Bitcoin: The dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists

[JayJuanGee]

Seriously, if I can keep all my money in Bitcoin I would have done that by now, just that I am having problem with the volatility of Bitcoin. I prefer all these new age digital banking than the banks that we used to use before. But it’s not possible for me to keep my money in Bitcoin, the price can go down at any time, I just invest and save little bucks in it that wouldn’t get me worried if they should drop.

Banks are really doing things that are frustrating people these days, and I am starting to not like them. Although I’m also worried that Bitcoin is not 100% anonymous and won’t give us complete privacy, and I don’t like Monero.

There are NOT too many people who would recommend putting 100% in bitcoin or any other possible investment, and I tend to recommend people who have at least a 4-year investment timeline (preferably longer) to put 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid investable assets into bitcoin...

Of course, each person has to tailor their investment, strategy and planning, whether we are talking about bitcoin or any other investment to their various personal circumstances that could also affect how they invest including whether they employ lump sum investment, dollar cost averaging, buying on dips or variations of such strategies to accumulate, maintain, liquidate.. depending on where they are at, in terms of their own specific circumstances including risk tolerance, cashflow, other investments, etc.

[1715539629]

1715539629

[1715539629]

1715539629

[1715539629]

1715539629

[1715539629]

1715539629

[slaman29]

There are NOT too many people who would recommend putting 100% in bitcoin or any other possible investment, and I tend to recommend people who have at least a 4-year investment timeline (preferably longer) to put 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid investable assets into bitcoin...

Of course, each person has to tailor their investment, strategy and planning, whether we are talking about bitcoin or any other investment to their various personal circumstances that could also affect how they invest including whether they employ lump sum investment, dollar cost averaging, buying on dips or variations of such strategies to accumulate, maintain, liquidate.. depending on where they are at, in terms of their own specific circumstances including risk tolerance, cashflow, other investments, etc.

It's crazy just how many people actually think you have to diversify by buying MORE altcoins. Somewhere along the way, people lost their heads and forgot that putting Bitcoin as PART of your investment portfolio is your way of diversification, NOT putting it all in Bitcoin and then spreading it among altcoins.

I think the lack of financial education is what's the real problem here.

[JayJuanGee]

There are NOT too many people who would recommend putting 100% in bitcoin or any other possible investment, and I tend to recommend people who have at least a 4-year investment timeline (preferably longer) to put 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid investable assets into bitcoin...

Of course, each person has to tailor their investment, strategy and planning, whether we are talking about bitcoin or any other investment to their various personal circumstances that could also affect how they invest including whether they employ lump sum investment, dollar cost averaging, buying on dips or variations of such strategies to accumulate, maintain, liquidate.. depending on where they are at, in terms of their own specific circumstances including risk tolerance, cashflow, other investments, etc.

It's crazy just how many people actually think you have to diversify by buying MORE altcoins. Somewhere along the way, people lost their heads and forgot that putting Bitcoin as PART of your investment portfolio is your way of diversification, NOT putting it all in Bitcoin and then spreading it among altcoins.

I think the lack of financial education is what's the real problem here.

Sure, we probably do not learn those kinds of financial matters in school because of systematic desires for consumer and debt culture, even though some kinds of financial strategy matters can be learned too, including if adults were to learn to live within their means and to incorporate some kind of savings/investment practices.

So, if young adults begin to attempt to save 10% of their income, then after a while the 10% begins to add up, and they might thereafter begin to learn how to invest, too.... and then realize that diversification of investments should be across different kinds of asset classes, and that is one of the problems with attempting to diversify within crypto when almost every single non-bitcoin crypto seems to be largely dependent upon the performance of bitcoin - so does not seem to be adding much value to actually include some other crypto - except maybe for gambling purposes... or maybe having some inside information that could cause pumpening (which also could end up blowing up too, if not getting in and out at the right time).

[GazetaBitcoin]

I decided to move the topic for a while in the Beginners & Help section, as some of the users of this board may not visit also Bitcoin Discussion board. I think I'll move the topic from time to time between the two boards, in order for the thread to have the chance to be read by as many members as possible.

[yazher]

I think that changing the system is possible, if people wouldn't let the greed to rule them. To be more precise, instead of constantly exchanging BTC for fiat, use just BTC. If everybody would use only BTC, the govern would permanently be defeated and crypto-anarchy would flourish. But keeping the greed to a zero level is very, very hard.

Those guys have already planned everything from the start of every new revolution they always have some counter plan. they just have some hard time countering BTC no matter how they put negative news about it, there are some people who always trust bitcoin and the price is still remaining on top. I think this is the reason why they adopt it now instead of boycotting it in the mainstream. Since they cannot stop the popularity and the demand. Not all the time things are going according to plan there is always be a time like this where they're plan has failed to erase BTC from the people's mind.

[Hueristic]

The dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists includes fungibility.

[JayJuanGee]

The dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists includes fungibility.

This below-linked podcast that came out today reminded me of this thread, in terms of talking about bitcoin precursors and the problems that were attempting to be solved in the lead up to bitcoin.

Unchained: Why Bitcoin Now: The History of Digital Currency - Ep.185

[Hueristic]

The dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists includes fungibility.

This below-linked podcast that came out today reminded me of this thread, in terms of talking about bitcoin precursors and the problems that were attempting to be solved in the lead up to bitcoin.

Unchained: Why Bitcoin Now: The History of Digital Currency - Ep.185

@17:00

https://overcast.fm/+LNqca2EDU/17:00

[GazetaBitcoin]

I just noticed that I received 1 merit from a very old forum member - Paperweight. While I'm glad that happened -- that such an old forum member found this writing of mine and considered it being qualitative, I am also happy to see that such an old forum member is still active. People like him are rare, very rare, as most of the old forum members (2009 - 2011 era) are not using the forum (or their old accounts?) anymore.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Steven Levy, the author of the above mentioned Wired article, called them with a term impossible to translate in a foreign language: "techie-cum-civil libertarians".

Does anyone know how to say this expression with other words, thus it can be understood better by non-English speakers?

[GazetaBitcoin]

After keeping the topic for 2 months in the Begginers&Help board, I'm moving it again to Bitcoin Discussion board, for more visibility.

[coinfinger]

It’s just been that way since years, or should I say from the beginning lol; those in power are always oppressing the poor people that they are ruling. Since I was born my parents kept complaining about the bad government we had in our country, and till today we are still complaining about that bad government, and as time goes on things seems to be getting even worse and no solution to it. Do you know the most annoying thing about this? Everyone that goes into power seems to be corrupted.

I have seen politicians that started out good, but once they have been given that power, they all start changing and becoming evil as the first.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I updated the OP with two translations: one was made by me, in Romanian, and the second one was made by Ratimov, in Russian. That was a huge and unexpected surprise for me. Thank you Ratimov!

• Română: Bitcoin: visul avut de Cypherpunks, de libertarieni și de crypto-anarhiști, translation by GazetaBitcoin
• Pyccкий: Bitcoin: Meчтa шифpoпaнкoв, либepтapиaнцeв и кpиптo-aнapxиcтoв, translation by Ratimov

[GazetaBitcoin]

I am sometimes frightened by messages from newcomers to the crypto industry, when they are happy that another bank has started accepting cryptocurrencies for storage. This contradicts the idea of ​​a nascent movement where people were against banks and government surveillance for the monetary system to be independent. I honestly don't understand why they are again trying to carry their funds to centralized storage facilities.

That's because none of these users understood the anarchic and libertarian ideology of Bitcoin, which is here to help them to render governs as irrelevant through its decentralization. Without having any idea of what they're doing, these users contribute to governs' efforts for centralizing something which was born decentralized. They are actively contributing to ruining their chance (and ours as well) to freedom and liberty. To anonymity and financial privacy.

By the way, in case you find useful, you can add also to the translated topic this post of mine, where I tried to make a comparison between Bitcoin and its ancestors features. JayJuanGee asked me if I can make such comparison and, as far as I know, it's one of its kind. I could never find anywhere on the Internet such comparison and I did it manually

[Carlton Banks]

Technology offered a great weapon to the govern and it started to use it at full capacity, in order to have full control, mainly through agencies such as NSA. Governs' permanent hunger for information about citizen became a hunger for big data: each individual is conditioned by govern-issued documents. You can not give birth without a govern-issued ID, you can not get married without a govern-issued ID, you can not die without a govern-issued ID, you can not prove your identity without a govern-issued ID, you can not access hospitals without a govern-issued ID and so on. And all this information is recorded in databases, which are controlled by various arms of the state; ultimately, they are controlled by the state.

During these harsh times, in 1975, Whitfield Diffie invented the public-key cryptography, bringing the brilliant tool to the public. The govern reacted, offering its help to "keep secure" people's private keys. This never happened and from these moment the crypto wars have begun. In 1977 RSA encryption algorithm was invented by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman; the algorithm was using the public-key cryptography. NSA's next move was to ban public access to Diffie's invention and the export of encryption algorithms outside the US. NSA director Bobby Inman became worried because people could access encryption technology which, until that point in time, was used only by the agencies. A 1993 article from Wired leaked an address sent by Inman in 1979, warning that "non-governmental cryptologic activity and publication [...] poses clear risks to the national security". The encryption algorithms were considered classified information and protected by Federal Regulations, such as ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR 121-128). Exporting them could lead to 10 years in jail. As a response, the public printed a few lines of the RSA code on t-shirts and the agency warned that wearing these kind of t-shirts while traveling outside the US or exporting them would mean jail time for the "offenders", as these kind of t-shirts were considered "munitions". Those wearing tattoos with RSA algorithm were also considered as offenders. Maybe that was the first time when the govern feared that it may lost the control. This fear can be seen in the name of the address issued by Inman: "iSky is falling".

John Gilmore, a brave young man, stood tall in front of the agency. The same Wired article quotes him emphasizing: "Show us. Show the public how your ability to violate the privacy of any citizen has prevented a major disaster. They're abridging the freedom and privacy of all citizens—to defend us against a bogeyman that they will not explain. The decision to literally trade away our privacy is one that must be made by the whole society, not made unilaterally by a military spy agency."

The above section is, to me, a vital piece of the crypto-anarchist puzzle

Bitcoin allows us to sign arbitrary messages (using bitcoin addresses in the Diffie-Hellman the key-pair concept) quite easily, but was really not designed to function as a general purpose public keypair.

PGP was. Despite the recent setbacks to PGP (the older key-server tech that let everyone fetch each others public keys is completely broken), it remains a powerful technology; the security of the whole internet literally depends on PGP keys, as near enough every server runs an operating system that uses PGP to check the authenticity of security updates. The reliability of the internet would be quite different if servers couldn't do this (any alternative mechanism would also rely on the authors of the operating software providing a signed hash of the security update payloads, and PGP has long been the standard tool for the job). Bitcoin also relies on PGP, the hashes of every release binary are signed with the PGP key of Bitcoin Core's repo maintainer, and both commits to the code repo and sometimes even repo comments are PGP signed.


If we are to neuter government power still further, removing their controlling grasp on ID systems is essential. While PGP is not perfect, it is highly functional and proven in several important ways, and over a huge stretch of time (essentially since the modern commercialization of the internet in the 1st half of the 1990's). If we are to continue the manifestation of crypto-anarchy and cypher punk culture into the mainstream (in which Bitcoin is the 1st major success), then understanding the need for decentralized IDs, that allow us to prove who we are and that our messages are authentically our own, then PGP (or some successor tech) will be inevitably a part of it.

Already government power is weakening, and that of their self-emancipated neo-serfs increasing (hence their desperate attempts to reassert that power in exploiting the circumstances of the 2020 pandemic). They are clearly afraid of what will happen. Trust between people is being attacked, and cryptographic tools (like Bitcoin or PGP) are among many powerful tools we can use to make sure they cannot attack decentralized power.

[BitcoinFX]

...snip...

If we are to neuter government power still further, removing their controlling grasp on ID systems is essential. While PGP is not perfect, it is highly functional and proven in several important ways, and over a huge stretch of time (essentially since the modern commercialization of the internet in the 1st half of the 1990's). If we are to continue the manifestation of crypto-anarchy and cypher punk culture into the mainstream (in which Bitcoin is the 1st major success), then understanding the need for decentralized IDs, that allow us to prove who we are and that our messages are authentically our own, then PGP (or some successor tech) will be inevitably a part of it.

Already government power is weakening, and that of their self-emancipated neo-serfs increasing (hence their desperate attempts to reassert that power in exploiting the circumstances of the 2020 pandemic). They are clearly afraid of what will happen. Trust between people is being attacked, and cryptographic tools (like Bitcoin or PGP) are among many powerful tools we can use to make sure they cannot attack decentralized power.

How it started?

This is a very interesting topic.  If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.

Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures.  With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations.  It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.

The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist?  It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that.  If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before.  Do you have any ideas on this?

It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.

We're trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require knowing about all and checking that the something isn't included.

How it's going?

Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge_proof

Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing ...
- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DP-3T/documents/master/DP3T%20White%20Paper.pdf



(Schnorr/taproot/tapscript)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorr_signature
- https://decrypt.co/45138/bitcoin-is-getting-two-major-improvements-in-historic-code-update

[GazetaBitcoin]

If we are to neuter government power still further, removing their controlling grasp on ID systems is essential. While PGP is not perfect, it is highly functional and proven in several important ways, and over a huge stretch of time (essentially since the modern commercialization of the internet in the 1st half of the 1990's). If we are to continue the manifestation of crypto-anarchy and cypher punk culture into the mainstream (in which Bitcoin is the 1st major success), then understanding the need for decentralized IDs, that allow us to prove who we are and that our messages are authentically our own, then PGP (or some successor tech) will be inevitably a part of it.

Decentralized IDs or free market IDs are indeed a necessary step for rendering governs as irrelevant. At the moment there are many types of IDs which alternate the govern-issued IDs but they function at a small scale and they are centralized, being issued by various entities (mostly companies). For example, let's take the access badges that so many companies issue for their employees. Such badges function as alternate IDs: they authenticate the owner of the badge, they show a picture of the possessor and also the name. Other similar alt-IDs can be considered the cards with points, vouchers or various discounts offered by some companies to the loyal customers. These cards also function as IDs as the customer can be properly identified in a database by the company and in the database are stored his / her name, address, a history of the shopping made, the points earned, the vouchers used and so on.

And yet, governs don't object to any of these IDs. Why? Because they are not considered official authentication documents at a worldwide scale. An employee of McDonald's which has a badge issued by the company is recognized inside the company, but is not recognized if he travels in another country and tries to authenticate with that badge in front of another individual. These IDs are used at a small scale, are not recognized outside the company which issued them and, most important, they are centralized. That's why governs allow them: because the mean no danger to the governs.

On the other side, the crypto-anarchy approach proposes something completely different: alternative IDs which are worldwide recognized, at least inside a web of trust. The problem and a possible solution were forseen by Tim May almost 30 years ago:

"Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other. Interactions over networks will be untraceable, via extensive re- routing of encrypted packets and tamper-proof boxes which implement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance against any tampering. Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today. These developments will alter completely the nature of government regulation, the ability to tax and control economic interactions, the ability to keep information secret, and will even alter the nature of trust and reputation.

Practically, Tim May was proposing a web of trust based on the participants reputation of free market, this leading to the others to trust the reputation of one individual, no matter his name, be it John, Mendax or Dread Pirate Roberts. Speaking of which, this form of reputation was also adopted by Silk Road. But not only by Silk Road. It is broadly implemented in various Internet societies, including on BitcoinTalk. I also wrote a topic of the importance of the reputation of the free market, referring also to how this system is used on the forum: Why reputation is essential on the free market.

So if now a forum member with a great reputation - let's say philipma or mikeywith, both having a great reputation in Bitmain coupons and mining equipment business - would contact a forum member selling some coupons; if they would ask the other member to send the coupon first and they would send the money after, many of potential coupons owners would proceed this way. Why? Because both philipma and mikeywith are illustruous members of the forum, with so many merits earned; because they have positive feedbacks; because they have reputation; and because they have a good Trust Score. For the seller it doesn't matter that he knows philipma by the name philipma and not by the True Name. It doesn't matter where philipma lives, how old he is etc. It only matters that a user authenticated on the forum as philipma is interested in making a deal with him. And this name nym, philipma, is the alternate ID used here, inside this society of BitcoinTalk.

In part, Tim May's forecat already came true.

Meaning that reputation systems are implemented and vastly used. The problem is that it doesn't exist (yet) a complete web of trust, where any user can authenticate with an alternate ID on any site. For example, a Reddit user with high reputation to be recognized here, on BitcoinTalk, based on his nym, where his reputation is "stored". We need to develop further this web of trust and find a way for global authentication based on our nyms which wear also our reputation, no matter if my name would be John, yours would be Mike and so on. The nym carries the reputation in this case, not the real name.

So this is the direction where I think the efforts should be focused. This can't be implemented over the night. But in time, a web of trust may develop and expand itself. Once this will be real, the governs won't be able to oppose in any way the alternate IDs, as they will be used at a large scale, on a pure free market, by each participant. And these IDs would be the Nyms of the users, not their Names.

But governs know this. They are aware of the danger. This is why they try to apply KYC everywhere. Even for donations!!! They need KYC, because KYC offers the True Names, while the free market requires only the True Nyms. And as a justification for the severe enforced KYC they (the governs) always refer to the Four Horsemen of Infocalypse.

All this KYC nonsense is based on the idea of the Four Horsemen of Infocalypse. Which are money launderers, drug lords, terrorists and pedophiles. The idea is greatly debated by Julian Assange in his book Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet. Other great minds are also part of the book, such as Jacob Appelbaum (TOR developer), Andy Müller (a hacker which is a member of Chaos Computer Club (CCC)) and Jérémie Zimmermann (co-founder of La Quadrature du Net).

Governs are emphasizing that all these decisions are based on combating these four horsemen, but it's a lie. The problems determined by the horsemen of infocalypse can be mitigated with other ways, not with KYC. Besides, make sure to read also 1miau's topic Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless which is complementary to OP.

We need to prove to the world that governs' false fears of the four horsemen are, indeed, false. And we need to develop the web of trust. When these will happen, we will be able to authenticate everywhere with alternate IDs: and these will be our True Nyms.

[Anonylz]

By the way, in case you find useful, you can add also to the translated topic this post of mine, where I tried to make a comparison between Bitcoin and its ancestors features. JayJuanGee asked me if I can make such comparison and, as far as I know, it's one of its kind. I could never find anywhere on the Internet such comparison and I did it manually

Of course, I'm interested in this theme. I'll do it soon.

And about freedom, yes, governments clearly do not like this idea of ​​decentralization, what they are not subject to, they are trying to ban. I am convinced that all these bans on cryptocurrencies with the explanation that cryptocurrencies contribute to terrorism and the sale of drugs are just an excuse, the real reason is that governments are losing control and banks too, and it is not beneficial for them. After all, it is clear that terrorism, financial fraud and the sale of drugs interact much more with traditional finance, then let's ban fiat. I support the idea of ​​decentralizing and storing my funds with me with my keys, and not with some third-party who can take my money at any time.

Seriously i think the days of banning crypto are behind us, with this new development of PayPal providing crypto service to it's customers starting with USA customers, i want to believe the negative perception about crpto in general is reducing otherwise while will a company like PayPal decide to support crypto, now they have realize that the use of digital currency is inevitable, the more government device a means to eradicate crypto the more the awareness grow,
it really doesn't matter what the government do or say, the fact remains crypto is here and not going anywhere, it is time they start to have a re-think, make plans towards crypto acceptance, it is said "if you cant beat the you join them"  government are losing control.

[BitcoinFX]

...snip...

Seriously i think the days of banning crypto are behind us, with this new development of PayPal providing crypto service to it's customers starting with USA customers, i want to believe the negative perception about crpto in general is reducing otherwise while will a company like PayPal decide to support crypto, now they have realize that the use of digital currency is inevitable, the more government device a means to eradicate crypto the more the awareness grow,
it really doesn't matter what the government do or say, the fact remains crypto is here and not going anywhere, it is time they start to have a re-think, make plans towards crypto acceptance, it is said "if you cant beat the you join them"  government are losing control.

Allowing someone else, albeit an individual or company, to store cryptocurrency on your behalf is neither the dream of cypherpunks, libertarians or crypto-anarchists.

Not your keys; Not your coins!

Possession is nine-tenths of the law
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

Topic: Why you should not use Paypal for Bitcoin
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5283645.0

[Carlton Banks]

You read their announcement in general, they offer centralized storage of cryptocurrency, without providing private keys, and this is contrary to the principles of cryptocurrency.

And what happens: PayPal will breed a huge number of misguided newbies who will think that centralized storage of cryptocurrencies is okay.

So PayPal at this stage cannot bring any benefit to Bitcoin and its community, in principle, benefit only to Bitcoin holders, because the price is flying up against the background of this announcement.

PayPal did not give a damn about the rule for any crypto user: Not your keys, not your coins

even though I agree, I still think this represents a win: someone at Paypal is noticing a trend towards Bitcoin, and responded "...but we need to do something! Anything!"

This is basically the beginning of the end for Paypal, and this move serves as their confession that they know it too