Topic: Wikileaks contact info? - page 5. (Read 47006 times)

Exactly.  I feel the same way.  Survival of the fittest.  If bitcoin has some fundamental flaw, it will not be able to survive a government attack.  Then it is better to weed it out now, so we aren't wasting our time promoting something that will not work, and can instead devote our resources and time to other efforts that hopefully will work and to other currencies to build up the alternative economy.  


I have spent many hours reading through the bitcoin forums about its robustness and resiliency to attacks...asking so many questions "What if the government does X?", and I have come to the conclusion that basically, bitcoin can't be shut down absent shutting down the internet.  But the government wouldn't likely not shut down the internet, since they depend on tax revenue for their operations.  If bitcoin has some flaw, then we need to resolve it now.

Your stand could impact my money, and everyone else's.  Don't pretend your actions could impact only you.

What would go down the drain?  Really, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill and if you want to stay anonymous I'm not necessarily stopping you from doing that either.  Some are willing to stand up and others want to hide in the background.  I choose to stand in front if that is necessary.  Many are participating on this project using a pseudonym, and if they are very paranoid through a Proxy IP address and using https for communications to this forum and perhaps taking other precautions.  I am not, because I'm not afraid.  I'm not necessarily against anonymity and even would encourage it for those who find it necessary for whatever reason they have.

In short, I don't wish to impose this risk upon others but I am willing to take this risk for myself.

I also fail to see how this would marginalize Bitcoin as a software project either.  The best thing, from a political perspective, would be to completely ignore that Bitcoin even exists at all.  If that is marginalizing Bitcion, how is that different from what is going on right now?

I suppose the hope here is that Bitcoin will be used by a bunch of people first (it already is) and that perhaps Bitcoin can be known for doing other things than financing Wikileaks.  I am not encouraging that the main page of bitcoin.org have a huge banner across the top "the official fundraising method for Wikileaks".  We don't have to tie ourselves that closely, and anybody who checks out Bitcoin will discover what it is.... an alternative to PayPal and other on-line financial transaction systems with perhaps some other interesting benefits as well.  Is that necessarily a bad thing?  Is there anything new that hasn't been said repeatedly elsewhere?  If you were trying to stay off people's radar, publicity should be avoided altogether.

This is also about doing what is right, and this is the right thing to do.  I get the arguments advocating caution, but sometimes you also have to take a stand on an issue too.  There is a down side, and talking about concerns over that perhaps is useful.


I agree, success is not guaranteed.  Sometimes you have to take some risks and sometimes do so with imperfect knowledge.  It is a golden opportunity right now for the Bitcoin community, however, to encourage Wikileaks to accept Bitcoin donations and I personally don't think the extra publicity that we may or may not get from having a link on the Wikileaks website would necessarily be a bad thing.  There isn't even any sort of guarantee that Wikileaks will even take Bitcoins if they are being offered.

But seriously, what are the downsides anyway?  Do you really think the "Men in Black" are going to shut down Bitcoin?  Really?  If Bitcoin is that fragile and vulnerable to attack, what are we doing anyway and why is it so consistently being defended?

Success is not guaranteed; access risk; act wisely; remember knowledge gaps.

It's funny to see a miniarchist libertarian say "Bring it on" when anarchists like me are advising cautions.

It look like I am right, people throw cautions to the wind.

Thanks for being willing to helpfully impose risk upon others.  For people who are just starting to build businesses on bitcoin, this could be devastating to their new business.

And it could permanently marginalize bitcoin, keeping it out of the mainstream for good.  Is that really the end result the bitcoin community most desires?

Some of us are working hard to build tools and programs that encourage businesses to invest their time, money and energy into bitcoin.  It would be very sad to see all that go down the drain.

There's alway a leader of some kind. It might be a person with a high reputation.

Amen, RHorning!  As The Voluntaryists argue, Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power.  If the U.S. government wants to tip their hand to expose themselves in that way, so be it.  Without an aura of moral legitimacy, they will be seen as the gang that they truly are.

Interestingly, it turns out there is some Wikileaks infighting, probably upset at Assange's leadership:


So maybe a leaderless organization is the better direction for WikiLeaks to go?  Opinions?

This is so true.  There certainly wouldn't be a shortage of "reliable sources" about Bitcoins at that point.  I think it would likely show up on the front page of most newspapers and be talked about extensively on both radio talk shows and the other broadcast networks too.

For myself, I'm getting to the point to say "bring it on" in regards to Wikileaks.  Note that I'm using my real name here instead of a psuedonym and I'm willing to personally say "bring it on" in terms of being associated with Bitcoins as a project.  I've had police come into my house without my permission already and do all kind of stupid stuff, so for me that line being crossed has already happened.  I am also connected to enough people politically that if something was to happen to me that it would be noted and things would happen too.

It is the morally correct thing to be supporting Wikileaks, and if they'll take a few of my bitcoins, I not only want to donate but to let the world know that they can donate to Wikileaks through Bitcoins as well.

I can't speak for everybody here in the Bitcoins community but I am speaking for myself on this matter, and I'm not afraid of anything that the U.S. government might do to me if I was associated with backing Wikileaks financially.  If anything, it would show that I no longer live under a constitutional government any more.  If the U.S. government wants to tip their hand to expose themselves in that way, so be it.  If the U.S. government kills me or puts me in jail, I'll certainly set a way for this community to find out.  I really don't think it would come to that either, but I don't care if it did.

If I have to "vote" on this matter, I would encourage the Bitcoin community to take up the plate like we did with the EFF and encourage Wikileaks to put up a Bitcoin address on their website for donations.  It would bring in some new blood into the Bitcoin community regardless, and it might be beneficial to Wikileaks as well.  Leave it to Wikileaks to see if they want to use Bitcoins or not.  In terms of governmental review of Bitcoins, we know that is going to happen sooner or later, so why are we fighting that inevitable result?  Anything other than a low-key investigation is only going to make more people interested in Bitcoins, which is only going to help the project even more.  It can't be killed as a project, only slowed down a little bit in its growth at this point and more likely its adoption would be accelerated by any kind of publicity that would happen.

The only possible concern I would have is over how sound the protocol itself is right now.  If anything, a major flux of new people into Bitcoins would help there too, and the worst that could happen is that Bitcoins itself would be broken in some way where a new cryptocurrency would have to be created fixing the problems of Bitcoins.  It is the idea of cryptocurrency that would then persist, and it is incredibly hard to censor an idea.

Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.

-- Robert S. Horning
Logan, Utah

True, but according to the PayPal blog, it wasn't closed.  It was restricted.  It cannot receive donations, but it doesn't say anywhere it was closed, shut down or confiscated.
Wikileaks have not stolen any secrets or signed any confidentiality agreements.  They are just printing documents given to them by other people.  The people who gave the secret documents to Wikileaks were probably doing something illegal.  Not Wikileaks, or the newspapers which printed the leaked documents before they were available from Wikileaks.  So, why aren't the editors of the newspapers arrested, threatened to be murdered, getting their servers and DNS shut down., accounts closed, etc?  Because what they are doing is perfectly legal, and so is Wikileaks.  Just unpopular among some who believes the press should write what the government tells them to write.

Looking on the bright side, if Bitcoin did get known as the Wikileaks currency, attacked by governments all over the world, at least we'd get our Wikipedia page back!

I meant to write: "Fortunately, Wikileaks is a distributed organization, so it doesn't matter if they take out the current "leader", Assange."

Security is not made by invading foreign nation and inadvertently increasing heroin production in the process, inadvertently killing more Americans through heroin overdose...

Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.

Wikileaks are not the people that leaked the information though. They are simply a press organization that likes transparency and does not take sides with any government or big corporation. They got sent the information and they do what any media would do, they publish. Which is, in my opinion, very refreshing and good for democracy.

Ignore all the fuss about traitors, terrorists, and other distorting comments. Those people don't understand it, don't repeat them.

This is not true.  When PayPal shuts down your account, they TAKE and KEEP all of the money in it.   There is no refund.   Never.   Never.    Their email tells you that "there is no process to appeal".   PayPay is owned by eBay.   ....and the "e" in eBay stands for "evil".   Google "PayPay" it if you don't believe me.

Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.

It wasn't exactly frozen.  It was restricted, and Wikileaks can't take donations directly via PayPal anymore.  Hardly a problem, since several other organizations take donations to Wikileaks.  No funds are confiscated in any country or bank, as far as public information goes anyway.  None of the newspapers publishing the leaks in full have gotten their bank accounts frozen either.  Their operation is perfectly legal in every country with free speech.  This is nothing but a publicity stunt for PayPal, and it would be a better publicity stunt for the Bitcoin community to to the opposite.

-1.  I think you are overreacting.

Problem is...  It would attract 9 world governments, along with their Intelligence Services (thier CIA's), trying to shut down Bitcoin.... for every one new crypto coder supporter.

Let's achieve this result through POSITIVE publicity....    not NEGATIVE publicity.

Do we want Bitcoin to be known forever in slang as, "Wilileaks Money"?    No.

Let's get Whole Foods, and McDonalds, and Startbucks, and Cocacola vending machines....  to accept Bitcoin.

In fact, the BEST POSITIVE publicity is not even businesses....  It is famous charities!

Red Cross, UNICEF, United Way, etc.    Would you rather Bitcoin be known as "wikileaks money"....   or "the money large charites use for donations"....?

Think of all these ideas from a PR perspective.   Bitcoin needs SUPPORTERS.    It needs to make no enemies....  not yet.   It's too weak to take on enemies right now.

I suspect the first targets if Bitcoin got associated with Wikileaks would not be miners or participants, but the money changers. People buying and selling Bitcoins for dollars and other currencies would be natural targets for shutting down. Without them, Bitcoin is back to being play money.

Yes, there are arguments for not pushing bitcoins as a solution for orgs such as wikileaks.

On the other hand, the same crowd that is attracted to sites such as wikileaks will be attracted to a distributed currency, it would also be a way to gain popularity, coders, crypto people auditing the protocol, and so on. That way, the project can grow.

Everything is a compromise...

By the way, the greatest benefit Bitcoin could give to Wikileaks...  MIGHT be in them using Bitcoin PRIVATELY.... not PUBLICLY.

They could ( / can / will / are / ? ) use Bitcoin to transmit their funds easily across all borders, exchange them into all currencies as needed, and even Back Them Up electronically (as long as their wallet.dat file is encrypted too).   There's no need for them to advertise publicly that they are using Bitcoin.... for them to benefit from all the advantages of using Bitcoin privately/secretly/anonymously.

It would be Much Better for Everyone Involved if they do NOT express their support for Bitcoin publicly...  and they just go about using it very privately.    (And who's to say that they aren't already...?)