Bitcoin Has Lost Its Way: Here’s How to Return to Crypto’s Subversive Roots

[20kevin20]

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?

[1715001731]

1715001731

[BrewMaster]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[20kevin20]

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.

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).

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.

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.

[bbc.reporter]

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, 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, 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.

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.

[thirdkiller]

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

[kryptqnick]

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.



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

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.

[DooMAD]

the state appeared for a reason and returning to pre-state life is not desirable.

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.

[Sadlife]

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.

[bbc.reporter]

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.



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

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.

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.

[int03h]

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.

[target]

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.

[ichi]

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.

[amishmanish]

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.

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.

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?

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".