane debate about jpegs.