A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace - We all should read it

[GazetaBitcoin]

This topic is a sequel of my earlier topics -- The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto - We all should read it and The call for Julian Assange || The WikiLeaks Manifesto - We all should read it.


Another article which must be known by any bitcoiner, libertarian or crypto-anarchist: John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. The essay was written in February 1996 by John Perry Barlow, co-founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was a foundation built for Internet liberties. Another iconic figure which was part of EFF is John Gilmore.

Barlow's declaration came as a reply to Telecommunications Act of 1996, adopted by US in January 1996. The entire document denies govern's sovereignty over cyberspace, denies govern's right to be present there and denies govern's right to rule citizen of Cyber space. The document became soon very popular, being copied and distributed by more than 40.000 websites.

The entire declaration can be found below (text formatting is mine):

"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."

Topic is self-moderated for avoiding spam.


Translations (in chronological order):

• Română: Declarația de Independeță a Spațiului Cibernetic - Cu toții ar trebui să o citim, translation by GazetaBitcoin
• Filipino: Ang Deklarasyon ng Kalayaan ng Cyberspace - Dapat nating basahin lahat ito, translation by jeraldskie11
• Polish: Deklaracja niepodległości cyberprzestrzeni - Wszyscy powinniśmy ją przeczytać, translation by cygan
• Pidgin: A Declaration of Independence for cyberspace - make we all read am, translation by Stable090
• Bengali: সাইবারস্পেসের স্বাধীনতার ঘোষণা, translation by Learn Bitcoin
• French: Déclaration d'indépendance du Cyberespace - Nous devrions tous la lire, translation by iwantmyhomepaidwithbtc2
• Russian: Дeклapaция нeзaвиcимocти кибepпpocтpaн&, translation by FP91G
• Urdu: سائبر اسپیس کی آزادی کا اعلان - ہم سب کو اسے پ, translation by ThemePen
• Indonesian: Sebuah Deklarasi Kemerdekaan Dunia Maya – Kita semua harus membacanya, translation by dansus021

[1714223995]

1714223995

[1miau]

John Perry Barlow provided some interesting thoughts here.
It's always amazing to see how early he provided his declaration, similar to Satoshi coding Bitcoin. Bitcoin is still unchallenged today, almost 20k Altcoins (or even more?) were launched much later, while still no meaningful contender of Bitcoin has been created.
If we consider how fast technology has improved (just remember how much GB an average smartphone could store 10 years ago - and now). Big difference. When we consider Bitcoin's tech and if Altcoin tech has become better - we need to admit, Altcoins are no game changers. Quite the opposite: Altcoins are rather meh. 

John Perry Barlow just died 5 years ago but he and his generation left us very interesting documents, analysis and technology. I know, I've told you about David Chaum as he's also one of the early cryptographers doing valuable research. Wikipedia writes:  "He has been referred to as "the father of online anonymity", and "the godfather of cryptocurrency".".

And Chaum has launched a cryptocurrency, too, called xx Coin.
Since Chaum is a very famous figure due to his previous work, I've followed his coin but over time, I've expected much more from him.
He launched his coin explicitly as a privacy coin (I've expected chaumian mints).

First: since Chaum has been a fierce advocate for privacy, his coin required KYC to purchase. 
Yes, a privacy coin that required KYC... 
Well, since KYC is legally required and Chaum's company seems to be based in the United States, I can understand him and it's completely fine to do so, but then, why did he refuse to give our coins for early supporters for free, could even be small amounts. Aks people questions about his coin, the tech behind it and allocate some coins for such apurpose before ICO is done.
KYC is only required for selling coins - KYC is not required for giving out coins for free (like Uniswap did for example). Still, Chaum's marketing department didn't consider that and coins were only sold via ICO / even to VC.
I can understand that he needs to sell coins to aquire money for marketing of his own coin. I can understand, that you need to compete against various heavily-funded Altcoins like Polygon or Polkadot. It's legit to sell coins to aquire some funds but messing up a launch like that - what did he expect? What did his marketing managers study?
Do you build a community like that? For a privacy coin?! Really?
Huge disappointment!

And second. Chaum is very knowledgeable and I've learned about his coin not later than 08/2019, when I've mentioned Chaum's coin on Bitcointalk (probably I've even read about it in 2018, I don't know). It was called Praxxis, when it was announced and is called xx-coin now. But as time passed, praxxis (later xx-coin) disappointed so much. In 2019, Chaum's app was released but it has been so buggy, new functions were promised but never delievered and this app was really useless. It was just a collection of some links and basic information - disappointing. At some point in 2021 I must have just deleted the app because it was useless.
Deadlines were postponed, empty promises made.
There's been little to no community building.
Chaum might be a good coder but their community building has been horrible...
No coins for interested people, no coins for early followers. Only sold via ICO to KYCed people and VC.
We know from Bitcoin how important it is to build a community.
Right now, his coin isn't even properly listed, most likely having an adjusted marketcap of 100M only, which would place it around marketcap place 200...


Maybe you can provide more insights here or at least what's your impression because in my opinion, David Chaum is a very interesting person.
How can someone get his own coin so wrong while being around in crypto for DECADES? 

[pooya87]

There is nothing anarchist about Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin is the most governed system in the world. There are tens of thousands of law enforcement with zero corruption or possibility of corruption called full nodes that are watching this system 24/7 to keep it healthy and clean of any corruption.
Bitcoin was also not created to "demolish" payment system. But instead to create a non-corruptible global money as an alternative to the existing corrupted systems.

If the traffic cop that is supposed to enforce the law is corrupt (eg. pulls you over for no reason and accepts bribes), you don't demolish the entire police department. Even if the whole department is corrupt, you still don't demolish it. Instead you remove the corruption and install an alternative in its stead.

The whole text you shared is just pretty words but empty and meaningless underneath. Complaining about US regime's corruption while you vote for them and pay their salary makes no sense! Specially when it comes from someone who is (or was) part of that corrupt system.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Maybe you can provide more insights here or at least what's your impression because in my opinion, David Chaum is a very interesting person.
How can someone get his own coin so wrong while being around in crypto for DECADES?  

What happened to Chaum is very difficult for me to understand. He was called "Houdini of crypto". He invented blind signatures. He invented the first digital coin, named Cyberbuck, which was based on blind signatures. His company, DigiCash, launched in 1989, managed to convince giants like Mark Twain Bank from St. Louis, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Norske Bank and Bank Austria to use Cyberbucks. Other big players became interested in Chaum's creation: Visa, Netscape, ABN Amro Bank, CitiBank and ING Bank. Even Bill Gates tried to embed DigiCash in Windows '95. Sadly, these last deals were not signed and his company went bankrupt. Why did he fail back then? Was he way ahead of his time? Or was it because his coin was centralized...?

Furthermore, he wrote very important books for cryptography, such as Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms", "Blind Signatures for Untraceable Payments" or "Security without Identification Card Computers to make Big Brother Obsolete.

Then he returned with a new coin which, again, failed...

I sincerely don't know how to explain all these. It feels like Cristofor Columb, which touched so many times the shores of America without realizing it. This is why America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, which realized that it is a new continent, and not after Columb. It also reminds me of Moses, which led his people for 40 years in the desert and died just before reaching The Promised Land.

I think what best describes these situations and also Chaum's fate is life's irony.

There is nothing anarchist about Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin is the most governed system in the world. There are tens of thousands of law enforcement with zero corruption or possibility of corruption called full nodes that are watching this system 24/7 to keep it healthy and clean of any corruption.

Actually, I have to disagree here. According to Wikipedia, "Anarchy is a society without a government. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy". This is exactly what happens inside Bitcoin network -- the nodes do not have any central authority to govern them. Each chooses to be online or offline. Nobody can coerce the nodes to run or not.

The whole text you shared is just pretty words but empty and meaningless underneath. Complaining about US regime's corruption while you vote for them and pay their salary makes no sense! Specially when it comes from someone who is (or was) part of that corrupt system.

What makes you so sure that John Perry Barlow voted? About paying the salaries, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done, unless going to jail for not paying taxes. What would you expect? For all people which blame regimes and their corruption to accept to go to prison for not paying taxes, in order for you to not be able to say that they should not complain since they are paying their salaries?


I am moving this topic to Bitcoin discussion for better visibility. I may move it back to Beginners & Help at some point.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'm not in favor of anarchy, so I can't say that I'm impressed by the writing. I don't believe we can live as civilians with anarchy, because there's no disincentive to destroying civilization. Again, as I said to the other thread, libertarians aren't necessarily anarchists. A government can serve the people more effectively than the free market sometimes, and be free market friendly at the same time.

Complaining about US regime's corruption while you vote for them and pay their salary makes no sense!

It does make sense if you're left with no trustworthy politicians, but you're forced to vote someone. The fact that a regime is corrupt-- or more generally --political decisions are made poorly according to you, does make you react somehow.

[1miau]

Maybe you can provide more insights here or at least what's your impression because in my opinion, David Chaum is a very interesting person.
How can someone get his own coin so wrong while being around in crypto for DECADES?  

Then he returned with a new coin which, again, failed...

It's quite common that his far earlier coin DigiCash, failed. Quite a few electronic cash systems were launched back then and all of them failed, until Satoshi launched Bitcoin.  
So, I don't blame Chaum for failing.
It's like try and error. He made valuable contributions despite failing.  

But I'm quite disappointed how he launched and designed his new coin, xx-coin. Because we know he can do better, much better.
He abandoned everything what made Bitcoin so successful.

I have thought a lot about it why Chaum's coin failed and a few explanations I got are:

- He didn't made the decision. Maybe he hired some stupid marketing guys and they don't have any clue about a good crypto currecy. And his marketing guys advised Chaum very badly (probably).
- It's a trap! Maybe he's just testing waters to see how to make a perfect launch (unlikely because he collected VC funds).
- He's just clueless himself how to compete against several 10k shitcoins and after Bitcoin was launched over 15 years ago, crypto industry has changed a lot. And he messed it up...
...

I don't know...  

I think what best describes these situations and also Chaum's fate is life's irony.

Most likely it is, dear GazetaBitcoin.  

There is nothing anarchist about Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin is the most governed system in the world. There are tens of thousands of law enforcement with zero corruption or possibility of corruption called full nodes that are watching this system 24/7 to keep it healthy and clean of any corruption.

Actually, I have to disagree here. According to Wikipedia, "Anarchy is a society without a government. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy". This is exactly what happens inside Bitcoin network -- the nodes do not have any central authority to govern them. Each chooses to be online or offline. Nobody can coerce the nodes to run or not.

But Bitcoin is governed by its code. And that's a good thing. The rules are simple enough and preventing abuse at the same time. That's what we need and Bitcoin is achieving that. Yes, it can be changed via nodes (a democratic element) but similar to a constitution, the code is very difficult to be changed (what's also a good characteristic, especially compared to Shitcoins).
I would differentiate between good governance and bad governance. Bad governance includes governance which can be abused, for example in PoS. I'm very critical of PoS because it's going into a different direction compared to Bitcoin. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 5 years.  
Of course, PoS is also having advantages but I'm not convinced yet.

About paying the salaries, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done, unless going to jail for not paying taxes.

If there hasn't been a free and democratic vote (like North Korea) of our current government, paying taxes is voluntarily.  
Or we should establish such a rule globally.  

A government can serve the people more effectively than the free market sometimes, and be free market friendly at the same time.

I can agree here and in my opinion it's essential to be able as a citized to vote out your government regularly if you government is abusing power. Bitcoin can be a part of checks and balances. Independant courts, a strong constitution or transparency against corporate corruption.
For example in North Korea, there are no checks and balances at all. It's a failed Communist state led by Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un can't be voted out, he's a maniac. People are piss poor. I would not want to live there. Checks and balances are very important and Bitcoin can be part of this and should be part of this in my opinion.
But I'm not an economist, so I'm not qualified to make a suggestion here.  

[pooya87]

Actually, I have to disagree here. According to Wikipedia, "Anarchy is a society without a government. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy". This is exactly what happens inside Bitcoin network -- the nodes do not have any central authority to govern them. Each chooses to be online or offline. Nobody can coerce the nodes to run or not.

Well if we get too technical then Bitcoin is not a society and political definitions don't really apply to it.
Also keep in mind that even though many disagree with this definition, Anarchy is always associated with chaos and lack of order which are not true about Bitcoin.

What makes you so sure that John Perry Barlow voted?

Not voting is a vote too, it is a vote of approval of whatever others choose.
Barlow was also pretty involved in politics and with politicians. He even supported and campaigned for the war criminal Cheney.

About paying the salaries, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done, unless going to jail for not paying taxes. What would you expect? For all people which blame regimes and their corruption to accept to go to prison for not paying taxes, in order for you to not be able to say that they should not complain since they are paying their salaries?

They also pay the corrupt traffic cup that pulls them over in fear of being shot. This is exactly why corruption gets worse every year in United States.

P.S. As I said "Independence of Cyberspace" is just pretty words when US sees the Internet as a military organization and runs NSA that is under the Department of Defense and has a 4-start general at its head. Barlow's group EFF can talk about privacy acts all they want and fly their protest blimp over NSA's data center but it won't change a thing since they are not attempting to change the system

[1miau]

Barlow was also pretty involved in politics and with politicians. He even supported and campaigned for the war criminal Cheney.

Barlow only supported Cheney before Cheney became known for supporting Bush's war. And then, Barlow stopped supporting Cheney, which, in my opinion is a honoroable move because Barlow didn't want to support what Cheney supported because it was against Barlow's ideals. I'm honoring Barlow's decision.
In addition, Barlow has been a vocal critic of Trump before Barlow unfortunately died in 2018.

Politics is not easy because many people come and go. People should always review their own positions and endorsement, which Barlow did. No many people are reconsidering their own positions and endorsements because often it's easier to stay in power by not changing anything, by making convenient decision.
But Barlow stood up for what is right.  

[GazetaBitcoin]

Also keep in mind that even though many disagree with this definition, Anarchy is always associated with chaos and lack of order which are not true about Bitcoin.

Sadly, many disagree with that definition because they do not correctly understand what anarchism stands / aims for. I will not reiterate the earlier discussion about chaos and order. However, anarchism vouches for a stateless society, without violence. It does not vouch for criminality, not for violence.

Barlow's group EFF can talk about privacy acts all they want and fly their protest blimp over NSA's data center but it won't change a thing since they are not attempting to change the system

Actually, they did change some things. If not Barlow itself, then we can talk about John Gilmore, a co-founder of EFF and also a co-founder of Cypherpunks group. I will not enter into details here about what Cypherpunks for this world, as this is a part of another subject. To say the leasr, they dedicated their life for writing software for offering people privacy and anonimity. And they did it for free.

But we can debate about John Gilmore, as he was a colleague of Barlow -- just to let you know that he (Gilmore) and through him EFF as well actually changed something.

Getting back to modern era, but still old times. The times of cypherpunks. John Gilmore, one of them, had a personal vendetta against NSA. Or maybe I should have written that NSA had a personal vendetta with him. One of the most remarkable victory of the information against oppression was led in 1989 by Gilmore who made public a secret document. The author of the document was working for Xerox and NSA specifically requested Xerox to destroy the document. John Gilmore disagreed with this censorship and posted the document on the internet. Of course it was quickly downloaded thousands of times, and the war between Gilmore and NSA was started.

In 1992 took place another great battle between John Gilmore and NSA. For obvious reasons (related to censorship of free information), the manuscripts of William Friedman - considered to be the grandfather of cryptography in USA - were classified, although they were written in the times of WWII. Gilmore disagreed again, considering that Friedman's work should be available no anyone interested. So he called NSA in a Court of Law and he based his requests of declassifying the books on a Freedom of Information Act. Of course, NSA avoided to respond to his request, thus everything had to be settled during a trial. Afterwards, he managed to find Friedman's books in a public library. During the trial he was informed that unless he will give the books to the govern, he will be accused of espionage which could lead to 10 years in jail, as he was in the possession of classified materials. NSA didn't stop here. The agency tried to find any other "sensible" materials in various public spaces. Gilmore informed the judge that what he found was already public, since the books were in a public library and at the same time he decided to speak to the press about the entire case. Soon after, the books were printed by Aegean Park Press.

Gilmore's case became public and from that moment the govern backed-off. The charges were dropped and the manuscripts were declassified. John Gilmore won. People won as well, as the public information remained in public's hands, as it should have always been.

So excepting the fact that he ridiculed the entire NSA, he also made them step back and, most important, he managed to offer to people the precious manuscripts of William Friedman.

Should I also mention that soon after launch Steve Wozniak became also a part of EFF?

And, among other remarkable achievements, EFF also changed history after the process of Bernstein v. United States. Bernstein, a young coder back then, was not allowed to publish his code of an ecryption system as cryptography, back then, was forbidden by the law for weapons and munitions. If people would tattoo such code on their skin or if they would wear t-shirts with such code lines printed on their shirts, the shirts (respectively, their bodies) were considered munitions and they were not allowed to fly over US borders. Bernstein sued the State and, being represented by EFF, managed to win the trial.

Of course, there are many other victories achieved by EFF during time, especially when we talk about the collaboration with Cypherpunks, but I think that even only those two examples suffice for proving that they actually did something! And, in part, they did change the system! To say the least, without this trial, maybe even nowadays the export of cryptographic materials would be banned in US.

It's quite common that his far earlier coin DigiCash, failed. Quite a few electronic cash systems were launched back then and all of them failed, until Satoshi launched Bitcoin.  

Actually (at least, as far as I know), only two electronic private coins were launched before Bitcoin. One was Chaum's Cyberbuck (attention: his company was DigiCash, while the coin was named Cyberbuck) and the other one was e-Gold. All the other proposal which circulated back then (Bit Gold, b-money) were never implemented. They remained just at the stage of proposals...

It's like try and error. He made valuable contributions despite failing.  

This is so true! No matter that his coins did not succeed, his visions, his code, his remarkable writings helped so many coders. This is why he was also named as the father of Cypherpunks.

I have thought a lot about it why Chaum's coin failed and a few explanations I got are:

- He didn't made the decision. Maybe he hired some stupid marketing guys and they don't have any clue about a good crypto currecy. And his marketing guys advised Chaum very badly (probably).
- It's a trap! Maybe he's just testing waters to see how to make a perfect launch (unlikely because he collected VC funds).
- He's just clueless himself how to compete against several 10k shitcoins and after Bitcoin was launched over 15 years ago, crypto industry has changed a lot. And he messed it up... [...]

I think what best describes these situations and also Chaum's fate is life's irony.

Most likely it is, dear GazetaBitcoin.  

It is what it is, I guess... He could have been surrounded by incompetents too, which blurred his vision... who knows... It could have been also a complex of all the reasons you stated... However, it's important that he did not give up. He is still active, even at his age and we can only wait to see what magic he will reveal in the future

If there hasn't been a free and democratic vote (like North Korea)

I remember how "democratic voting" took course also in Ceausescu era... it was so similar...

For example in North Korea, there are no checks and balances at all. It's a failed Communist state led by Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un can't be voted out, he's a maniac. People are piss poor. I would not want to live there. Checks and balances are very important and Bitcoin can be part of this and should be part of this in my opinion.

I lived, in part, what you wrote above. Although I was very young when Ceausescu was taken down I still remember many things which occurred during his regime. It is difficult to explain in words. Just a small example, all food was rationalized. And, depending of the number of the family members, you were allowed to buy only a (small) quantity of milk, flour, corn flour, oil, sugar or meat each month. Now excepting the fact that what you were allowed to was a very small amount, you also had to do extreme efforts for obtaining the aliments. For example, if a grocery store was opening at 7am, you had to go there since 1-2am to make sure you get a good spot in the queue, thus at 7am when the store would open you would have the chance to obtain your milk or oil or what you needed. If you joined the queue at 6am you had no chance to buy anything as until your place would come to enter the store everything was finished already. During the nights people used to make huge queues at each such store, sometimes even more than 100 people forming a queue...

Meat was even scarcer than anything. And I am not talking about fish, beef or some delicacy. People mostly had the right to buy chicken and pork meat and the chickens from the stores were always so small that they looked like they starved a month before being brought to the stores.

Annually, each citizen was entitled to 60-70 kg of meat and meat derivatives, 8-10 kg of fish and fish derivatives, 210-230 liters of milk or milk derivatives, 260-280 eggs, 16 kg of fats (oil, butter etc.), 170-180 kg of vegetables, 70-90 kg of potatoes, 65-95 kg of fruits, 22-26 kg of sugar. All products were stamped on a paper card or on a sort of register book, for making sure the citizen would not buy more than he was entitled to. The shopping could be made only once per month and only at the grocery shop from the neighborhood. In 1984 the portions were reduced even more: 39 kg of meat, 78 liters of milk, 166 kg of vegetables. The oil and the sugar could be bought also just once per month and only 1 kg of each of them.

Those caught with shenanigans regarding food (buying more, buying from illegal sources etc.) could face 6 months - 5 years of jail.


Register for buying bread in Ceausescu era


Register for buying sugar in Ceausescu era


Register for buying cloths (yes, even cloths were rationalized) in Ceausescu era


The huge monthly queues at grocery shop in Ceausescu era (PIINE means BREAD and ALIMENTARA means GROCERY SHOP)

[Captain Corporate]

I understand that OP wants to spread "government is bad, lets get rid of government!" type of thing and spreading a political ideology is not that bad, many people do it. However, its not the right place, not at bitcoin discussions. Go open a topic at politics, there are more people who would be interested in talking about your libertarian ideas there, here you would not be really that much happy with the answers. And I would suggest, you could spread your message but when people are against it, do not go on attack, be calm because you were the one that started the discussion and you will of course face with some people who disagree, if you do not want to get disagreed on, then do not open these topics, since you won't get %100 acceptance, its obvious.

[Blawpaw]

There is nothing anarchist about Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin is the most governed system in the world. There are tens of thousands of law enforcement with zero corruption or possibility of corruption called full nodes that are watching this system 24/7 to keep it healthy and clean of any corruption.
Bitcoin was also not created to "demolish" payment system. But instead to create a non-corruptible global money as an alternative to the existing corrupted systems.

If the traffic cop that is supposed to enforce the law is corrupt (eg. pulls you over for no reason and accepts bribes), you don't demolish the entire police department. Even if the whole department is corrupt, you still don't demolish it. Instead you remove the corruption and install an alternative in its stead.

The whole text you shared is just pretty words but empty and meaningless underneath. Complaining about US regime's corruption while you vote for them and pay their salary makes no sense! Specially when it comes from someone who is (or was) part of that corrupt system.

Well, I'll have to disagree and agree at the same time. Even though "there is nothing anarchist about Bitcoin" there is still something that is anarchist in Bitcoin. That is the possibility of detaching from the current financial system and become more independent of the traditional banking model. I say this is totally disruptive, hence having something of "Anarchist" on the possibilities it opens and the threat it creates to the current banking model.
After all Banks fear Bitcoin as it may be their doom, so isn't this something that we can consider a kind of "Anarchism"?

[Anonylz]

I found Anarchism very wrong for human practice, imagine a room filled with children for instance, what would you think would happen without the presence and control of an adult? The same applies to human society, how smoothly will people co-exist without any violence breaking out?

"You do not know us, nor do you know our world" this sound ridiculous, government are not alien, they didn't fall from the sky either, they are part of the society they govern, born and raised in various community before holding any public office so how is this statement correct? Try to picture the whole world without any governing authority. 

[GazetaBitcoin]

And I would suggest, you could spread your message but when people are against it, do not go on attack, be calm because you were the one that started the discussion and you will of course face with some people who disagree, if you do not want to get disagreed on, then do not open these topics, since you won't get %100 acceptance, its obvious.

Have I attacked someone or do you have the feeling that I attacked someone...? Did I state somewhere that I do not want to be disagreed with...? Did I state any rule in OP saying something like "only those open for 100% acceptance are eligible to post"...? I sincerely don't know why you wrote these lines. I don't think I ever stopped someone from disagreeing with me (I mean in my entire life, not just inside this topic).

I understand that OP wants to spread "government is bad, lets get rid of government!" type of thing and spreading a political ideology is not that bad, many people do it

Most of all, I wanted to share an important historic text, which is same reason for which I wrote the topic about The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto or the one about The call for Julian Assange || The WikiLeaks Manifesto. I may be wrong, but I think that bitmover had same reason when he published The Cypherpunk Manifesto. These texts are part of our history. And, since they are also oriented to technology, software, development and all these combined with a libertarian spirit, they also should be known by bitcoiners. Good or bad, no matter how each of us sees them, they still remain part of history and they are educative.

Try to picture the whole world without any governing authority.  

I do try to picture it. And it's not that scary

[bitmover]

Most of all, I wanted to share an important historic text, which is same reason for which I wrote the topic about The Cypherpunk Manifesto or the one about The call for Julian Assange || The WikiLeaks Manifesto. I may be wrong, but I think that bitmover had same reason when he published The Cypherpunk Manifesto. These texts are part of our history. And, since they are also oriented to technology, software, development and all these combined with a libertarian spirit, they also should be known by bitcoiners. Good or bad, no matter how each of us sees them, they still remain part of history and they are educative.

I would say that the cyberpunk manifesto is more than history.

It is becoming more and more important  everyday,  as our privacy is just  being ignored.

Everyone wants your phone number, Id and email to fill their databases, and we are becoming just our data that is valuable and easily shared between companies.

I will post here a few lines, which I believe everyone should know:

Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. ..... I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.

in the world that we live I have always to reveal my self. I cannot selectively reveal myself.

We have no privacy, unless we always deny personal data requests and / or give false personal Information when it is irrelevant to the transaction

[GazetaBitcoin]

I would say that the cyberpunk manifesto is more than history.

It is becoming more and more important  everyday,  as our privacy is just  being ignored.

True and also, if I may add, this is also how I consider The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. Both essays were published decades ago and become more and more actual in our days.

Everyone wants your phone number, Id and email to fill their databases, and we are becoming just our data that is valuable and easily shared between companies.

in the world that we live I have always to reveal my self. I cannot selectively reveal myself.

We have no privacy, unless we always deny personal data requests and / or give false personal Information when it is irrelevant to the transaction

I am also a big advocate of privacy and I am trying all I can to keep myself as private as possible. I said it many times: personal information is personal, this is why it's called like this. And once you give it to third parties it is not personal anymore. Nor it can become personal again. I am also trying to help people value their privacy. Sadly, the biggest struggle I have to face is to explain people not how to remain private, but why it matters to remain private.

The most reaction is this: "I have nothing to hide!". Okay, you may have nothing to hide, but that does not involve the fact that you should not have some privacy. Then I ask them: "If you have nothing to hide, then you don't mind someone spying on you through the bathroom's key hole? If you have nothing to hide, then you don't mind someone spying on you through the windows? If you have nothing to hide, then you don't mind someone which reads your secret journal?" -- and so on.

Privacy is more and more difficult to have in our days and one reason is the fact that people are less and less educated for valuing their privacy.

The rest is just like you described it. You can not be born without sharing your private details; nor you can die without doing it. You can't get married; you can't get a job. As everywhere you are asked for your ID, which must also be a document issued by the State. We are not allowed to create our own IDs. All we can do is to limit, as much as we can, this intrusion in our lives.

[NotATether]

The rest is just like you described it. You can not be born without sharing your private details; nor you can die without doing it. You can't get married; you can't get a job. As everywhere you are asked for your ID, which must also be a document issued by the State. We are not allowed to create our own IDs. All we can do is to limit, as much as we can, this intrusion in our lives.

It's more like this:

You can't be anonymous per se, but you can create several anonymous clones of yourself that you can send off and later destroy if they get compromised - in a way, you can even view Satoshi as someone's anonymous clone.

[Smartprofit]

Yes, the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace is a great document!  

It can be compared to the Declaration of Independence, which was created during the French Revolution, and later became the basis of the legal system of the United States, and then other democracies!  

Cyberspace (Internet, Virtual Space, Virtu, Metaverse, Community of Independent Metaverses) is undoubtedly a structure that has nothing to do with the physical world (except for servers and other equipment that can be located on the territory of a particular state).  The territory of the virtual world does not intersect with the territories of states.  

Accordingly, the laws and other regulations of individual states should not apply to cyberspace.  

Also, the norms of international law should not apply to cyberspace.  Cyberspace is a sovereign independent territory that is not under the jurisdiction of individual states and the authorities formed by them.

[1miau]

The rest is just like you described it. You can not be born without sharing your private details; nor you can die without doing it. You can't get married; you can't get a job.

We can but then, we'll need to go somewhere to the jungle or some islands "behind" Australia. I'm sure that there are also some unpopulated islands but climate is very harsh there.
Of course, we won't have access to the internet there most likely, so no Bitcoin. 

Privacy is more and more difficult to have in our days and one reason is the fact that people are less and less educated for valuing their privacy.

You are very right on this.
When Ledger had been hacked, I brought up in our German section that Ledger handled the issue horribly! So many people got their personal information hacked.
Just imagine where such personal details got sold to via Darknet. Some people received (physical) mails into their postboxes, where criminals were threatening them (because physical addresses got hacked).
Some said: it's only personal data, no money was lost. 

Big ouch! We should value our personal data, once it's hacked we could get in big trouble.
Ledger might have been safe (so far) but from a privacy perspective, it's a big nooo!

[GazetaBitcoin]

We can but then, we'll need to go somewhere to the jungle or some islands "behind" Australia. I'm sure that there are also some unpopulated islands but climate is very harsh there.
Of course, we won't have access to the internet there most likely, so no Bitcoin.  

Loooooooooool!

Just imagine where such personal details got sold to via Darknet. Some people received (physical) mails into their postboxes, where criminals were threatening them (because physical addresses got hacked).

I keep trying to open the eyes of so many people I know. But only in very few occasions I see them realizing to what risks they are exposing themselves by not protecting their privacy. I am telling all many parts of this topic of yours: Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless. I talked so many times about it that I almost learned it word by word (no kidding). Yet people react with: "I've got nothing to hide, anyway!". They don't understand that no house is broken-in by burglars until it's broken-in by a burglar, for the first time. Even so, with so many covering their eyes and ears, I still manage, sometimes, to drive one or another on the right path. And that is a great happiness for me!

Some said: it's only personal data, no money was lost.  

Yes, such people are everywhere. Their mind is so simplistic that they are unable to comprehend anything else excepting the fact that they know they have to go to work, to eat, to sleep then wake up again and repeat all the cycle. They are those which resolve a geometric problem like this:



and which ask questions like this: