Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:34:32 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: a message to Wikileaks and Anonymous and anyone else who would attack banks  (Read 704 times)
BenRayfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 262



View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 01:53:04 AM
 #1

I have not verified these things are true. I've just read them a few places each. This is not about Bitcoin but I expect Wikileaks and Anonymous members are most likely to read this here, and its also a message to people interested in those 2 groups.

Wikileaks accounts were frozen, stealing their money, because banks wanted to shut Wikileaks down. Wikileaks could have limited themself to distribution of files, but instead Wikileaks did computer hacking to some banks. Anonymous did the same thing without being directly attacked first.

Both have strong reasons to want banks gone, replaced by Bitcoin or other currency thats not centrally controlled, but their actions worked against their own goals.

When anyone attacks banks, through hacking or other illegal things, it soon causes laws to become stricter, authorities to get angrier, military actions into other countries, etc, and that is exactly what the banks want because it gives them a reason to continue fighting wars, enlarging governments, all of which has to be paid for by their centralized money.

What central banks are most scared of is that we would cooperate on a global scale to obsolete central banks with Bitcoin and similar systems. I think an identity-verifying branch of Bitcoin would be accepted by businesses much faster than Bitcoin alone, but that is one of many examples of ways to obsolete banks without hacking or violence, and most importantly, without giving banks the excuse they're looking for to expand government power and wars that such banks profit from.

Attacking banks helps banks. What Wikileaks and Anonymous supposedly did (excluding the peaceful distribution of files) was incredibly stupid since it worked against their own goals, and based on that alone I question if Wikileaks and Anonymous advocate or resist central banks.

All my writing, here or anywhere else, permission granted to copy.
1480710872
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710872

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710872
Reply with quote  #2

1480710872
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 02:29:38 AM
 #2

Quote
Wikileaks could have limited themself to distribution of files, but instead Wikileaks did computer hacking to some banks.
[citation needed]
Wikileaks just publish documents. When did they hack banks?!

Quote
Anonymous did the same thing without being directly attacked first.
Anonymous are just a group of trolls who mostly hang out on the imageboards and IRC. They're like a swarm of angry bees, you can't tell them what to do, and most don't actually do any hacking. A DDoS is not hacking.

Quote
I think an identity-verifying branch of Bitcoin would be accepted by businesses much faster than Bitcoin alone

Good idea... Why not make a service that identifies Bitcoin users by their public wallet addresses?
BenRayfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 262



View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 03:15:12 AM
 #3

Quote
I have not verified these things are true.

I have to take these things as unreliable indirect observations because I saw them on centrally controlled news, which has less credibility than my word. I wouldn't know where to look to determine if its true or not, since any internet news could be faked and they duplicate eachothers stories. Maybe you could help?

What I do know for sure is a conflict between decentralization and centralized banks is escalating, and Wikileaks and Anonymous as I described are probable results, while they could easily be on either side. Because my mind works partially as a bayesian statistics calculator, uncertainty does not interfere with my ability to figure things out on a global scale, and any statistical information at all helps some on average.

Quote
Good idea... Why not make a service that identifies Bitcoin users by their public wallet addresses?

It would be done by putting in a second key pair parallel to the single key pair Bitcoin has now, and a third key pair to verify the origin of the second key pair, the second and third private keys held by the identity provider service, maybe a bank or government or OpenID or run your own grid of decentralized identity servers if you want. That way the open-source software can not be modified to use such a network anonymously, but it could start a new network anonymously. Businesses will accept it much faster if all money on such network can ONLY be used with identity proven. Details here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23054.0

All my writing, here or anywhere else, permission granted to copy.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!