Wikileaks contact info?

[jgarzik]

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.

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

[em3rgentOrdr]

If Bitcoin is that fragile and vulnerable to attack, what are we doing anyway and why is it so consistently being defended?

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.  

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.

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

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.

[kiba]

If bitcoin has some flaw, then we need to resolve it now.

I suggest assembling a tiger team or make security bounties or do both.

But, you have to remember that the security of the network also come from the strength of people running it. So, wikileaks might add more legit computing power rather than cheating nodes, or not. It's hard to know.

Brute-force attacks are least likely. We probably have some bugs lurking in the system.

[farmer_boy]

If Bitcoin is that fragile and vulnerable to attack, what are we doing anyway and why is it so consistently being defended?

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.  

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.

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

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.

I approve of this message. If Bitcoin blows up, a new system can be build without this flaw. The probability of Bitcoin _not_ containing some fatal flaw is pretty small (as almost all software has flaws).

All Wikileaks needs to do is say "Following the PayPal incident we have decided to accept a new kind of payment, Bitcoins. You can find more information on donating via Bitcoins on URL <some suitable URL hosted by Wikileaks>.  "

They could post it in their news section or something like that. It is possible that main stream media would pick it up if they would contrast Bitcoin with PayPal like that.

[MoonShadow]

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

Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.

One that note, I smell a rat.  I've worked for the beast, and there is no way whatever that a private is going to have access 1) to top-secret communications 2) unmonitored 3) on a secure computer 4) with a cd-rom drive 5) that has access to secrets not in his own section.

There is no way this kid did this.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

in the wikileaks case its a great danger.

+1, I agree completely

We know that private and government forces are actively tracing, and trying to shut down, sources of wikileaks funding through all available means of pressure.

Does it make sense to actively give multiple world governments incentive to shut down bitcoin?

If you care about bitcoin's success, the answer is no.

That is exactly the issue.

I am so worried about the intent behind this wikileaks thread that, if i could, would only want to have "legallysafe" bitcoins in my wallet that are not connected to wikileaks or any other illegal matter.
those who want to play this aggressive game against governments can do it, but i dont want to be connected to that.

Agreed, i have already spoken about this in some other wikileaks-related topic (or perhaps this one ?).

Engaging in wikileaks before Bitcoin has a chance to unfold its wings may kill it.

[kiba]

Engaging in wikileaks before Bitcoin has a chance to unfold its wings may kill it.

It may allows us to unfold our wings.

Beside, what is done, done. Bob182 already talked to a person within the wikileak organization.

But there are much safer route to unfolding our wings.

[Anonymous]

We should be doing something to get a full security audit done on bitcoins. Something we can point to that is third party and not connected to bitcoin in any way. Now who do we contact to get this done?

This should be our first priority rather than engaging in political statements.  


Edit: Bradley Manning supposedly leaked the documents NOT Julian Assange.

the US government cant even beat a few  fighters in the afghanistan dessert...

The bigger concern is the international banking mafia.    They are the real scary ones.

[kiba]

We should be doing something to get a full security audit done on bitcoins. Something we can point to that is third party and not connected to bitcoin in any way. Now who do we contact to get this done?

I don't have money but I think we should set up a bitcoin bounty for security, like I been suggesting everywhere. It will be a start.

[em3rgentOrdr]

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

Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.

One that note, I smell a rat.  I've worked for the beast, and there is no way whatever that a private is going to have access 1) to top-secret communications 2) unmonitored 3) on a secure computer 4) with a cd-rom drive 5) that has access to secrets not in his own section.

There is no way this kid did this.

I'm glad that you have left the dark side, creighto.  You make an interesting point that a private could not have gotten access to all this (but then again, some of these gubbamint bureacracies are extremely inefficient).  Bradley Manning may simple just be a fall guy, scapegoat, or framed by the real leaker...who may never be caught.  Anyway, it's all speculation. 

[kiba]

Bradley Manning may simple just be a fall guy, scapegoat, or framed by the real leaker...who may never be caught.  Anyway, it's all speculation. 

A top secret anarchist cabal penetrated the US government. It's simple really.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Bradley Manning may simple just be a fall guy, scapegoat, or framed by the real leaker...who may never be caught.  Anyway, it's all speculation. 

A top secret anarchist cabal penetrated the US government. It's simple really.

It is entirely possible.  Some government agent may have converted to anarchism after climbing up the ranks and then accidentally reading Rothbard or some other anti-statist philosopher or website.  Or maybe just saw the crap going around him and decided he is an anarchist.

[kiba]

Or maybe just saw the crap going around him and decided he is an anarchist.

Using that guy as a sacrificial lamb isn't exactly what I called, anarchistic. Unless, he agreed to cover for the real leaker.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Or maybe just saw the crap going around him and decided he is an anarchist.

Using that guy as a sacrificial lamb isn't exactly what I called, anarchistic. Unless, he agreed to cover for the real leaker.

Of course.  And yeah, it could have been a voluntary decision.  Also, it could be possible that the secret upper-level anarchist did not intend for Manning to be blamed...but then once Manning got arrested, he realized it would be better if he kept quiet, so that only one person is in jail.

[MoonShadow]

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

Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.

One that note, I smell a rat.  I've worked for the beast, and there is no way whatever that a private is going to have access 1) to top-secret communications 2) unmonitored 3) on a secure computer 4) with a cd-rom drive 5) that has access to secrets not in his own section.

There is no way this kid did this.

I'm glad that you have left the dark side, creighto.

Perhaps you assume too much.

  You make an interesting point that a private could not have gotten access to all this (but then again, some of these gubbamint bureacracies are extremely inefficient).

Inefficient yes, but ineffective?  Paranoia is what the government is good at.  No way this kid did this, not even a small part of it.  He is either a gov'ment patsy, or a martyr for some other group.

The government is no less likely to form internal factions over ideology or self-interest than any other collective agency.  This smells like an inside job, and from what I've seen so far, it seems to make the Bush admin seem less stupid|evil, even if only by comparison.

[Anonymous]

Seems that the main politician this embarrassed was Hillary Clinton.

Either the pentagon or the cia leaked these papers.

*Points finger at Robert Gates .

[em3rgentOrdr]

Seems that the main politician this embarrassed was Hillary Clinton.

Either the pentagon or the cia leaked these papers.

*Points finger at Robert Gates .

I'm sorry...I'm not totally following you...could you elaborate?  Why would Robert Gates want to release videos of US Troops murdering Iraqi civilians?

[bober182]

With paypal down I'm increasing my pressure upon their board of directors to get a bitcoin address up.

[kiba]

With paypal down I'm increasing my pressure upon their board of directors to get a bitcoin address up.

So you decide to ignore the long discussion and just do it?

Listen to people's argument, make a decision, give a reasoned case for what you're going to do, and then do it.

Also, it would be nice if you explain what kind of "pressure" you're doing. You represent the rest of the bitcoiners here, so it's nice to know how bob182 is acting on our behalf.

[em3rgentOrdr]

With paypal down I'm increasing my pressure upon their board of directors to get a bitcoin address up.

So you decide to ignore the long discussion and just do it?

Listen to reasons, and then decide if you're going to keep doing what you do.

Kiba makes some good points here...let's not be too hasty in communicating with WikiLeaks.  Patience is key.  There is no need to repeatedly pressure WikiLeaks in producing a bitcon donate address.  Since you have already communicated with them once, they may either he considering it or more likely have decided that it does nor suit their needs currently.  Don't get me wrong...I am all for wikileaks to use bitcoin, but let's not push this too hard.