ㅤ

[Pmalek]

Interestingly enough, that what you said reminds me something that I read about Bitlocker (the service of USB memory encryption developed by Windows). Even though, it is proprietary software, it seems that it lacked a backdoor and the only way to access the information without the passphrase was using a backup cypher, which the user needed to store themselves. Because of this, it seems Microsoft got some visits by the men in Black.

2006 was a long time ago. There is a possibility that they have found an agreement in the meantime that would allow them access with the correct documents presented. I guess many people store the backup keys on the same drive and the same computer. And Bitlocker might make a secondary backup key for clients who set up this option from certain territories. So, there are ways...

When it comes to knocking on doors, it's easy to find the right doors to knock on at Microsoft's HQ. It's easy to find the right people to incentivize, put under pressure, or threaten with sanctions. They sit in the bigger offices. It becomes a bit more challenging when something is decentralized and its CEO is unknown or non-existing.   

[1714057727]

1714057727

[1714057727]

1714057727

[BlackHatCoiner]

As far as I know, Grin for instance, scales better than Bitcoin and preserves privacy on L1.

Interesting comparisons.

So, in the long run, privacy can only be ensured if it remains a niche subject, enjoyed by a minority, who hopes not to get 'discovered' or not to become too large?

No. It should be ensured if it stops being a niche subject, and that requires education. If people don't care about their privacy, I'm not going to I can't enforce them do. Leave the technical stuff asides for a sec. As long as society is consisted by mostly people who either don't care about their privacy or don't want the others to have privacy, then enforcing privacy is only going to form niche. On the other hand, optional privacy fits us all better.

TLS is not a privacy but a security mechanism in the first place, indeed

It does use encryption and provides a little privacy though.

[Hispo]

Interestingly enough, that what you said reminds me something that I read about Bitlocker (the service of USB memory encryption developed by Windows). Even though, it is proprietary software, it seems that it lacked a backdoor and the only way to access the information without the passphrase was using a backup cypher, which the user needed to store themselves. Because of this, it seems Microsoft got some visits by the men in Black.

2006 was a long time ago. There is a possibility that they have found an agreement in the meantime that would allow them access with the correct documents presented. I guess many people store the backup keys on the same drive and the same computer. And Bitlocker might make a secondary backup key for clients who set up this option from certain territories. So, there are ways...

When it comes to knocking on doors, it's easy to find the right doors to knock on at Microsoft's HQ. It's easy to find the right people to incentivize, put under pressure, or threaten with sanctions. They sit in the bigger offices. It becomes a bit more challenging when something is decentralized and its CEO is unknown or non-existing.   

Yes, It was a long time ago and they probably ended up implementing all kinds of back doors on Windows 10 and the native software that comes with it.
It is a situation which makes me think about the future of developers who dedicate their time giving support to wallets, tokens or even entire blockchains, I am afraid that in the future there would exist new legislation which could punish people behind projects like Wasabi, Monero or even Bitcoin. in the end, Bitcoin developers are not anonymous. 

[Kryptowerk]

Cracking down on Bitcoin is very simple.  All you need to do is outlaw it due to 'extremely high levels of illicit use'.

It is a valid theory but also I can't help but see this scenario as shutting down lots of businesses with a total worth in the billions in most countries. They won't be only cracking down on bitcoin. For example in US there is already big exchanges like Coinbase and Gemeni, different mining pools and farms like Marathon Digital, blockchain analysis companies, payment processors like BitPay, investment companies, even banks and a lot more. It is extremely difficult to suddenly decide to shut them all down.

Not to mention the US government (and possibly other govs) is using bitcoin (and Tether) for illicit activities. Cracking down on bitcoin would significantly limit their own operations specially on social media.

That is indeed a nice counter-argument against cencership on Bitcoin.
What seems much more likely to me is a "smart-approach" - if layer1 privacy on a protocol level were to happen (as far as I am imformed) it would need a hardfork. - So it shouldn't be to difficult for big states to "convince" miners to not go with the privacy-update, because this chain will  be made illegal to use.
Quite certainly, still a big number of people will switch to the privacy chain, but I am doubtful this will be the majority. Even if, it would create a big split in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

So, in the long run, privacy can only be ensured if it remains a niche subject, enjoyed by a minority, who hopes not to get 'discovered' or not to become too large?

No. It should be ensured if it stops being a niche subject, and that requires education. If people don't care about their privacy, I'm not going to I can't enforce them do. Leave the technical stuff asides for a sec. As long as society is consisted by mostly people who either don't care about their privacy or don't want the others to have privacy, then enforcing privacy is only going to form niche. On the other hand, optional privacy fits us all better.

Well spoken on the education part. That is the unfortunate truth, right now only a minority of people is aware of the value of privacy.
I mean, we have a state of over 1 billion people successfully trying to undermine any digital privacy of their citizens. Other western countries have more liberties but technology is faster than education and legislation, so it is a race that most people are losing right now.

[PrivacyG]

Quite certainly, still a big number of people will switch to the privacy chain, but I am doubtful this will be the majority. Even if, it would create a big split in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

But then Monero would be a better and more convenient choice than just forking off Bitcoin, would it not?  If Miners are convinced to not support the Hard Fork, then the smaller part of the community (Privacy advocates) become a big, red target in the scopes of Governments.  Right?  Then why even bother creating a new Privacy by default Bitcoin when you can just resort to using Monero instead.  Because if Governments want Privacy to be outlawed, a Bitcoin fork with Privacy by default is going to be part of that list too.

I do not even know what side I am on any more.  Supporting L1 Privacy or supporting Bitcoin just as it is.  I think Layer 1 Privacy on Bitcoin would be progress but I also think it would bring a huge spike of hatred which ultimately affects Bitcoin.  If I deeply think it through, I rather have Monero and Bitcoin co existing in peace with 99 percent of users being analyzed by Blockchain Analysis and carelessly using Bitcoin than bringing a big wildfire to both Bitcoin and Monero.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Pmalek]

<Snip>

I understand what you are saying. And if it ever comes to a point where crypto will become heavily regulated or even outlawed in some cases, I think stablecoins and privacy coins will be the first targets of such sanctions. We shouldn't forget coin mixing services either. I don't think it's a good idea to put Bitcoin on top of such a list. We know that Monero and privacy coins are already banned on many centralized exchanges. Even if you don't use those, they are the most popular way to trade crypto and it tells you a lot about what the future could look like.

Wasn't Litecoin also delisted by a bunch of exchanges during the summer after the MimbleWimble upgrade went live? They experimented with a better privacy solution and there is your result. I just don't see bitcoin becoming a widely accepted payment method if there is a CEX-wide ban and if we are going to have to hide in some back alleys to trade with each other. 

[Kryptowerk]

<Snip>

I understand what you are saying. And if it ever comes to a point where crypto will become heavily regulated or even outlawed in some cases, I think stablecoins and privacy coins will be the first targets of such sanctions. We shouldn't forget coin mixing services either. I don't think it's a good idea to put Bitcoin on top of such a list. We know that Monero and privacy coins are already banned on many centralized exchanges. Even if you don't use those, they are the most popular way to trade crypto and it tells you a lot about what the future could look like.

Wasn't Litecoin also delisted by a bunch of exchanges during the summer after the MimbleWimble upgrade went live? They experimented with a better privacy solution and there is your result. I just don't see bitcoin becoming a widely accepted payment method if there is a CEX-wide ban and if we are going to have to hide in some back alleys to trade with each other. 

It kind of feels like a debate of idealism vs realism.
But let's rethink if "realistic thinking" is not actually FUD-thinking. If we manage to get widespread consensus in Bitcoin devs and miners (and ideally consumers/people using BTC in any way) that L1 privacy is the way to go, I believe it would benefit Bitcoin in the long run. - The network and adoption is already there, exactly what is lacking from any other privacy coin right now, even Monero.
So creating facts and so letting the snail-slow governments and regulators try to react could actually work.
I cannot imagine any crypto-CEX surviving by not accepting Bitcoin anymore. So these powerful (rich) institutions would also have high incentives to push for a pro-(privacy)-Bitcoin legislation.
Also, even in traditional banking there are actually quite a number of people that want privacy and fungible currencies.

tldr: Creating L1 privacy when done right could work and will just something the world would need to adopt to.
Too much FUD around it certainly is contraproductive.

[Pmalek]

But let's rethink if "realistic thinking" is not actually FUD-thinking.

If it is, we need to change the definition of what FUD is or how we interpret it. Being realistic and even pessimistic shouldn't have negative connotations. Being pessimistic also doesn't mean that you wish that the worst-case scenario is going to happen. It's just a state of mind. You can be a pessimist but still hope and cheer for a positive outcome.   

If we manage to get widespread consensus in Bitcoin devs and miners (and ideally consumers/people using BTC in any way) that L1 privacy is the way to go, I believe it would benefit Bitcoin in the long run.

I really hope so. But here is the pessimist in me. I don't think there will be consensus for such a change. Why? Because privacy advocates aren't the majority of the users. If you ask the average Joe if he would rather use the bitcoin we have today with less privacy and a public ledger, or one with increased privacy and private ledger, I think many would pick the first option.

With the first type, not so many questions are asked. The second one could bring about more questions. Who are you? Where are you from? What is the source of your funds? Why are you using a private currency? Centralized exchanges couldn't care less about bitcoin as long as they make their money. If they can replace the lost profits from delisting a private bitcoin by getting funding from elsewhere (let's say from those who would be interested in destroying Bitcoin), I think that many wouldn't mind. I would rather not be in the position of having to find out what will happen.

Satoshi's whitepaper doesn't speak about a privacy coin or a private network. If we hardfork towards such a path, are we still using bitcon and where do we draw the line of what is acceptable and what isn't?

[Kryptowerk]

[...]

With the first type, not so many questions are asked. The second one could bring about more questions. Who are you? Where are you from? What is the source of your funds? Why are you using a private currency? Centralized exchanges couldn't care less about bitcoin as long as they make their money. If they can replace the lost profits from delisting a private bitcoin by getting funding from elsewhere (let's say from those who would be interested in destroying Bitcoin), I think that many wouldn't mind. I would rather not be in the position of having to find out what will happen.

Satoshi's whitepaper doesn't speak about a privacy coin or a private network. If we hardfork towards such a path, are we still using bitcon and where do we draw the line of what is acceptable and what isn't?

(Almost) all your concerns are void, if the majority chooses the privacy chain. That being said I tend to go back and forth on the concerns what will actually happen regarding regulation if privacy is indeed implenented on the base-layer. Would be worth a try imho.
And sure, some of the exchanges will take a deal (however that may look) and turn their back on Bitcoin. But new exchanges will emerge. And after all, I highly doubt ALL countries will establish a legislation where private bitcoin will be sanctioned or even banned - so we would see some Bitcoin-heaven countries with lots of new crypto-services (incl exchanges) emerging from it.
I see your points, though - but then again I am just an optimist, disguised as a realist. That's just me. :p

[Suzanasuzana]

I still remember that in beginning they were promoting like they super pro-privacy, even about taking legal actions against exchangers who block user accounts for making deposits from Wasabi, talking about making Chainalysis going out of business...and now they are cooperating with them. What's the point? Privacy friendly surveillance?! LOL!

[Lida93]

Not to mention the US government (and possibly other govs) is using bitcoin (and Tether) for illicit activities. Cracking down on bitcoin would significantly limit their own operations specially on social media.

The crackdown would have to happen in a way that it affects you and me (the regular taxpayers) only and makes it harder or close to impossible for us (the regular folks) to continue using bitcoin the way we want to. It's not going to affect them, and they aren't going to investigate their criminal friends and partners. They will investigate the ordinary guy and parade him in front of the cameras as a dangerous criminal. People can and are being silenced over social media. That's what fact-checking companies are for.

I understand that every government all wherever in the world has the same character of "do as I say but don't do as I do", there's no difference in their perspective towards anything that offers power and absolute control to the ordinary individuals and they feel this is what Bitcoin is offering to the common folks and they won't stop not until they make use of every instrumentality within their reach to crackdown on those folks not towing same path with them. Like there are currently some African countries that have placed a ban on crypto activities yet underground there are high profile government officials and agents that are making use of it for intelligence-related transactions. How pitiful!

[Pmalek]

Like there are currently some African countries that have placed a ban on crypto activities yet underground there are high profile government officials and agents that are making use of it for intelligence-related transactions. How pitiful!

They can never ban bitcoin if it's used the way it was intended - as P2P cash. They can ban what it has become in the meantime. An asset that is controlled and traded through centralized exchanges and similar services. The Central Banks together with their regular bank buddies can ban the transfer of funds to/from anything related to crypto. But a permissionless coin doesn't need their permission to move from A to B. They can never take away my right to meet you somewhere and exchange what we want face to face.   

[Wind_FURY]

Like there are currently some African countries that have placed a ban on crypto activities yet underground there are high profile government officials and agents that are making use of it for intelligence-related transactions. How pitiful!

They can never ban bitcoin if it's used the way it was intended - as P2P cash. They can ban what it has become in the meantime. An asset that is controlled and traded through centralized exchanges and similar services. The Central Banks together with their regular bank buddies can ban the transfer of funds to/from anything related to crypto. But a permissionless coin doesn't need their permission to move from A to B. They can never take away my right to meet you somewhere and exchange what we want face to face.   

Good point, ser! Plus the fact that it can still be used without censorship in the Darknet Markets, or as a means of payment for Ransomware that cannot be stopped by a centralized authority proves that Satoshi's invention actually works! Because the time when Bitcoin has centralized enough that miners can censor onchain transactions, will be the time that we definitely could say that Bitcoin has failed.

[Pmalek]

Plus the fact that it can still be used without censorship in the Darknet Markets, or as a means of payment for Ransomware that cannot be stopped by a centralized authority proves that Satoshi's invention actually works!

True, although I wouldn't use that as arguments in bitcoin's favor. We want to get the general public to support bitcoin, and make them see that their government is taking away their freedoms little by little. Darknet markets and ransomware attacks, although good examples of what Bitcoin can do, aren't something a non-bitcoiner will find to be impressive features.

Plus, the government and media are just going to use that to their advantage to say how bad bitcoin is because it allows criminals and drug dealers to sell drugs and poison our children.   

[Wind_FURY]

Plus the fact that it can still be used without censorship in the Darknet Markets, or as a means of payment for Ransomware that cannot be stopped by a centralized authority proves that Satoshi's invention actually works!

True, although I wouldn't use that as arguments in bitcoin's favor. We want to get the general public to support bitcoin, and make them see that their government is taking away their freedoms little by little. Darknet markets and ransomware attacks, although good examples of what Bitcoin can do, aren't something a non-bitcoiner will find to be impressive features.

Plus, the government and media are just going to use that to their advantage to say how bad bitcoin is because it allows criminals and drug dealers to sell drugs and poison our children.   

Because they haven't understood what Bitcoin truly is yet, what its purpose, or why it was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. It would be so laughable for us plebs to preach permissionlessness, and censorship-resistance, then also demand what Bitcoin should be used for or who should use it. What would be the purpose of POW, if Bitcoin is to only be used like PayPal?

[Pmalek]

It would be so laughable for us plebs to preach permissionlessness, and censorship-resistance, then also demand what Bitcoin should be used for or who should use it. What would be the purpose of POW, if Bitcoin is to only be used like PayPal?

I am not saying we should demand or disallow anything. It's your money and your choices. I am just saying there are better ways to market this economy than talking about dark markets. If your parents asked you to explain what bitcoin is used for, you aren't going to tell them it makes it easier for you to get heroin, meth, and fake IDs from underground forums.

Instead, tell them about borderless payments, cheap fees regardless of the amounts being sent, the speed of transaction finality, or the irreversible nature of it. Although, even the irreversibility is a feature that could scare people away, and they could instead consider it a fault or a weakness. Especially if a bank helped them correct some mistakes they made at one point in the past. 

[OROBTC]

...

Hmm.  The CEO of Chainalysis (Michael Gronager) is attending at the WEF 2023 event.  Just so you know which side he is on.

List of attendees, sorted alphabetically by country and then institution:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Redactedweffinaldavos2023.pdf  <--- 70+ pages of the usual suspects

[dkbit98]

Hmm.  The CEO of Chainalysis (Michael Gronager) is attending at the WEF 2023 event.  Just so you know which side he is on.

As far as I know, he is not directly connected with Wasabi and other Bitcoin wallets.
WEF is one of the main promoters of CBDC crap, and I bet someone from ethereum shitcoin foundation will be there, it's one of their favorite little projects for a while.
It's ''good'' to hear 5000 swiss army soldiers, fighter jets, plus their private security will protect all this ''nice'' guys having good time and playing world economic fun games, while there is no-fly zone during this event.
I wonder why are they so afraid of regular people...

[n0nce]

And if it ever comes to a point where crypto will become heavily regulated or even outlawed in some cases, I think stablecoins and privacy coins will be the first targets of such sanctions. We shouldn't forget coin mixing services either. I don't think it's a good idea to put Bitcoin on top of such a list. We know that Monero and privacy coins are already banned on many centralized exchanges.

But Bitcoin.. well, is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not Monero. What kind of exchange are you if you don't offer Bitcoin?
You know what I mean? I don't really see a world where exchanges don't offer Bitcoin. If you ask non-coiners about cryptocurrencies, the only word they know is 'Bitcoin'. If they want to buy crypto, they will search for 'Buy Bitcoin'. Bitcoin is even mistakenly used as a synonym for 'cryptocurrency' by some people (even though that's obviously completely wrong).
That's not an argument for not delisting BTC, but rather just an example for showing how people may be surprised if an exchange doesn't offer it and look for a different one.
Similar to how pure crypto<>crypto exchanges are less popular than the ones that also offer on-ramping through fiat.

Wasn't Litecoin also delisted by a bunch of exchanges during the summer after the MimbleWimble upgrade went live? They experimented with a better privacy solution and there is your result.

Bitcoin isn't Litecoin, though.

[Pmalek]

But Bitcoin.. well, is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not Monero. What kind of exchange are you if you don't offer Bitcoin?

A heavily regulated one that cares little about me and you. One that plays ball and listens to Uncle Sam or whoever is in charge in that particular territory. 

Bitcoin isn't Litecoin, though.

No it isn't, but it's still a coin that makes you money through trading fees. You still earn when your customers withdraw it. It's not the best earner, but it's up there near the top 10. Instead of doing nothing, you (the exchange) ban it because someone told you to or suggested it would be in your best interest maybe.