Topic: Risk of jail for developers. Should you be anonymous? - page 3. (Read 2132 times)

The legal standpoint is quiete clear. Ignorance won't protect you.
Meaning you develop an app which can be used to hack a computer well its clear.
While you develop an app which is based on trust, like a wallet, non custodial and the app is used in crime you are not to blame.

This will be the main point to decide if there will be possible jail for a developer or not. In general law systems will try to find out what a person was trying to do with his actions. If the action of a person intended something harmful he can end up possibly in jail, if a person intended good stuff he will not end up in jail.
Let me make an example for that: If you are a knife manufacturer that produces kitchen knifes then you will not end up in jail if your knife will be used in a murder. If you however make a torture device that is only produced to be given to a murderer and he than uses it, you will also have the chance to get into jail.
With bitcoin we do not produce such a harmful device, we produce a "kitchen knife" that has all sorts of uses.
This is at least my view on the current situation. If a government wants to take aggressive steps agains bitcoin, they could always fake some stuff to get you to jail, but that can be done for every other thing also.

This is an interesting conversation you guys have and there came something to my mind that I consider important and should be in favor of developers, at least in countries with a reasonable rule of law acceptance.

Yesterday I watched a talk show and there was an expert from the Chaos Computer Club who said that AI is going to be so tremendously dangerous for society because the bad part about it is that in its final stadium you can create everything with AI, but you can't develop AI that detects AI. I found that sentence interesting for many reasons, but to not get off-topic here, the following seems to be relevant to me:
If a developer in the cryptocurrency space could be prosecuted by the government for writing code that allows people to transfer numbers over the Internet, what happens to developers of AI codes that allow you already to create the wildest deepfake? The developers will argue that they developed the code only for those who intend to do good with it. But on top of that, what about the users who use it to create a video I just linked here (Jordan Peterson talking about German politics, which he never did), and the users say that it was meant to be funny, not harmful? Where will governments draw the line? What is a funny meme and what is disinformation based on AI abuse?

In countries with a highly accepted rule of law, developers are pretty safe in my opinion for as long as they only write code for cryptocurrencies. They could defend themselves and claim that AI developers are at least as dangerous as they create tools for disinformation.

The same counts for instructions for weapons from 3D printers. What if someone publishes an instruction that does create a weapon that can NOT shoot, but anyone with some expertise knows how to extend the instruction in order to make that weapon shoot? Is the written code for the 3D printer to print that weapon illegal?

All these aspects are important as courts can't arbitrarily decide what is legal and what is not. They would have to draw very clear lines in order to not violate the rule of law. And all these examples have gigantic slippery slope potential where I don't see how governments could create a framework such that a developer could effectively be prosecuted for writing code.

When someone writes code and says "this is only meant to sent crypto-kitties from A to B and B to A" and the code is used to transfer value because people value what is transferred with the code, how on earth could that developer end up in jail in a country with a strong rule of law acceptance?

I don't see that coming unless the developer himself is involved in shady actions with his own code and that could be more of a problem where authorities seek for reasons that are secondary to writing the code itself.

Hopefully they are not so dumb as to fuck around with shitcoins (crypto).

Figure out bitcoin first, and then if they might see some utility in the various shitcoins, then so be it, but the primary idea for "enemies" should be bitcoin rather than shitcoins.... unless you are purposefully trying to reck (sabotage) enemies by luring them into bullshit fake products that fail to empower them in terms of being censorship resistant in terms of the value of their holdings or the various ways that they might store it or transact in it (though of course, bitcoin does not seem to have transaction channels for all avenues built out.. but some of that likely just has to do with adoption, too)...

Don't get me wrong.. I am not trying to support "enemies" by providing "good" (or "better") advice that applies to all equally, both friends and enemies should be figuring out their bitcoin allocations first, prior to getting into shitcoins.. sure it is going to likely take a while and sure if bitcoin is being used by "bad" people, then there will be attempts to demonize it, but bitcoin gives no fucks about whether anyone is good or bad, but instead are the rules of bitcoin being followed in terms of verifying that the transaction has been sent or received.. and surely every ten minutes the status and locations of such coins/keys are verified.

Actually, I have been coming around to the fact that there might be some use cases for some shitcoins in terms of sometimes having alternative channels, and surely many of the longer term bitcoiners likely realize that it could take 100 to 200 years for most of the value to flow into bitcoin, and there are also likely going to be various systems built around bitcoin, and so we cannot really know if there are going to be other tokens in the long term, even though in the short to medium term there are all kinds of tokens that might serve some useful purposes especially when some of the systems in bitcoin are likely not even completely well built in terms of even figuring out on and off ramps or the ability to get liquidity between one kind of an asset and another kind of an asset.

The Taliban don't need Crypto, as long as crypto does not appear in the Corran people should be OK. The Afghanies should embrace crypto. I'm pretty sure there are mining farms in Afghanistan. And a few thousand people have wallets. I've seen a map of the world and it shows clearly that most users are from the developing world. Around 400 million Users worldwide, 300 m from the developing world.

I do agree with this part.

Considering where I'm in right now for example, you can't just make a phone call to a company formation service to open a company.

Well, actually, you can, but the process is much longer and more annoying due to rampant bureaucracy slowing all the necessary paperwork down, creating long queues of people.

---

Basically, if you do not have your passport or ID card to do any of those things then you are screwed. And think about what happens to countries that go through unstable regime change all the time, have no functional banking system, and so on. (like for example, Afghanistan! Hell, this is exactly the kind of place that should be using BTC as a safe haven currency, but the Taliban are not exactly interested in that.)

---

Edit: To the newbie below, we really don't need to involve ChatGPT in this discussion... thanks.

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?