How To Blast Bitcoin Onto The World Stage

[Sage]

He's answering questions direct here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

Only popular questions get addressed.

Post a question asking for his Bitcoin address.

There's nothing to lose and plenty to be gained by doing so.

[Dekshuduph]

Sage, maybe you should have the historical honor of posting the question, since it was your idea?

Haha, the Q&A is already over.

...No bitcoin questions were answered.

[mindtomatter]

Snowden seems like a smart guy, if he wanted Bitcoins he'd ask.    IMO This is a false start, don't donate money until it verifiably is going to go somewhere.

[QuestionAuthority]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

[mindtomatter]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

[QuestionAuthority]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

You don't think giving the government something else to hate about Bitcoin is a negative? You believe working with them is a "necessary evil" and those bitcoiners working with them really hate the government but are selling out for survival. Correct or no?

[mindtomatter]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

You don't think giving the government something else to hate about Bitcoin is a negative? You believe working with them is a "necessary evil" and those bitcoiners working with them really hate the government but are selling out for survival. Correct or no?

Some people, especially those interested in starting exchanges or other large business enterprises recognize that it's insane to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on a venture that could be deemed illegal, or have the "understanding" modified at any time, for any reason.  From their perspective the lack of real rules constitute a major hurdle to them conducting business, so the more they can do to help regulatory clarity come to the situation the more likely their business venture will be able to actually survive.   

I think "the government" wouldn't "hate" bitcoin because of any relationship with Snowden, think a little bigger than that.

I believe we have a difficult path ahead of us because when it comes to money, it's a zero sum game and any "win" for bitcoin is a "loss" for all other currencies, most dangerously the US Dollar.  This makes me feel that regardless of engaging with regulators, this reality makes an amicable outcome with competing currencies unlikely. That's all the reason a currency issuing government could ever need to want Bitcoin to fail

[QuestionAuthority]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

You don't think giving the government something else to hate about Bitcoin is a negative? You believe working with them is a "necessary evil" and those bitcoiners working with them really hate the government but are selling out for survival. Correct or no?

Some people, especially those interested in starting exchanges or other large business enterprises recognize that it's insane to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on a venture that could be deemed illegal, or have the "understanding" modified at any time, for any reason.  From their perspective the lack of real rules constitute a major hurdle to them conducting business, so the more they can do to help regulatory clarity come to the situation the more likely their business venture will be able to actually survive.    

I think "the government" wouldn't "hate" bitcoin because of any relationship with Snowden, think a little bigger than that.

I believe we have a difficult path ahead of us because when it comes to money, it's a zero sum game and any "win" for bitcoin is a "loss" for all other currencies, most dangerously the US Dollar.  This makes me feel that regardless of engaging with regulators, this reality makes an amicable outcome with competing currencies unlikely. That's all the reason a currency issuing government could ever need to want Bitcoin to fail

That's a pretty fatalistic viewpoint but I do understand your opinion. I think Bitcoin is a niche currency at best and for now acts more like a commodity. At no point in the foreseeable future and definitely not during our lifetime could Bitcoin replace fiat for a government as large as the USA. It's more of a nuisance at this point like a tick on an an elephant. Regulators need to figure out how to incorporate Bitcoin into the grand scheme or they need to kill the tick. Making it obvious that Bitcoin simplifies funding illegal activities is probably not preferable while they are deciding on new legislation. They can always learn later that the tick carries encephalitis.

[Sage]

Bitcoin and governments controlled by those central banks are like oil and water.  They will never mix.   It's wasted energy even trying.

The fiat paradigm has run its course.  It has nowhere to go but down. 

Cryptocurriencies are the future...if nothing more out of sheer necessity.  It's only a matter of time.

Let's put our energies into getting the word out about Bitcoin rather then try to mesh with a defunct and dying system.

The Snowden case is the perfect opportunity for that.

[mindtomatter]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

You don't think giving the government something else to hate about Bitcoin is a negative? You believe working with them is a "necessary evil" and those bitcoiners working with them really hate the government but are selling out for survival. Correct or no?

Some people, especially those interested in starting exchanges or other large business enterprises recognize that it's insane to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on a venture that could be deemed illegal, or have the "understanding" modified at any time, for any reason.  From their perspective the lack of real rules constitute a major hurdle to them conducting business, so the more they can do to help regulatory clarity come to the situation the more likely their business venture will be able to actually survive.    

I think "the government" wouldn't "hate" bitcoin because of any relationship with Snowden, think a little bigger than that.

I believe we have a difficult path ahead of us because when it comes to money, it's a zero sum game and any "win" for bitcoin is a "loss" for all other currencies, most dangerously the US Dollar.  This makes me feel that regardless of engaging with regulators, this reality makes an amicable outcome with competing currencies unlikely. That's all the reason a currency issuing government could ever need to want Bitcoin to fail

That's a pretty fatalistic viewpoint but I do understand your opinion. I think Bitcoin is a niche currency at best and for now acts more like a commodity. At no point in the foreseeable future and definitely not during our lifetime could Bitcoin replace fiat for a government as large as the USA. It's more of a nuisance at this point like a tick on an an elephant. Regulators need to figure out how to incorporate Bitcoin into the grand scheme or they need to kill the tick. Making it obvious that Bitcoin simplifies funding illegal activities is probably not preferable while they are deciding on new legislation. They can always learn later that the tick carries encephalitis.

Remember you believed this.

Because everybody knows Amazon is a wacky business model that will never work.  Book publishers and brick/mortar retailers have been wildly dominant for decades, how could such a little startup ever become dominant?  It can't, so it won't.  Certainly not in our lifetimes.

Automobiles?  Come on now, Horses were what my parents used, my grandparents used, their grandparents before them - Automobiles are unreliable and break down all the time, so how can you even play at saying they might catch on and disrupt the market?

Hindsight is 20/20, when paradigms shift it happens faster than anyone can imagine because the world is built on tipping points.  Bitcoin is more useful to those using it with greater adoption and provides value for every person who involves themselves with it unless it is made illegal, and even then it's just a different value equation.  If the US dollar was going great and everyone was happy with it you might be right, but clearly that's not the situation so I think you're wrong.  Even beyond that, Bitcoin makes impossible things probabale and enables new models not even conceptually feasible with money as it is now.  In a world of shrinking opportunity new markets and business models are exploited to their fullest by those most likely to succeed.

People like to equate Exchange health to the health of bitcoin, but it's a straw man.  This time next year there will be fully decentralized exchanges that obsolete the problem, I know three in development by very serious people and I'm not everywhere.

My favorite part is we get to see how things turn out together.  

Snowden is a symptom, not the disease.

[QuestionAuthority]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

You don't think giving the government something else to hate about Bitcoin is a negative? You believe working with them is a "necessary evil" and those bitcoiners working with them really hate the government but are selling out for survival. Correct or no?

Some people, especially those interested in starting exchanges or other large business enterprises recognize that it's insane to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on a venture that could be deemed illegal, or have the "understanding" modified at any time, for any reason.  From their perspective the lack of real rules constitute a major hurdle to them conducting business, so the more they can do to help regulatory clarity come to the situation the more likely their business venture will be able to actually survive.    

I think "the government" wouldn't "hate" bitcoin because of any relationship with Snowden, think a little bigger than that.

I believe we have a difficult path ahead of us because when it comes to money, it's a zero sum game and any "win" for bitcoin is a "loss" for all other currencies, most dangerously the US Dollar.  This makes me feel that regardless of engaging with regulators, this reality makes an amicable outcome with competing currencies unlikely. That's all the reason a currency issuing government could ever need to want Bitcoin to fail

That's a pretty fatalistic viewpoint but I do understand your opinion. I think Bitcoin is a niche currency at best and for now acts more like a commodity. At no point in the foreseeable future and definitely not during our lifetime could Bitcoin replace fiat for a government as large as the USA. It's more of a nuisance at this point like a tick on an an elephant. Regulators need to figure out how to incorporate Bitcoin into the grand scheme or they need to kill the tick. Making it obvious that Bitcoin simplifies funding illegal activities is probably not preferable while they are deciding on new legislation. They can always learn later that the tick carries encephalitis.

Remember you believed this.

Because everybody knows Amazon is a wacky business model that will never work.  Book publishers and brick/mortar retailers have been wildly dominant for decades, how could such a little startup ever become dominant?  It can't, so it won't.  Certainly not in our lifetimes.

Automobiles?  Come on now, Horses were what my parents used, my grandparents used, their grandparents before them - Automobiles are unreliable and break down all the time, so how can you even play at saying they might catch on and disrupt the market?

Hindsight is 20/20, when paradigms shift it happens faster than anyone can imagine because the world is built on tipping points.  Bitcoin is more useful to those using it with greater adoption and provides value for every person who involves themselves with it unless it is made illegal, and even then it's just a different value equation.  If the US dollar was going great and everyone was happy with it you might be right, but clearly that's not the situation so I think you're wrong.  Even beyond that, Bitcoin makes impossible things probabale and enables new models not even conceptually feasible with money as it is now.  In a world of shrinking opportunity new markets and business models are exploited to their fullest by those most likely to succeed.

People like to equate Exchange health to the health of bitcoin, but it's a straw man.  This time next year there will be fully decentralized exchanges that obsolete the problem, I know three in development by very serious people and I'm not everywhere.

My favorite part is we get to see how things turn out together.  

Snowden is a symptom, not the disease.

I agree that in a free market businesses can come in and be game changers. That's what every new startup strives to be. The problem is that currencies are not businesses. Do you know why the "Big Three" automakers haven't failed and faded into history yet? Because the government won't let them. The free market does not control the national currency brain dead corrupt government regulators do. They will legislate Bitcoin out of existence if they feel threatened. They will use excessive force as they have been doing with everything they touch for generations. The only thing that changes that recipe is overwhelming radical pressure and protest or gradual subversion. Overwhelming pressure (like the Occupy Movement) won't work in this situation because the issues are too complex for the "common clay" to understand. Gradual subversion of the systems in place is the only opportunity for change. That takes time and requires working within the system.

I'm not against Snowden. I appreciate people like Snowden that have the guts to speak out against government evil. I would put him in the same group as Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk and many others that gave up their lives to fight for civil liberties.

[mindtomatter]

That would be a valid point if you haven't been paying attention to the highly protected music industry and filesharing tech for the last decade or so.      The difference is you think there isn't already an attempt to stamp out Bitcoin, while I think it's been going on for about 6 months now.  They're just trying not to invoke the streisand effect so it's better to feign ignorance and confusion rather than go straight at it.  

I'd recommend a book called The Spider and the Starfish: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations

[Sage]

This forum is so friging bipolar. One half wants to go to Washington and work with the government on favorable regulation. The other half wants to send funding to someone that very government thinks is a traitor. I'm pretty sure those two concepts are in conflict.

I don't think those two things are even tangentially related.  People who advocate for engaging with regulators do so because they believe regulation is coming with or without our involvement, not because they love and respect the government and want regulation as an expression of that love.

You don't think giving the government something else to hate about Bitcoin is a negative? You believe working with them is a "necessary evil" and those bitcoiners working with them really hate the government but are selling out for survival. Correct or no?

Some people, especially those interested in starting exchanges or other large business enterprises recognize that it's insane to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on a venture that could be deemed illegal, or have the "understanding" modified at any time, for any reason.  From their perspective the lack of real rules constitute a major hurdle to them conducting business, so the more they can do to help regulatory clarity come to the situation the more likely their business venture will be able to actually survive.    

I think "the government" wouldn't "hate" bitcoin because of any relationship with Snowden, think a little bigger than that.

I believe we have a difficult path ahead of us because when it comes to money, it's a zero sum game and any "win" for bitcoin is a "loss" for all other currencies, most dangerously the US Dollar.  This makes me feel that regardless of engaging with regulators, this reality makes an amicable outcome with competing currencies unlikely. That's all the reason a currency issuing government could ever need to want Bitcoin to fail

That's a pretty fatalistic viewpoint but I do understand your opinion. I think Bitcoin is a niche currency at best and for now acts more like a commodity. At no point in the foreseeable future and definitely not during our lifetime could Bitcoin replace fiat for a government as large as the USA. It's more of a nuisance at this point like a tick on an an elephant. Regulators need to figure out how to incorporate Bitcoin into the grand scheme or they need to kill the tick. Making it obvious that Bitcoin simplifies funding illegal activities is probably not preferable while they are deciding on new legislation. They can always learn later that the tick carries encephalitis.

Remember you believed this.

Because everybody knows Amazon is a wacky business model that will never work.  Book publishers and brick/mortar retailers have been wildly dominant for decades, how could such a little startup ever become dominant?  It can't, so it won't.  Certainly not in our lifetimes.

Automobiles?  Come on now, Horses were what my parents used, my grandparents used, their grandparents before them - Automobiles are unreliable and break down all the time, so how can you even play at saying they might catch on and disrupt the market?

Hindsight is 20/20, when paradigms shift it happens faster than anyone can imagine because the world is built on tipping points.  Bitcoin is more useful to those using it with greater adoption and provides value for every person who involves themselves with it unless it is made illegal, and even then it's just a different value equation.  If the US dollar was going great and everyone was happy with it you might be right, but clearly that's not the situation so I think you're wrong.  Even beyond that, Bitcoin makes impossible things probabale and enables new models not even conceptually feasible with money as it is now.  In a world of shrinking opportunity new markets and business models are exploited to their fullest by those most likely to succeed.

People like to equate Exchange health to the health of bitcoin, but it's a straw man.  This time next year there will be fully decentralized exchanges that obsolete the problem, I know three in development by very serious people and I'm not everywhere.

My favorite part is we get to see how things turn out together.  

Snowden is a symptom, not the disease.

I agree that in a free market businesses can come in and be game changers. That's what every new startup strives to be. The problem is that currencies are not businesses. Do you know why the "Big Three" automakers haven't failed and faded into history yet? Because the government won't let them. The free market does not control the national currency brain dead corrupt government regulators do. They will legislate Bitcoin out of existence if they feel threatened. They will use excessive force as they have been doing with everything they touch for generations. The only thing that changes that recipe is overwhelming radical pressure and protest or gradual subversion. Overwhelming pressure (like the Occupy Movement) won't work in this situation because the issues are too complex for the "common clay" to understand. Gradual subversion of the systems in place is the only opportunity for change. That takes time and requires working within the system.

I'm not against Snowden. I appreciate people like Snowden that have the guts to speak out against government evil. I would put him in the same group as Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk and many others that gave up their lives to fight for civil liberties.

Bitcoin and/or cryptos will succeed in spite of government attack.  This isn't like anything that has come before.

Of course they are going to attack it.  Of course they are going to try to legislate against it.  That doesn't change anything.  When 2 people get together and exchange value for value who the hell is going to stop them?  Especially when crytpos can be owned and transferred in complete anonymity.

The credibility and confidence of the federal government is fast eroding.  They can make any law they want... sure as hell doesn't mean it will be respected.  Any laws they try to pass against Bitcoin will largely be ignored.

The central exchange problem will be non-existent once decentralized exchanges are on board.  After that, there is nothing they can do except try to shape public perception about Bitcoin as come kind of underworld thing.

...How far do ya think that will fly?

Nothing is more powerful then an idea who's time has come.  There is nothing that is going to stop cryptos.  

5 years from now, you're going to be stunned at just how fast they reached mass adoption.

[QuestionAuthority]

That would be a valid point if you haven't been paying attention to the highly protected music industry and filesharing tech for the last decade or so.      The difference is you think there isn't already an attempt to stamp out Bitcoin, while I think it's been going on for about 6 months now.  They're just trying not to invoke the streisand effect so it's better to feign ignorance and confusion rather than go straight at it. 

I agree they are trying to find a way to kill the flea. Just like kickasstorrents, Bitcoin will just pop up in a new location somewhere and carry on business as usual. That's why someone should lobby and be passive. Lull them into complacency by making them not fear Bitcoin. Then gradually build to a point where the majority of people worldwide are using a currency free of government control.

[mindtomatter]

That would be a valid point if you haven't been paying attention to the highly protected music industry and filesharing tech for the last decade or so.      The difference is you think there isn't already an attempt to stamp out Bitcoin, while I think it's been going on for about 6 months now.  They're just trying not to invoke the streisand effect so it's better to feign ignorance and confusion rather than go straight at it. 

I agree they are trying to find a way to kill the flea. Just like kickasstorrents, Bitcoin will just pop up in a new location somewhere and carry on business as usual. That's why someone should lobby and be passive. Lull them into complacency by making them not fear Bitcoin. Then gradually build to a point where the majority of people worldwide are using a currency free of government control.

There's another difference in our perspectives - You think people who control legacy currencies are confused and can be convinced the danger to existing systems it not real, where I think that's like telling a homeowner "don't mind the smoke coming from the basement" - Say what you will, the danger is obvious to the ones who are invested.

[QuestionAuthority]

That would be a valid point if you haven't been paying attention to the highly protected music industry and filesharing tech for the last decade or so.      The difference is you think there isn't already an attempt to stamp out Bitcoin, while I think it's been going on for about 6 months now.  They're just trying not to invoke the streisand effect so it's better to feign ignorance and confusion rather than go straight at it. 

I agree they are trying to find a way to kill the flea. Just like kickasstorrents, Bitcoin will just pop up in a new location somewhere and carry on business as usual. That's why someone should lobby and be passive. Lull them into complacency by making them not fear Bitcoin. Then gradually build to a point where the majority of people worldwide are using a currency free of government control.

There's another difference in our perspectives - You think people who control legacy currencies are confused and can be convinced the danger to existing systems it not real, where I think that's like telling a homeowner "don't mind the smoke coming from the basement" - Say what you will, the danger is obvious to the ones who are invested.

No, I don't think they're confused, I think they're stupid, lazy and arrogant. Only a collection of fools would do the things the Fed has done to the economy. Remember we are just fleas to them. Cheaper to let the flea scratch around and die a natural death than raise the ire of citizens and deal with the fallout. State control works by propaganda not power. There aren't enough police in any city to control crime so they make a big show of arrests and scare the common clay into submission. It's a way to control costs and get the job done. Play nice and take over.

[mindtomatter]

That would be a valid point if you haven't been paying attention to the highly protected music industry and filesharing tech for the last decade or so.      The difference is you think there isn't already an attempt to stamp out Bitcoin, while I think it's been going on for about 6 months now.  They're just trying not to invoke the streisand effect so it's better to feign ignorance and confusion rather than go straight at it. 

I agree they are trying to find a way to kill the flea. Just like kickasstorrents, Bitcoin will just pop up in a new location somewhere and carry on business as usual. That's why someone should lobby and be passive. Lull them into complacency by making them not fear Bitcoin. Then gradually build to a point where the majority of people worldwide are using a currency free of government control.

There's another difference in our perspectives - You think people who control legacy currencies are confused and can be convinced the danger to existing systems it not real, where I think that's like telling a homeowner "don't mind the smoke coming from the basement" - Say what you will, the danger is obvious to the ones who are invested.

No, I don't think they're confused, I think they're stupid, lazy and arrogant. Only a collection of fools would do the things the Fed has done to the economy. Remember we are just fleas to them. Cheaper to let the flea scratch around and die a natural death than raise the ire of citizens and deal with the fallout. State control works by propaganda not power. There aren't enough police in any city to control crime so they make a big show of arrests and scare the common clay into submission. It's a way to control costs and get the job done. Play nice and take over.

We'll agree to disagree on this one, I think you don't build and maintain an ever more repressive monopoly on money over the course of a hundred years by being lazy and stupid.  I look at the Fed's action and say to myself "If this was the preferable option, imagine what the alternative was"

But as mentioned before, we get to find out together

[QuestionAuthority]

That would be a valid point if you haven't been paying attention to the highly protected music industry and filesharing tech for the last decade or so.      The difference is you think there isn't already an attempt to stamp out Bitcoin, while I think it's been going on for about 6 months now.  They're just trying not to invoke the streisand effect so it's better to feign ignorance and confusion rather than go straight at it. 

I agree they are trying to find a way to kill the flea. Just like kickasstorrents, Bitcoin will just pop up in a new location somewhere and carry on business as usual. That's why someone should lobby and be passive. Lull them into complacency by making them not fear Bitcoin. Then gradually build to a point where the majority of people worldwide are using a currency free of government control.

There's another difference in our perspectives - You think people who control legacy currencies are confused and can be convinced the danger to existing systems it not real, where I think that's like telling a homeowner "don't mind the smoke coming from the basement" - Say what you will, the danger is obvious to the ones who are invested.

No, I don't think they're confused, I think they're stupid, lazy and arrogant. Only a collection of fools would do the things the Fed has done to the economy. Remember we are just fleas to them. Cheaper to let the flea scratch around and die a natural death than raise the ire of citizens and deal with the fallout. State control works by propaganda not power. There aren't enough police in any city to control crime so they make a big show of arrests and scare the common clay into submission. It's a way to control costs and get the job done. Play nice and take over.

We'll agree to disagree on this one, I think you don't build and maintain an ever more repressive monopoly on money over the course of a hundred years by being lazy and stupid.  I look at the Fed's action and say to myself "If this was the preferable option, imagine what the alternative was"

But as mentioned before, we get to find out together

Agreed, good chat.

[moni3z]

Apparently Snowden has a much more leaks, and some top secret stuff held in some kind of protective escrow with the Guardian he claims he won't give to Beijing. Sounds like that's his bag of insurance papers so they don't walk up behind him with an umbrella dipped in Ricin and poke him in the back or spike his drink with Polonium.

I did like his answer though to being called a foreign spy: "If I was a spy for China, I would've directly flown into Beijing and be petting a Phoenix in my palace right now"

[Anon136]

Apparently Snowden has a much more leaks, and some top secret stuff held in some kind of protective escrow with the Guardian he claims he won't give to Beijing. Sounds like that's his bag of insurance papers so they don't walk up behind him with an umbrella dipped in Ricin and poke him in the back or spike his drink with Polonium.

I did like his answer though to being called a foreign spy: "If I was a spy for China, I would've directly flown into Beijing and be petting a Phoenix in my palace right now"

thats so 19th century. these days they use a dart of frozen poison fired from a handgun that causes heart attack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSEnurBApdM