Bitcoin Forum

This is someone's journey in the cryptospace, what she has learned and what it must be. It is very easy to be lost from the way because the many of us want compliance and submit to the government and get rich quick.

This article is a reminder and lesson on what the cryptospace should be for all of us.

https://i.ibb.co/y6JN046/BC27-A84-A-3-D3-C-498-C-B765-F147-B0-F8-B698.jpg

By suppressing its crypto-anarchist roots and whitewashing its aims to appeal to bankers, crypto has cut itself off from its source of power.

Maybe it was my state of mind, but it felt like the dissonance between cryptocurrency’s stated aims and its material reality was reaching a fever pitch. The general effort toward compliance was not only enabling certain forms of oppression but at times actively supporting it.

At that moment, I decided that anonymity is where all philosophy of technology collides. In technical terms, it is synonymous with freedom. Practically, it can mean life or death.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lost-way-subversive-roots

If you don't like Bitcoin Core,then use Bitcoin cash or any altcoin.
If you want an anonymous cryptocurrency,then use Monero.
Bitcoin can't get adopted globally by companies,banks,hedge funds and small businesses,while trying to be as anonymous as possible.
If crypto stays truly "anarchist",then only the scammers and criminals will use it on the darkweb.
You can't have global adoption and full anonymity at the same time.
Most crypto supporters want the global adoption and they are willing to sacrifice a part of their online privacy.
The crypto world is pretty democratic.The majority decides about the future of crypto.

bitcoin core is a bitcoin client while bitcoin cash is an altcoin. it is like saying if you don't like this food wear another pants. ;)

i disagree. anonymity and global adoption are not in contrast. it is just bitcoin's design that doesn't provide 100% anonymity by default. otherwise if it were designed in some other way with some interesting ideas it could have been anonymous by default too.

that means these people either don't understand what they are giving up or they don't care about their privacy at all.

@davis196. However, we should reflect on what the cryptospace should be for us all, be that as it may. Are we only here to support its compliance and submission to the authority of the governments and the banks so we can get rich quick?

I am also sometimes guilty of this, I admit.

Firstly, your post is quite complicated op, but I understood what you were trying to convey after reading it twice along with the replies above. You are concerned about the anonymity aspect related to BTC, but this is nothing new.

Majority of the crypto investors primarily view BTC as an asset which is why 100% anonymity is not a big deal to them. The minority of the investors view BTC as a payment method in comparison.

Even if this comparison gets reversed in the future, we cannot utilize BTC in a fully anonymous manner unless we use mixers etc to enhance anonymity.

The Idea and Technology behind Bitcoin were one of the greatest gifts to Mankind in this Era of our development. It also brought with it the best and worst that human nature has to offer but it is here to stay nonetheless. I think now of course Bitcoin is being manipulated by the Big Boys and we small fish just have to go along with the Party line for now. I am grateful to have lived through this experience in my lifetime, even the good and the bad..and hope that the LITTLE MAN will still have something to gain from the LEGACY that Bitcoin has brought to the global financial System. There is still a chance small people can benefit from it directly by owning it and indirectly through it's technological breakthrough.

I unfortunately don't have much time to read the entire article but it certainly looks like it deserves a good read. I have taken a very quick look over the article and here's what I have to say:

I feel like Bitcoin has lost its way as well. We've gone from the desire of freedom to the desire of material earnings, a higher value that we'd sacrifice almost anything for. Turning Bitcoin into exactly what it wasn't supposed to be. And while you could still spend and move your BTC freely around even if it was to be banned in your country, the majority has the power and the majority seems not to care about anything besides value.

However, this was a logical thing from the start: the more people join, the smaller chances are that Bitcoin will follow its initial path.. hence why I sometimes wonder if Bitcoin's fundamentals would have been way better followed if it had a small value. It's usually the ones not giving a damn about BTC that are quitting - I would personally not sell anything even if it was to drop to $50. Would you? Or would you move to another crypto?

At the same time, going back to the crypto anarchy stuff and expressing our desires through BTC would basically turn it into an enemy for authorities. Just imagine suddenly having BTC fully anonymous - or everyone suddenly starting to whirlpool their coins. Is that healthier and better than the way we're currently following, or would we have to expect an immediate ban following such a change?

It's a debatable thing, but if there's anything I 100% agree with, it's the fact that we have lost our way long time ago.

It is a mutual correlation and growth between legal adoption and anonymity. The governments always want to involve in financial markets because their ultimate goals are tracing capital flows, and getting benefits from as much data they retrieve as possible. Taxes they get from citizens are only one of things they can get.

Therefore, if governments develop and upgrade their technologies, the anonymity will decrease oppositely -- only if bitcoin or blockchain technologies won't upgrade more at the same time. It is kinda race between governments and bitcoin developers and users. Believe me, governments are falling behind any tech revolultion.  :D
I don't think so. It depends on each person and their standpoint on how privacy is important for him/her life. There are some self-claimed bitcoin enthusiasts don't care about privacy, adoption, technology.

I believe not. Bitcoin, the way the Core developers made design-decisions, are still those things the OP has said it lost. It's still open, it's still permissionless, and it's still censorship-resistant. How can that be not a tool for freedom?

this is long on marketing-babble and short on substance

the history and philosophy the author speaks about is all quite relevant, but the details of 'Dark Wallet' aren't described at all. It's actually an old project from Amir Taaki (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322328.msg3452581#msg3452581), written in Javascript, but this may have been changed since the early project. The previous anonymity tech was... Coinjoin, which is now not as exciting as it was back in 2013 ::)


meanwhile, the nascent Coinswap protocol is being worked on (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-August/018080.html), and will likely be the most effective (and cheapest) way of securing privacy for all Bitcoin users, as it's impossible to know whether or not any or all BTC recorded on the blockchain is being Coinswapped, as it's on off-chain protocol.

If Dark Wallet can improve on Coinswap, I'd be happy to hear about it, but it seems strange that they're only talking around (for several hundred words...) the wider issues of privacy and economic autonomy, but not providing details (or updates) on what now must be a 5 or 6 year old project.

For how long do you think we'll be able to continue using Bitcoin the "free" way though? That's what's changed. If you take a look at recent laws regarding gold & silver in Europe for example, there have been limits imposed so that any purchase that exceeds €10k needs to be done through identity verification (and I believe AML authorities are announced about the acquisition as well). So while you could theoretically take gold and do whatever you want with it, these rules and restrictions are strangling the "freedom" part of what both cryptocurrencies and precious metals offer.

Quick example: ATMs. We probably now have KYC almost everywhere around the world if we exceed limits or the ATM owners consider our txs suspicious. Years ago, you could buy as much as you wanted without having to worry about this. You could buy $100k worth of BTC through Bisq though, but by doing so aren't you basically trying to avoid the laws?

You could purchase guns off a dark black market for free and do what you want with it. Laws and regulations, however, take that freedom away from you. The more people promote this "buy bitcoin get rich" thing, the less they'll care about fundamental ideas - and that allows those stinky regulations to exist.

Indeed, it is. At the beginning of the birth of bitcoin there were a lot of enthusiasts who acted guided by a bright mind and the best intentions. After bitcoin became a popular means of earning simple money, a huge number of scammers appeared. This is life and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sometimes things are not used for what it was meant to be created and things find another cause to be used for.
For example , Viagra was originally made to be used for hypertension and heart disease but was later identified as a tablet for erections.
I am still optimistic for bitcoin since it still has a chance to be used for what it was meant to be but even if it doesn't then I am sure it will find another way to rank in the market. So holding it for long term would reap the benefits in the future.

The title is kinda mismatched with the content - it says that Bitcoin has lost its way, but in the end of the article the shots are fired at Ethereum, as it was the Ethereum conference and Ethereum mixer presentation that stated that privacy is bad for mass adoption.

And I really don't see how it can be applied to Bitcoin. Just because there's a growing ecosystem of centralized exchanges, ETFs, payment services and so on, doesn't mean that the protocol itself is "losing its way".

This is a very good point. Who says that Satoshi's original vision was the best and should be followed at all cost?

If what people need isn't a payment system but a store of value in the form of digital gold it should be what really matters.

Anarchy isn't the best system. It's destructive just like communism. If anarchy ever dominates the crypto space it's not going to leasd it anywhere.

Well... not with that attitude.  How much do you want to weaken Bitcoin to gain their blessings?

If you're going to throw a white flag up and surrender at the first sign of disagreement, you're not going to get far.  It's better to stand your ground a little first, then later, find a reasonable compromise.  Be patient.  Let the banks and businesses take a few steps in our direction first so they can realise the benefits of the way we do things.  Remember, we're the disruptive and revolutionary tech.  They're the outmoded system under threat.  There are good reasons why this stuff works the way it does.  Don't just cave in to all their demands and sacrifice everything we've got going for us from the offset. 

Otherwise BTC will just end up like XRP.  If you're willing to turn Bitcoin into that kind of centralised, permissioned, bankster's wet dream of a crapcoin just to achieve adoption, you're missing the point.

Crypto exists and is created by programmers as a digital asset. We don't need to bother our minds to think that crypto is material reality. We realize that crypto developers think a lot about how to use the right crypto utility. And we, as users and observers, only need to enjoy and not have to think negatively about the results and efforts of crypto developers.

To be MORE than just a "digital asset". Bitcoin's roots, philosophy, ethos, and its technology can be traced back to the early Cypherpunks, in that cryptography should be used as a tool for social change. From that perspective, OP has a point.

Bitcoin is censorship resistance, Bitcoin is security, Bitcoin is sovereign money. I think those who got in for those reasons never forgot. I think also those who got in for other different reasons will never "remember" and change their minds. But we don't need to say they're wrong or that they've lost their way though. That's decentralization for you. People get to choose for themselves.

there are a couple of problems here which if clarified it may address the subject here too.
bitcoin didn't cut itself off from source of power, it instead transferred the power to its rightful owner meaning the people. note that bitcoin did that not crypto in general. the fact is that many of the cryptos are centralized and lack everything that bitcoin started but instead are like banks. which brings us to the fact that some people chose to not care about any of that. naturally not everyone thinks their privacy is important! and not everyone has had any bad experience with the banking cartel. so it is kind of understandable to see this attitude in the market but it is only a small portion not all of it.

I'd argue about both the number of people who don't give a damn about privacy/centralization and the significance of it. I think the number of people not caring is high enough to have a negative overall impact over a significant part of the whitepaper. Like, I understand the need of more convenient platforms that cannot be at the moment anyhow but centralized, but in my opinion, promoting centralization and completely ignoring your privacy en masse means we're losing ground.

Here's a little question: what do you think would happen if everyone tomorrow stopped agreeing to KYC and centralization and suddenly turned to Tails and Bisq, mixed their coins and went off the grid? Would adoption continue growing or would institutions and govs suddenly back out from supporting crypto?

i don't think their number is that big, maybe it looks this way because they are more noticeable. for example we can never count how many P2P trades are taking place but we can always know how much volume a centralized exchange has.

a good question. but it is hard to answer.
different governments have had different view of cryptocurrencies. some government like Russian care a lot about traceability, the more blockchain analyzers pop up the more friendly they got. they don't seem to care that much about control.
governments in some other countries like Japan, Switzerland,... don't seem to be so strict about either control or tracing. they respect privacy more.
governments like US want full control of everything and invade privacy of everyone.
this means if what your scenario happened, it would divide the world more.

another thing to consider is the stage of adoption. if bitcoin had reached a good adoption percentage (a lot more than it is now) then there isn't much any government could do in that scenario. they would have to accept the reality that they have lost control. but at lower levels we might see hostile behavior. like those 7 countries that have banned bitcoin in early days when nobody in their country even knew about bitcoin.

I highly doubt the volume of p2p trades exceed or are even 80% the volume of centralized exchanges. If this was true, Bisq and Atomic DEX would've actually been reliable exchanges (as in you could easily trade at any time knowing you'd find decent prices).

Agreed. Now I believe we can both also agree that even if the larger part of crypto users really do care about their privacy, a waaay smaller percentage actually use BTC accordingly. It's really been bugging me out recently: even if people care, most of them do not have the right education to increase their privacy while using cryptocurrencies. Therefore, governments are obviously not bothered - if blockchain analysis wasn't a thing, I doubt they would've been so friendly.

Agreed, and there was not a Github repository shared in the article to follow Dark Renaissance's progress. However the message and its idea are still very much valid, I reckon. What was the attitude during the beginning? How is it different in 2020?

Today the attitude is to celebrate the acceptance of banks instead of overthrowing them. This might only be part of the stages of attitude in the cryptospace, however hehe. It might change again.

Bitcoin is fine. I don't see any problem with that. I think people expect too much from him and nothing more.

Nice to see a woman with a degree in philosophy (same as myself) having interest in cryptocurrencies! However, I don't share nearly the same views. For one, I don't like advocacy of illegal activities and demonization of the government and banks. There are people who are not doing anything bad but are considered criminals, and there are banks that are considered good but which commit serious crimes. However, there are also terrible things paid for in cryptos, and the government plays an important role in organizing society (it's not all bad, and I don't think that chaos would be good). According to contractual theories (Locke, Hobbes), the state appeared for a reason and returning to pre-state life is not desirable. The state protects the rights of people to be safe and for their property to be safe. If there's no state, there's no system to appeal to.

Bit premature to be talking about the potential for that, heh. 

Besides, Bitcoin has reached that stage where it appeals to both pro and anti government types alike anyway.  I don't see there being any dramatic swings away from the fairly neutral balance we have at the moment.  Whether someone might want to suck up to banks and governments, or wipe them out entirely, neither of those extremes will ever likely possess the level of influence it would take to enact the types of changes within the Bitcoin protocol to support their goals, because they would need the support of all users.  So we remain with the status quo where Bitcoin is kind of okay at privacy if you use it carefully, or you can be totally transparent about your dealings if you so choose.  Suits everyone equally.

That's just the base protocol, however.  There's no doubt in my mind that some pretty interesting ideological battles are going to be waged on the layers that get built on top of the protocol.  We could see both some very conformist and very anarchic things happening there.

Bitcoin really has somewhat become centralized with its secondary solution by using a central database that can be manipulated by the owner.
Anonymity has become a hindrance towards adoption, i guess we need to have alternative solution, so we can sustain our privacy while country's can safely ensure Bitcoin's reliability towards different use. For instance taxation.

Who is advocating for illegal activites and the demonization of government and banks, however? They are doing a fine job there by themselves.



BACK in 2012, HSBC, Europe’s biggest bank, paid $1.9 billion to the United States’ Department of Justice to avoid prosecution for allowing its global subsidiaries to move at least $881 million in proceeds from Columbian and Mexican cartels.

But HSBC’s willingness to turn a blind eye to its customers’ criminal activities extends far beyond Mexico and the drugs market.

According to the report, HSBC helped a suspect Saudi bank move money to the US, a bank that was later discovered to have connections with al-Qaeda.

Source https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/shadow-hand-hsbc-drug-lords-house-lords


Also, it is not hard to search for articles about government atrocities done to their own people.

The governments and the banks are on a club on they're own and we are not in it hehe.

Bitcoin is a symbol of free will. It is revolutionary and cannot topple bitcoin. In the past, the US government tried to topple bitcoin because it would hurt their economy and they failed. I think bitcoin is the revolution of the 21st century. It is a product of freedom and owned by man, no force can control them.

So that Dark Renaissance Wallet he'd been developing it the saviour to take back the source of power?  Not really sure what the author is up to but for anonymity, a user can always choose to be anonymous as there are many tools to be used.

Making money is just not helping you to be anonymous. Withdrawing from Centralize or Cashing out to bank accounts needs KYC, thats a trade off for wanting fiat.

Bitcoin truly has fairly gotten concentrated with its optional arrangement by utilizing a focal information base that can be controlled by the proprietor.

Obscurity has become an obstruction towards selection, I surmise we have to have an elective arrangement, so we can support our security while nations can securely guarantee Bitcoin's unwavering quality towards various use. For example tax assessment.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies give an option to those people whenever they wake up to its need. Those of us waking up to it realize the importance of browsing privately, transacting privately and it is great that cryptography gives you that option. Its a gradual change and the original adopters don't have to burn themselves out for it to feel like a revolution. The more this becomes mainstream, the more people realize that they have a choice and a method to maintain privacy.

If the government and financial institutions stop seeing the in-flow of taxes and fees that centralized exchanges bring, they would have an excuse to declare things subversive. Its a very fundamental question though. Whether everyone should have the freedom to behave in whatever way they want irrespective of norms? Norms translate into rules and regulations over time. "True freedom" while being part of a working society is a mirage. You'd have to be an ascetic looking for "liberation" if you want "true freedom".