Bitcoin assets cannot be blocked - is that helping terrorists?

[paxmao]

While most of the illegal activities in the world take place in USD and I am far from saying that bitcoin is actually worse than any other asset on that regard, I have read many news about the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and how the US government froze some billions of USD belonging to the previous government or perhaps (debatable) to the country itself. Obviously, this could not have happened if those assets were held in bitcoin or other crypto. It seems that not everything is good in self-sovereignty?

BTW, this is not a statement saying that Taliban are terrorist, just wondering about some other cases in which states were clearly linked to terror.

[jackg]

Obviously, this could not have happened if those assets were held in bitcoin or other crypto. It seems that not everything is good in self-sovereignty?

I assume those were federal reserve bonds that countries can hold? If so the same storage mechanism will probabky be used with bitcoin.

If bitcoin becomes like a gold would the US, EU and India not seem like trustworthy resources for housing nations' gold?
Terrorist organisations might get help from certain other countries also in storing gold securely so the same could still happen with that.

A system that allows people to block anyone gives the blocker too much power anyway imo.

[arallmuus]

I have read many news about the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and how the US government froze some billions of USD belonging to the previous government or perhaps (debatable) to the country itself.

Obviously, this could not have happened if those assets were held in bitcoin or other crypto. It seems that not everything is good in self-sovereignty?

You might want to put in reference news so people can read detailed information about it. According to Bloomberg, US froze assets that belongs to the previous Afghan government to prevent the current Taliban government from accessing it. It wasnt stated in the source but probably it was requested by the previous goverment?

Source : Bloomberg

If those assets were held in cryptocurrencies, it would also helps prevent the current government from accessing it if the previous government still holds the private key to it. Its still way better than being frozen by other country though

[Hydrogen]

I don't know about helping terrorists.

But I imagine afghans fleeing the taliban will have trouble buying a plane ticket, bus ticket or fuel to escape the taliban with their funds frozen. Americans as well, who may have sought to leave the country. Could have a hard time doing so with afghan government funds frozen. If anything the move is likely crippling efforts of the kabul administration being overrun. Than it is doing anything to hamper the taliban.

Withdrawing US troops abandoning afghanistan left behind so much free equipment, weapons and vehicles for the taliban to acquire for free. I don't know if anyone will take the "fighting terrorism" narrative seriously any longer.

Ownership and sovereignty of money could become hot topics in the future. Is it your money, do you truly own it, if foreign nations can remotely freeze your assets? There could be a good discussion to be had there.

[johnyj]

Super power do not like to be blocked, large nations have demand for unblock-able funding

[Upgrade00]

It seems that not everything is good in self-sovereignty?

There is no system that is 100% perfect and Bitcoin does not aim to be. However on the issue of self sovereignty, who should be given the moral and legal justification to control the finances of others? And what earned then that liberty?

Banks were created cause keeping money under your bed was not feasible, but with the bank and state being virtually inseparable, how does one limit the influence of the government in their finances and do they need to? I'll answer, Yes. The level of government interference should be kept at a certain level as they have long used it as a tool to control the populace.

Fiat currencies is still the most common means of funding terrorism and scams, so there's already an existing problem there, Bitcoin beinbmore like fiat would not solve that.

[so98nn]

Do you really think country like Afghan where there is no chance of survival at this movement and water bottle costs you $40, will have infra-structure to run the crypto market? If they fund their terror activities in the form of BTC then we would have known that by this time considering from which network the transaction is getting pinged. These kinda activities will need millions to billions dollars to be moved in the form of BTC and this can be traced easily due to the amount of money that is involved within the block. I am not crucifying anything here, but I literally see anyone knowledgeable in the Taliban to use BTC and perform such activities whatsoever. So there is no question of blocking the asset like bitcoin because it's not there thing.

 If they are anyways doing the terror activities they won't fear to openly send and receive the money in USD format.

[Wexnident]

But they can track it no? Though the effectiveness is still questionable since mixers are a thing, crypto assets could still plainly be seen as to where they would go, and the assets would still need to be converted to fiat since most businesses don't even know what Bitcoin is, let alone accept them. Besides in this case, the opposite could be said as well right? Having too much control over the assets of a country, being able to block them just by presenting the public a "reasonable" excuse, then they could freeze assets of various powers.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

While most of the illegal activities in the world take place in USD

And plenty of other currencies as well.  The US doesn't have the criminal market cornered by any means.

BTW, this is not a statement saying that Taliban are terrorist, just wondering about some other cases in which states were clearly linked to terror.

They're a terrorist organization by pretty much anyone's standards, so I'll make that statement for you.

This issue has been discussed in quite a few other threads in the past few years, and a lot of the replies that make sense to me say that it doesn't matter what the form of money a terrorist group uses; there shouldn't be any prejudice against bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency) because a criminal uses it for their activities.  If that was logical, governments would be outlawing physical cash--and they haven't done that yet, even though the world is moving away from it. 

If you hear any stories on the news about somebody using bitcoin for a ransom, to buy illegal things, or to fund terrorism, that's sensationalistic journalism plain and simple.  And it's just fuel for governments to try to ban or regulate crypto into complete uselessness.

[Betwrong]

You're right to say that they're terrorists, aren't they part of Al-Qaida? Plus it's not like you see groups of peaceful Muslims wear suicide vests in a public place to preach the name of Allah. I think yes it can somewhat help the terrorists since there's no way that bitcoin can be stopped and don't even start saying that they can't because that's an ignorant statement to say in the first place.

You are wrong. As it was said by @arallmuus above:

~
If those assets were held in cryptocurrencies, it would also helps prevent the current government from accessing it if the previous government still holds the private key to it. ~

So, in this particular case new government wouldn't have access to the money unless the old government wanted to grant it.

~
If you hear any stories on the news about somebody using bitcoin for a ransom, to buy illegal things, or to fund terrorism, that's sensationalistic journalism plain and simple.  And it's just fuel for governments to try to ban or regulate crypto into complete uselessness.

This is so true, and we can only hope that governments have good advisors and they listen to them instead of forming their opinions under the influence of stupid articles and news videos.

[Mikayla Buckley]

Bitcoin will not appear in your wallet out of thin air, you need to use legal currency for exchange.
When funds have been blocked, it is impossible to use legal currency to exchange bitcoins.
  Bitcoin transactions are recorded on the public chain and can be viewed by anyone.

[Jawhead999]

While bitcoins can't be blocked, the terrorist still need to convert their coins. Either directly use bitcoins for doing purchases or to exchange it into fiat and then use them for illegal purposes. Both of these ways can easily be tracked.

We can call that terrorist is stupid and doesn't have enough knowledge about privacy concern.

But they can track it no? Though the effectiveness is still questionable since mixers are a thing, crypto assets could still plainly be seen as to where they would go, and the assets would still need to be converted to fiat since most businesses don't even know what Bitcoin is, let alone accept them. Besides in this case, the opposite could be said as well right? Having too much control over the assets of a country, being able to block them just by presenting the public a "reasonable" excuse, then they could freeze assets of various powers.

It almost impossible to track the coins belongs to after it already cleaned with a mixer if you use >1 inputs and send to multiple address, because no one know which address you got your coins from.

To answer this question, it depends on how you view about Bitcoin is.
Does Bitcoin has a value? Yes
Does Bitcoin solve centralized control (e.g. freeze funds, slow transaction)? Yes
Does Bitcoin can be used for charity program? Yes
Does Bitcoin help scammer and fraudster? Yes
It's double edged sword and there's no end of this discussion since both of them is true.

[Ucy]

Just change that illegal activities to  immoral activities and you may discover the hypocrisy.

And it will be much easier if you stick to the Terrorist activity rather than Illegal activity on the discussion so we don't deviate too much from the topic.

If you consider the definition of terrorism you will know it would be much easier for terrorist to use physical currency or hide behind the opaque nature of digital fiat to perpetuate their evil. And it will be much easier for security agency to track/deal with terrorist funds on Bitcoin Network than on fiat systems.

Bitcoin transactions from terrorists could actually be blocked by services and users if they could take advantage of its Network Transparency to isolate coins owned by them.  We don't want a situation where the power given to the people in position of authority on the Bitcoin Network is abused, just as you can't give them that power to control precious metals and other natural resources like Gold. It will be mercilessly abuse.

[davis196]

While most of the illegal activities in the world take place in USD and I am far from saying that bitcoin is actually worse than any other asset on that regard, I have read many news about the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and how the US government froze some billions of USD belonging to the previous government or perhaps (debatable) to the country itself. Obviously, this could not have happened if those assets were held in bitcoin or other crypto. It seems that not everything is good in self-sovereignty?

BTW, this is not a statement saying that Taliban are terrorist, just wondering about some other cases in which states were clearly linked to terror.

Why would a government(even the government of Afghanistan) hold financial assets in the form of cryptocurrencies?No country in the world has cryptocurrency reserves,even El Salvador doesn't have crypto reserves.
The previous regime in Afghanistan was totally financially dependable of the USA.It's pretty normal for the USA to block the bank accounts and the financial streams heading towards Afghanistan,since the old regime doesn't exist anymore.
So far,I have never seen any good evidence that terrorists are using Bitcoin...

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

I think so but the authorities can easily identify those who use bitcoin to fund terrorism campaigns. Also, it's unlikely for them to use it anyways, I mean their arms dealer will probably want fiat rather than a cryptocurrency being paid for their Assault Rifles and RPGs.

[Kittygalore]

While bitcoins can't be blocked, the terrorist still need to convert their coins. Either directly use bitcoins for doing purchases or to exchange it into fiat and then use them for illegal purposes. Both of these ways can easily be tracked. In my opinion it is just a matter of time until the punishments to help terrorist will increase. If you for example except bitcoins from terrorists to buy chemicals which then will be used to make bombs you will be held accountable.

That's what I thought too but there's also the possibility that they're going to go that route even though it's a bit advanced for some of them, I mean it's not like bitcoin's the only one that they can use to transfer funds right and it's much safer for the arms dealer because they don't have to be there physically and they can just send a representative to oversee the exchange.

[Lucius]

Bitcoin assets cannot be blocked - is that helping terrorists?

If Bitcoin were so good at creating anonymous transactions then it would be used by all terrorists in the world, and by that logic there would be a lot more terrorism in the world than 10 years ago - but we all know that is not the case. The US has a very big problem at the moment, the fight against terror must continue, but against whom to fight if there are no terrorists?

Bringing Bitcoin into any serious connection with terrorism is an already worn-out story that makes sense just as much as meaningless accusations that Bitcoin is destroying the environment - it all comes down to the agenda "don't use Bitcoin because you help terrorists and because you'll stay in the dark".

[HeRetiK]

Bitcoin will not appear in your wallet out of thin air, you need to use legal currency for exchange.
When funds have been blocked, it is impossible to use legal currency to exchange bitcoins.

I feel like that's an aspect that is often overlooked when it comes to the "Bitcoin funds terrorism" narrative. Unless the Taliban is running a mining operation or doing bounties / sig campaigns on Bitcointalk, Bitcoin isn't used to fund anything.

Generally I find it weird to put the onus on a currency. If the problem is terrorists buying weapons, maybe prevent the inflow of weapons. I find it hard to believe that the flow of weapons is harder to control than the flow of currency. Unless, of course, there's a conflict of interest involved.

[Sterbens]

Agree, the fact is that this is only about the element of freedom of a country that does not want interference from other parties where the country is based on certain bases that have been passed down from generation to generation.

For example, Afghanistan is fighting drugs, but the proceeds of their weapons are obtained from buying and selling drugs between countries both in Asia and for countries in the Middle East. Isn't payment revenue using crypto transactions like XMR as an alternative to cover the openness of the Afghan group. Because there is a thread about the Afghan economy to which I am responding actually the United States is suffering a huge loss https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5356370.msg57821696#msg57821696
The US is wasting too much time pursuing overseas economies as if it has the goal of draining resources in the rich Middle East.

[blckhawk]

I don't think so, they have to find a way to make use of that and they can't be out and about in public since they're a terrorist after all. Also, the cyber warfare against terrorist is pretty easy to be solved because they don't have that much access to advanced computers or have some update on how to use crypto since they're in constant hiding.