Snowden I own more bitcoin than anything else—but

[hugeblack]

you can read it from his twitter account ---> https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1391035543773929473

the worst part of cryptocurrency transforming into dragon-level wealth is witnessing good people emotionally devolve into dragons themselves: so intellectually paralyzed by the fear that everyone they see threatens their hoard that they lose sight of the world beyond their cave.
1) This is such a profoundly misleading TL;DR of a privacy-focused talk that it's hard to call it anything but intentionally deceptive.

2) To the extent I own crypto (unless and until it has been lost in boating accidents), I own more bitcoin than anything else—but

3) Bitcoin's disastrous privacy is the "missing stair" of cryptocurrency. Every expert understands it's a problem, but—as experts—they themselves know how to compensate for the risk in their own personal interactions with Bitcoin, and therefore feel no urgency to actually fix it.

4) Privacy coins are great, but they're too small and too easy to smother via regulatory actions like de-listing from exchanges. Only Bitcoin has immunity-via-dominance to delisting. It adopting privacy-by-design instantly normalizes financial privacy. Ultima Ratio Cryptum.

The central property of cash is fungibility—meaning a dollar spent by a plumber is honored equally to one spent by a sex worker: they are indiscriminable. Adversarial chain analysis of Bitcoin's public ledger reduces its fungibility over time. Only privacy guarantees fungibility.

Snowden believes that privacy is what guarantees replacability, just as it does to cash. I see that many people who use Bitcoin have become more interested in prices and their fluctuations than decentralization or privacy, which is the essence of the value of it.

[Poker Player]

Interesting. I didn't know much about privacy, but little by little I know more and more about coin control, mixers, or coinjoin.

I would say that to some extent, Bitcoin is similar to cash although you have to be more careful to maintain privacy.

Cash is not 100% anonymous. If you go somewhere, pay for something with cash but ask for a bill and give your ID so the data appears on the bill, there is no privacy. If you go to buy drugs with cash, the dealer sees your face. Also the bills they give you at the bank are numbered and in principle could be traced if it hasn't been too long since they were given to you.

With Bitcoin you have ways to maintain privacy, and Coinjoin looks quite interesting.

[avikz]

Bitcoin has become an investment asset more than anything else. It's not anymore a currency to the mass which is used for transactions over the internet. It's not anymore a system which lets you take over your finances from the money hungry corporates. It's not a revolution anymore!

Bitcoin has simply become an investment asset which has outperformed all other investment assets so far. So what Snowden is referring to, is true! Sad but true! It has become a way to be rich more than anything else!

[0t3p0t]

you can read it from his twitter account ---> https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1391035543773929473

the worst part of cryptocurrency transforming into dragon-level wealth is witnessing good people emotionally devolve into dragons themselves: so intellectually paralyzed by the fear that everyone they see threatens their hoard that they lose sight of the world beyond their cave.
1) This is such a profoundly misleading TL;DR of a privacy-focused talk that it's hard to call it anything but intentionally deceptive.

2) To the extent I own crypto (unless and until it has been lost in boating accidents), I own more bitcoin than anything else—but

3) Bitcoin's disastrous privacy is the "missing stair" of cryptocurrency. Every expert understands it's a problem, but—as experts—they themselves know how to compensate for the risk in their own personal interactions with Bitcoin, and therefore feel no urgency to actually fix it.

4) Privacy coins are great, but they're too small and too easy to smother via regulatory actions like de-listing from exchanges. Only Bitcoin has immunity-via-dominance to delisting. It adopting privacy-by-design instantly normalizes financial privacy. Ultima Ratio Cryptum.

The central property of cash is fungibility—meaning a dollar spent by a plumber is honored equally to one spent by a sex worker: they are indiscriminable. Adversarial chain analysis of Bitcoin's public ledger reduces its fungibility over time. Only privacy guarantees fungibility.

Snowden believes that privacy is what guarantees replacability, just as it does to cash. I see that many people who use Bitcoin have become more interested in prices and their fluctuations than decentralization or privacy, which is the essence of the value of it.

That is true that most people know Bitcoin only for it's sky rocketing price but not the decentralization and privacy because of the "investment" thing people wanted to happen with Bitcoin. Profit is what matters most nowadays even billionaires did something like that if I am not mistaken. Privacy and decentralization is just a bonus I think.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

That is true that most people know Bitcoin only for it's sky rocketing price

Because most people that we have in crypto now are new guys (because crypto community grows expotentially), lambo guys who came here to find another doge that will make them rich fast. Thats normal during bubble. No matter which tech this bubble is made from (The Dotcom Bubble, Railway Mania, housing bubble) After the bubble all of them are broken and leave crypto market. Crypto market is made from fundamential investors that day. No one is investing is shiba (x1000 in last month) only because its named after the breed of the dog from DOGE crypto.

Decentralization, safety, diversification of well balanced portfolio where you put few% into bitcoin. Thats what's most people do outside of/after mania.

[dkbit98]

Privacy coins are great, but they're too small and too easy to smother via regulatory actions like de-listing from exchanges. Only Bitcoin has immunity-via-dominance to delisting. It adopting privacy-by-design instantly normalizes financial privacy. Ultima Ratio Cryptum.

Snowden isn't wrong about many things he say and I understand his criticism about Bitcoin can be very constructive, but I don't think he fully understands Taproot when he said that it will make privacy even worse.
Everyone here (except maybe governments) would love to see Bitcoin developers introducing better privacy improvements maybe with some ring signatures or other solutions,
but that would mean new hard forks and potentially big problems with regulators worldwide.
I would love to see some serious discussion and suggestions about improving Bitcoin privacy on main chain without second layer or other centralized solution, and maybe Snowden just wanted to shake and wake up developers.
Without making any conclusion better listen Snowden's full interview and maybe listen what he said in his previous talks about Bitcoin and privacy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRsvz6pRtZE

[buwaytress]

I don't think there was ever a time when there were more Bitcoiners interested in privacy more than in its price. At least, not from the moment there was a market created for it, and a first exchange rate (calculated as the electricity cost to produce it).

No pretenses from people like me either. I first looked into Bitcoin properly out of a situation where I had time, and then actually used it out of the necessity for a PayPal alternative. Privacy is nice, and important, but I can't lie that that's why I used Bitcoin first.

[20kevin20]

I think it totally depends on what we want from Bitcoin: do we want it to be a globally-accepted currency or do we want it to be an off-grid alternative to fiat? I would personally like the latter much more than the first, because while we may have "regulatory issues" the more privacy there is, does that matter when the government shows clear signs of a strong desire to control?

Privacy coins are great and if Snowden agrees that a phone without mic & cam (so without the possibility of surveillance) is better, then why would it be an issue to have a coin without possibility for surveillance? Isn't it pretty much the same deal?

Privacy is nice, and important, but I can't lie that that's why I used Bitcoin first.

I think the time will come when Bitcoin users will be seeking privacy. Definitely not all of them, probably not even the majority, but a not insignificant part of them. I started using my first phone due to the necessity of wireless communication. Today however, I am looking for phones with Lineage support and de-Google them ASAP. While 10 years ago digital privacy may have not been a big issue, today with so many intrusive platforms and corporations it's an incrementally higher concern..

[aoluain]

Bitcoin has become an investment asset more than anything else. It's not anymore a currency to the mass which is used for transactions over the internet. It's not anymore a system which lets you take over your finances from the money hungry corporates. It's not a revolution anymore!

Bitcoin has simply become an investment asset which has outperformed all other investment assets so far. So what Snowden is referring to, is true! Sad but true! It has become a way to be rich more than anything else!

Thats exactly it, we are seeing more and more of the "wealthy class# of people
and large companies investing in Bitcoin primarily as an inflation hedge but also
they are realising massive gains.

The upside is that anyone can own it so less wealthy people are also realising gains
which means less and less want to spend it.

The privacy functions or worries of Bitcoin are rarely commented upon in the forum,
Myself included so taproot isnt a critical aspect of Bitcoin for a lot of people but
it is for the people who value the fundamentals of Bitcoinand are interested in its
development not just its $ value.

[franky1]

to be honest..
i have never seen any exchange blacklist any bitcoin if it was related to adult porn. nor any cannabis dispensories

however. stuff that is truly illegal and causes of harm.. well yes maybe just maybe those criminals need to be stopped.

let the kiddy porn/hitmen hard drug criminals go play with an altcoin for their privacy.
and leave bitcoin for the good stuff that doesnt need ID registration. but also doesnt need blacklisting

the solution is far simpler. let the drug addicts and child sex traffickers go play with an altcoin

[kryptqnick]

Since it's Snowden we're talking about, no wonder he's into privacy and doesn't like that Bitcoin isn't really private. And he's right that Bitcoin won't be delisted because it's #1, but I also don't see how Bitcoin is supposed to suddenly become private. It was built to be transparent, not to ensure anonymity, and so it's unclear how it can become something different. Moreover, he makes the argument that basically since transactions are available for everyone to observe, when some are 'marked' with shady stuff going on, people might avoid these coins even though they're technically worth the same as any other bitcoins. So this way Bitcoin might become somewhat non-fungible. But coins seized by various authorities then get sold on auctions, so I think their reputation becomes clean once again and they can then be used without issues. And if some dollar banknotes literally have traces of drugs or blood on them, for instance, it's not like they're truly fungible either.

[grabpopcorn536]

Bitcoin's privacy is the biggest omission of being a real currency. But Bitcoin's strong decentralization is what gives it a great value.
If Bitcoin is anonymous, they will be boycotted by the authorities as they do with Monero, Dash ...
The majority of people invest in Bitcoin for profit and that is very common nowadays. They invest for money, not Bitcoin technology. It is the incentive to develop for the benefit of the community instead of technology that has made the crypto space worse.

[Findingnemo]

Its obvious that people are investing on bitcoin for the high returns and recent surge in the price not for the reason why it was actually created for while still adoption is adoption no matter what so these people who adopted bitcoin will know the value of privacy since I personally realized it after getting into bitcoin than become a bitcoiner.

[hatshepsut93]

4) Privacy coins are great, but they're too small and too easy to smother via regulatory actions like de-listing from exchanges. Only Bitcoin has immunity-via-dominance to delisting. It adopting privacy-by-design instantly normalizes financial privacy. Ultima Ratio Cryptum.

Bitcoin delisting would be called "exchange ban". It's far less likely to happen now, as we get more and more adoption and even crypto lobbying is starting to emerge. But the governments have this power to stop Bitcoin if they wanted. Of course it would not be a full stop, but Bitcoin would essentially be underground money, like foreign currencies were in Soviet Union, for example. Not really a good scenario for mass adoption.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I see that many people who use Bitcoin have become more interested in prices and their fluctuations than decentralization or privacy, which is the essence of the value of it.

Sadly, more people are interested in the price than in the decentralization, technology, development, even the whole point of bitcoin. This forum is filled with people who welcome government regulation and censorship, attacking the very essence of bitcoin itself, because it will help to push the price higher. Case in point is this guy:

Profit is what matters most nowadays even billionaires did something like that if I am not mistaken. Privacy and decentralization is just a bonus I think.

Speak for yourself. Just because you don't care about the entire reason behind bitcoin's creation doesn't mean that nobody else does.

If Bitcoin is anonymous, they will be boycotted by the authorities as they do with Monero, Dash ...

And yet, the boycott achieves very little. It is still very easy to buy, spend, trade, use, and sell Monero, all without touching a centralized exchange. (Incidentally, Dash is not private.) Even if every government in the world banned bitcoin tomorrow and every centralized exchange shut down, bitcoin would still be able to fulfill its primary purpose of being decentralized, peer to peer money.

[Gamerholic]

That's right, it always happens when something not very valuable suddenly becomes very valuable and speculators and politicians immediately appear who are ready to do anything for the sake of profit and in order not to lose the power they have. Bitcoin has opened the world to a new perspective not only on finance and privacy, but much more. As for the exclusion of confidential coins from exchanges, I think there will always be an exchange that will not play by the rules.

[buwaytress]

I think the time will come when Bitcoin users will be seeking privacy. Definitely not all of them, probably not even the majority, but a not insignificant part of them. I started using my first phone due to the necessity of wireless communication. Today however, I am looking for phones with Lineage support and de-Google them ASAP. While 10 years ago digital privacy may have not been a big issue, today with so many intrusive platforms and corporations it's an incrementally higher concern..

Scalability became a necessity four years ago, and that's when everyone clamoured for it, and eventually that hasted upgrades and Layer 2. I think the discussions for privacy is heating up, and development has, rightly so, been focused on it now after the scalability hoo-ha. Like you said, the time will come when they will be seeking for it. But users, not newcomers. At least, not for the next few years when speculation is still the main attractive force.

Privacy may not be the gateway, but we'll all eventually need it, whether we realise it or not.

[Kittygalore]

That's right, it always happens when something not very valuable suddenly becomes very valuable and speculators and politicians immediately appear who are ready to do anything for the sake of profit and in order not to lose the power they have.

That's how bandwagons do ever since, they try to play both sides because that way they can stay on top, this topic reminded me of a meme made from a clip in Always Sunny in Philadelphia where the guy says that he plays both sides to stay on top.

[dkbit98]

Privacy may not be the gateway, but we'll all eventually need it, whether we realise it or not.

I agree with you and we may need it sooner rather than later, so I am looking to find and collect any projects or initial ideas that are working on improving privacy on main Bitcoin chain.
How hard would it be to introduce code updates that would enable Bitcoin to use zk-SNARKs, ring signatures, mimblewimble technology or something totally new?
Everything I heard so far is some projects that re using sidechains like zCash Sidechain or mercury wallet but nothing on main chain, and of course we always have coinjoins that have some limitations, and mixers like Chipmixer.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Everything I heard so far is some projects that re using sidechains like zCash Sidechain or mercury wallet but nothing on main chain, and of course we always have coinjoins that have some limitations, and mixers like Chipmixer.

I doubt if Bitcoin can go beyond CoinJoin. Generally, any consensus change to the protocol, would result in a fork, such as ring signatures. The solution must be found on a second layer. If you think about it, coinjoining transactions is actually happening off-chain (on its first stage). You're establishing a connection with someone and you both agree to increase your level of privacy by mixing the inputs.

So if CoinJoin isn't suitable, I guess that there aren't any other alternatives. The mixer surely helps, but a third party is required.


As for the topic, I'll state my personal opinion. Yes, Bitcoin isn't that much fungible. Yes, Monero is indeed fungible and will be needed in the future, because it has the first mover advantage. I remember reading a discussion with Satoshi and another user on bitcointalk explaining the fungibility on a very technical level. The consensus rules were his/her decision and along with a thousand other reasons, maybe that's why he/she left.