Risk of jail for developers. Should you be anonymous?

[takuma sato]

I also wonder if by being not anonymous you are more prone to hacking attempts. I mean the fact that Luke Dashjr got his coins hacked was pretty shocking to me. Im still wondering how someone that has such a high level of expertise got hacked, that im considering he got compromised IRL somehow.

Developer here.

However, it basically means that if you are supporting BTC, you would be developing a tool that "enables money laundering, terrorism, etc" and challenges the CBDC monopoly.

Bullshit. We would challenge such a notion in EU courts on antitrust grounds if they bring an iota of monopoly on the table.

That is how you use their own weapon against them.

How realistic is it that public figures would be facing charges in the future? As a developer, should you remain anonymous? At the end of the day satoshi knew he was going against the status quo and managed to stay safe, however, what about all these doxed developers?

They can't go after developers of open-source projects because the no-liability clauses protect them.

For example, if Tornado Cash developer was not involved in money laundering himself then the Dutch would not have a valid reason to arrest him (OFAC sanctions do not count).

But you are applying linear thought where the EU courts remain somewhat reliable against individual state rulings. Im talking about supranational laws that would apply all over the EU. Stuff like MICA applies on all members. They could just agree that Bitcoin posses systemic risk against the Euro or something along the lines, you know the classics (money laundering, financing terrorism) and ban it as well as prosecute anyone developing it. I know this sounds insane but im talking long term. In 50 years things can change a lot, what seems now impossible may become possible eventually.

[pooya87]

Im still wondering how someone that has such a high level of expertise got hacked, that im considering he got compromised IRL somehow.

Everyone makes mistakes regardless of who they are and how knowledgeable they are, and sometimes one mistake can have big consequences.

But you are applying linear thought where the EU courts remain somewhat reliable against individual state rulings. Im talking about supranational laws that would apply all over the EU. Stuff like MICA applies on all members. They could just agree that Bitcoin posses systemic risk against the Euro or something along the lines, you know the classics (money laundering, financing terrorism) and ban it as well as prosecute anyone developing it.

This is why diversification is mandatory. EU is only 13% of all the countries in the world with only about 5% of the population.

I know this sounds insane but im talking long term. In 50 years things can change a lot, what seems now impossible may become possible eventually.

Actually the more time passes, the more bitcoin will be adopted ergo it becomes a lot harder to crack down on something that a large percentage of the population uses. Imagine if today they wanted to ban smart phones compared to banning them when they first came out!

[Wind_FURY]

I was looking at Christine Lagarde's latest remarks on CBDC's and it seems pretty clear to me that the agenda of banning cash and then replacing the euro with the "digital euro" is now unstoppable, which will for sure make the Bitcoin price go up.

"Unstoppable"? Debatable, ser. I believe the latest feedback on CBDC use in the African regions and China were not very good. The people do not trust it. Perhaps unstoppable in implementation, because the government will try to force it on their citizens, BUT it's not unstoppable if everyone demands cash and harder forms of money like Bitcoin.

However, it basically means that if you are supporting BTC, you would be developing a tool that "enables money laundering, terrorism, etc" and challenges the CBDC monopoly.

That's their narrative. The developers are developing a tool for permissionlessness and censorship-resistance. The U.S. Dollar is also used for money laundering and terrorism, is that the Federal Reserve's fault?

How realistic is it that public figures would be facing charges in the future? As a developer, should you remain anonymous? At the end of the day satoshi knew he was going against the status quo and managed to stay safe, however, what about all these doxed developers? I can see how they'll look on github and try to hunt contributors. We are facing a scary future. It's better to say steps ahead and plan accordingly. Someone with resources probably could move jurisdictions before it's too late but what about the rest. And even if you could move you could see yourself in an Assange situation trapped in some embassy. I would like to know if developers here think about this at all and what is your escape route if shit hits the fan.

When the government pushes Bitcoin, and crypto in general further underground, I believe there would be no choice but for developers to become more anonymous. Does that make the situation safer for the government? Or more dangerous?

[pooya87]

I believe the latest feedback on CBDC use in the African regions and China were not very good.

I can't comment on Africa but the news from China doesn't really look bad. It shows a solid growth in both adoption (number of users) and the number of transactions processed. The value processed was reported to surpass 100 billion yuan ($13.94 billion) recently, they claim that it is out of initial stage and is being used more.

The people do not trust it.

I never understoond this statement about CBDCs! People use fiat that is printed by the government and the banking system that is centralized and corrupt. They trust both of them. CBDC is not really a different thing, it is centralized and both issued and controlled by the government and the banksters just like fiat is.
If people were to stop trusting the system, they would  dump fiat first and move to bitcoin not continue using fiat and not trust CBDC!

[serveria.com]

I was looking at Christine Lagarde's latest remarks on CBDC's and it seems pretty clear to me that the agenda of banning cash and then replacing the euro with the "digital euro" is now unstoppable, which will for sure make the Bitcoin price go up. However, it basically means that if you are supporting BTC, you would be developing a tool that "enables money laundering, terrorism, etc" and challenges the CBDC monopoly.

How realistic is it that public figures would be facing charges in the future? As a developer, should you remain anonymous? At the end of the day satoshi knew he was going against the status quo and managed to stay safe, however, what about all these doxed developers? I can see how they'll look on github and try to hunt contributors. We are facing a scary future. It's better to say steps ahead and plan accordingly. Someone with resources probably could move jurisdictions before it's too late but what about the rest. And even if you could move you could see yourself in an Assange situation trapped in some embassy. I would like to know if developers here think about this at all and what is your escape route if shit hits the fan.

Staying completely anonymous in the modern world is nearly impossible. I'm sure CIA, FBI and all other "three letter agencies" know who Satoshi was, who Bitcoin developers were/are etc. Anonymity doesn't exist, it's only a dream. If you start going against the system, you will be identified and tracked asap.

[NotATether]

Staying completely anonymous in the modern world is nearly impossible. I'm sure CIA, FBI and all other "three letter agencies" know who Satoshi was, who Bitcoin developers were/are etc. Anonymity doesn't exist, it's only a dream. If you start going against the system, you will be identified and tracked asap.

Tracked, yes. But to be suppressed, is much harder, especially in a decentralized setting.

I mean, we have the internet. So do they, but they only use it for collecting data (espionage and infiltration activities are restricted to what they call "important" cases that likely some other agency knows about as well).

With the internet, you become unstoppable at sharing stuff.

[AverageGlabella]

The government cannot arrest you based on something that you did when it was not a crime. If Bitcoin was made illegal to develop then using it would also be illegal. No one can be held responsible for open source projects unless they are actively committing changes to the project after it has been illegal to do so. I think there are a lot of reasons why you should remain anonymous when developing public open source software but I do not think this is one of the reasons.

[BitDane]

I believe the latest feedback on CBDC use in the African regions and China were not very good.

I can't comment on Africa but the news from China doesn't really look bad. It shows a solid growth in both adoption (number of users) and the number of transactions processed. The value processed was reported to surpass 100 billion yuan ($13.94 billion) recently, they claim that it is out of initial stage and is being used more.

Dictatorship do make a difference.  As far as I know Chinese government is pushy on what they wanted to implement, and at the same time they are releasing fake news in order to hide what really is happening in their country.  It is either of the two but I think it is more on the first one why CBDC in China is showing a solid growth.

Staying completely anonymous in the modern world is nearly impossible. I'm sure CIA, FBI and all other "three letter agencies" know who Satoshi was, who Bitcoin developers were/are etc. Anonymity doesn't exist, it's only a dream. If you start going against the system, you will be identified and tracked asap.

I also think that the government knows who Satoshi is and I am also one among the people who believe in a conspiracy theory that Satoshi is already dead killed by higher authority to stop or hinder the propagation of Bitcoin.  They maybe somehow successful in hindering but these authority failed miserably in stopping the propagation of Bitcoin.

[AverageGlabella]

Dictatorship do make a difference.  As far as I know Chinese government is pushy on what they wanted to implement, and at the same time they are releasing fake news in order to hide what really is happening in their country.  It is either of the two but I think it is more on the first one why CBDC in China is showing a solid growth.

Any evidence of them hiding news stories? I am sure that every government has hidden stories from the public that is why we have the freedom of information act which gets released after a certain time duration has passed.

I also think that the government knows who Satoshi is and I am also one among the people who believe in a conspiracy theory that Satoshi is already dead killed by higher authority to stop or hinder the propagation of Bitcoin.  They maybe somehow successful in hindering but these authority failed miserably in stopping the propagation of Bitcoin.

Why would the government kill someone that does not have any effect on btc? They would have known that Btc is decentralized and does not rely on Satoshi. Bitcoin was already being developed by other developers by the time Satoshi disappeared and if this conspiracy theory was true those developers and the current developers would be under threat.

[cabron]

Dictatorship do make a difference.  As far as I know Chinese government is pushy on what they wanted to implement, and at the same time they are releasing fake news in order to hide what really is happening in their country.  It is either of the two but I think it is more on the first one why CBDC in China is showing a solid growth.

Any evidence of them hiding news stories? I am sure that every government has hidden stories from the public that is why we have the freedom of information act which gets released after a certain time duration has passed.

I also think that the government knows who Satoshi is and I am also one among the people who believe in a conspiracy theory that Satoshi is already dead killed by higher authority to stop or hinder the propagation of Bitcoin.  They maybe somehow successful in hindering but these authority failed miserably in stopping the propagation of Bitcoin.

Why would the government kill someone that does not have any effect on btc? They would have known that Btc is decentralized and does not rely on Satoshi. Bitcoin was already being developed by other developers by the time Satoshi disappeared and if this conspiracy theory was true those developers and the current developers would be under threat.

You would have to connect more conspiracy theories to reach his conclusion that Satoshi is dead.  But if they got Satoshi first, I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be tortured so they'd get his key.

Most countries are hiding thier dirt, China has more to hide but one thing that they don't do is meddle in the politics of other countries. If they make business with the US, they can also do business with Russia.

As for the known developers, only time will tell. But getting your dev teams to have an office in Hongkong, seem a neutral ground. Because China allows Hongkong to be a crypto hub.

[hZti]

The government cannot arrest you based on something that you did when it was not a crime. If Bitcoin was made illegal to develop then using it would also be illegal. No one can be held responsible for open source projects unless they are actively committing changes to the project after it has been illegal to do so. I think there are a lot of reasons why you should remain anonymous when developing public open source software but I do not think this is one of the reasons.

That is very true and is one of the fundamentals of law ever since the roman empire: "nulla poene sine lege praevia". If we however look at satoshi we can clearly know why it was a wise decision of him to stay anonymous and I guess ever developer should at least try. In any case the government will not have the capacity to come for every developer.

[serveria.com]

The government cannot arrest you based on something that you did when it was not a crime. If Bitcoin was made illegal to develop then using it would also be illegal. No one can be held responsible for open source projects unless they are actively committing changes to the project after it has been illegal to do so. I think there are a lot of reasons why you should remain anonymous when developing public open source software but I do not think this is one of the reasons.

Correct, but you forget that governments are good at adjusting the laws to fit their needs. So, something which is perfectly legal today may become illegal in a blink of an eye. Then you're going to jail. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Why would the government kill someone that does not have any effect on btc?

Slightly irrelevant, but I can think of a reason or two why a developer like Satoshi would want to hide himself from the entire world, especially from the government. It doesn't have to do with decentralization, as I'm sure the governments know that targeting Satoshi isn't going to make a difference (maybe an extra FUD or two, but nah). One reason is that he may had thought it'd catch on, and revealing his identity would pose his physical integrity in real risk. Another reason is tax evasion.

[PrivacyG]

Correct, but you forget that governments are good at adjusting the laws to fit their needs. So, something which is perfectly legal today may become illegal in a blink of an eye. Then you're going to jail. 

Too many people are using Cryptocurrencies today to get the general public to accept jail time for developers.  I think and hope at least.  If they get jail time, we are about to live a very dystopian world soon.  So either everyone revolts or we get to live the worst lives we could be living.  Our freedoms would be over with.

I really want to hope it is not as simple as 'they make it illegal and we go to jail'.  And I really hope you are not accepting this idea so easily that a change of law can retroactively turn you into a criminal.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Synchronice]

However, it basically means that if you are supporting BTC, you would be developing a tool that "enables money laundering, terrorism, etc" and challenges the CBDC monopoly.

How realistic is it that public figures would be facing charges in the future? As a developer, should you remain anonymous?

It doesn't actually mean that and I highly doubt that in near future governments will declare all crypto developers as supporters of terrorism and money laundering. Also, development is highly paid job all around the world and even if you have problems in your country because you were supporting the btc, I think you can easily move in different country where US and EU laws don't apply, countries like Iran, Russia, Belarus (probably), North Korea.

And even if you could move you could see yourself in an Assange situation trapped in some embassy.

I think that anyone can feel safe from "some embassy" in the countries that I listed above, . Also, I believe that you can feel pretty safe in some other corrupt countries. And again, there is no way bitcoin supporters will be claimed as the supporters of terrorism and money laundering, I think that you panic a little there.

[takuma sato]

However, it basically means that if you are supporting BTC, you would be developing a tool that "enables money laundering, terrorism, etc" and challenges the CBDC monopoly.

How realistic is it that public figures would be facing charges in the future? As a developer, should you remain anonymous?

It doesn't actually mean that and I highly doubt that in near future governments will declare all crypto developers as supporters of terrorism and money laundering. Also, development is highly paid job all around the world and even if you have problems in your country because you were supporting the btc, I think you can easily move in different country where US and EU laws don't apply, countries like Iran, Russia, Belarus (probably), North Korea.

And even if you could move you could see yourself in an Assange situation trapped in some embassy.

I think that anyone can feel safe from "some embassy" in the countries that I listed above, . Also, I believe that you can feel pretty safe in some other corrupt countries. And again, there is no way bitcoin supporters will be claimed as the supporters of terrorism and money laundering, I think that you panic a little there.

I do believe first world western democracies could be able to come up with measures that may sound totalitarian in todays standards, but the countries you have listed offer less life quality than if you were to find yourself in a first world jail.

[Lida93]

I was looking at Christine Lagarde's latest remarks on CBDC's and it seems pretty clear to me that the agenda of banning cash and then replacing the euro with the "digital euro" is now unstoppable, which will for sure make the Bitcoin price go up. However, it basically means that if you are supporting BTC, you would be developing a tool that "enables money laundering, terrorism, etc" and challenges the CBDC monopoly.

How realistic is it that public figures would be facing charges in the future? As a developer, should you remain anonymous? At the end of the day satoshi knew he was going against the status quo and managed to stay safe, however, what about all these doxed developers? I can see how they'll look on github and try to hunt contributors. We are facing a scary future. It's better to say steps ahead and plan accordingly. Someone with resources probably could move jurisdictions before it's too late but what about the rest. And even if you could move you could see yourself in an Assange situation trapped in some embassy. I would like to know if developers here think about this at all and what is your escape route if shit hits the fan.

Before any government could parade you then you must have done something that's incriminating and this case it's simple that the developers ain't doing anything that goes against or is inimical to the next neighbor.   For example; would the government go on to press charges or arraign a cooperate organization that's producing guns all because someone on the street use(bought) a gun developed by the company to murder somebody. I don't think so! So the issue of money laundering and terrorism is far fetched to be a problem from developers corner but rather a choice of users.
So I don't see reasons why crypto developers should hide for anonymity except the CBDC are nurturing an ulterior different from what you're making, perhaps to get ride of competition totally from the market.

[Vyeon11]

digital euro is just a eurosystem initiative, it is a common european project. it will allow us to ensure that money and payments remain reliable, safe and efficient in a rapidly changing digital environment.
thus a digital euro would essentially serve broader public goals, such as strengthening Europe's strategic autonomy and economic efficiency.
Reference : Christine Lagarde concluded

I didn't read that Christine Lagarde would write off money or maybe the news I read wasn't up to date.

[serveria.com]

Correct, but you forget that governments are good at adjusting the laws to fit their needs. So, something which is perfectly legal today may become illegal in a blink of an eye. Then you're going to jail. 

Too many people are using Cryptocurrencies today to get the general public to accept jail time for developers.  I think and hope at least.  If they get jail time, we are about to live a very dystopian world soon.  So either everyone revolts or we get to live the worst lives we could be living.  Our freedoms would be over with.

I really want to hope it is not as simple as 'they make it illegal and we go to jail'.  And I really hope you are not accepting this idea so easily that a change of law can retroactively turn you into a criminal.
-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Well, there were Covid restrictions, now the war is going on - they didn't ask anyone if we would accept that. Democracy is a dream, it's a ghost - it doesn't exist. Hehe, now the most interesting part... certainly, they can't send every crypto user to jail but... they can do what they did to Assange, Snowden, Weinstein, Tate etc they'll dig up some unpleasant fact from your life, expose it, build their accusations based on that and then you're going to jail anyway. 

[NotATether]

digital euro is just a eurosystem initiative, it is a common european project. it will allow us to ensure that money and payments remain reliable, safe and efficient in a rapidly changing digital environment.

No, no, no, no.

You cannot call something reliable or even efficient if it can only be used in one particular region.

How will this be any different from the fintech services that only allow users from the European Economic Area? It will not be a global service, but on the contrary, an exclusive one, just as all CDBCs ultimately are.