Governs' oppression of bitcoiners may turn against them

[GazetaBitcoin]

Governs oppress bitcoiners for more than a decade now. Being aware that bitcoiners earn real fiat money from their crypto transactions, governs around the world started to extort bitcoiners, for taking away the money these people earned without having the State helping them in any way. People work, get paid for their work, but the State wants its share.

Oppression grew bigger and bigger as time passed. For being able to coerce people to pay, governs around the world created laws which did not exist before, trying to centralize what was meant to be decentralized. And people, in their greed, helped the State to extort them even more.

Prometheus gave fire to people, for warming up their homes and for preparing food, but people used it to fire up neighbors' houses. Similar, Satoshi gave Bitcoin for free to people, for helping them to get rid of the slavery imposed by governs and banks, for performing peer-to-peer transactions, without the intervention of any third party, but people, in their greed, created centralized crypto exchanges.

Some opportunists believed they will get rich by operating such exchanges. One of them is Charlie Shrem (Yankee (BitInstant)). A young enthusiast, which adopted Bitcoin while he was in college. Later he launches BitInstant, one of first crypto exchanges and which, at some point, was running about 30% of all Bitcoin transactions. Later he ends up in jail, for aiding and abetting the operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business. He was also called "Bitcoin's first felon".

Since Shrem's case, governs started to be even more strict with bitcoiners. A 2018 article informs that "The so-called “Bitcoin Maven,” who admitted to operating an unlicensed bitcoin-for-cash exchange business and laundering bitcoin [...] was sentenced today to 12 months and one day in federal prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $20,000".


Crypto exchanges soared and so did their users, without understanding that they are acting against Bitcoin's main principles: peer-to-peer / anonymity / pseudonymity / getting rid of middle man. New laws appeared also together with crypto exchanges, and they forced exchanges to impose KYC to their customers.

People's greed led them to:

- risk their money held at exchanges, as they were not in possession of their private keys
- risk their money, as many exchanges were hacked
- risk their personal information, as many exchanges were hacked and hackers used customers' personal information or even sold it on dark web (which led to even more risks for these people, as you may never know when a criminal shows up at your door and robs you, after buying all your personal information for 1$ from dark web)
- risk their money, as many exchanges simply froze their accounts
- risk their money, as many banks froze their accounts, after finding out that money came from crypto transactions
- risk they money and also their freedom, in case they did not obey to the new laws issued by the govern.

Yet, only a few learned their lesson. Perhaps those which were wise and those which had to live at least one of the above mentioned situations.

And, as time passes, "crypto laws" become even more harsh and more complex. In many cases, also more ridiculous or raising more questions unanswered by anybody.

In Romania, for example, first crypto law was issued in 2019 but, until then, you were facing the risk of being accused of tax evasion, of having a criminal record or even of jail time for not declaring the fiat money obtained from crypto transactions, although there was no legal framework. Accountants did not know how to declare these incomes of their customers and authorities did not know how to answer to people's questions. After the law was issued, in early 2019, bitcoiners had to pay a 10% tax for the profits they made in the previous year. And, if their profits were greater than 12 minimum wages, they were supposed to pay also 10% of the amount of 12 minimum wages. This secondary tax was given for health system. Those which had losses in the previous year are not supposed to pay anything.

Still, the law is not clear. What is a miner supposed to do? If he made profits in the previous year but the hardware equipment he bought is far from being paid back, is the miner at a profit or at loss? And what happens with those miners which do not have anymore the bills / invoices of their hardware equipment? Nobody knows.

In the future new taxes may arise. More complex, more ridiculous.

In any case, Bitcoin was not conceived for anything like that. It was not created for giving people more troubles, nor for getting them in jail in case they do not give to the State its share, a share for which the State did not make any contribution. Everything is in the reverse sort of way than it should.

Instead of rendering governs and banks as irrelevant, instead of getting the middle man out of equation, people's actions enforced these entities. And now, these entities fight back, oppressing people even more. All exchanges collect users' data for having them prepared for authorities. Bitcoiners go smiling at crypto exchanges -- nobody knows why -- and offer them for free and at their own will their money and personal information. To make sure they'll become slaves again, users also associate their accounts from exchanges to bank accounts, thus allowing banks too to freeze their funds at will and also giving their data to authorities.

Then many obtain some fiat money from their crypto activities and, without knowing the very complex laws, they become sitting ducks in front of authorities.


However, I believe that a limit will put all these to end. All these incorrect uses of Bitcoin, all govern and bank extortions, all the abuses of crypto exchanges.

And this limit will be reached when enough people will suffer from their greed, from their naïveté, from their stupidity. When enough of them will have criminal records and when enough of them will have to serve jail time. Only a drastic suffering will be able to open people's eyes.

And, when this will happen, bitcoiners will finally stop using exchanges. They will stop holding in bank accounts their fiat incomes obtained from crypto activities. Some will even avoid using fiat money. If all these will happen, then individuals will finally start using Bitcoin the way Satoshi created it: for their own benefit, for rendering governs and banks as irrelevant, for eliminating any middle man, for anonymizing their financial deals, for being their own bankers, for owning their private keys instead of allowing exchanges having them.

And when these will happen, all the previous oppression imposed by governs will turn against them. They will not be able to catch any other victim as their earlier victims know now how to protect themselves and how to use Bitcoin properly. When these will happen, the prey will become the hunter.

I don't know how much time will pass until all these will become real. But I have a feeling that, sooner or later, people will realize they suffered enough and they will say: "Enough!". And they will open their eyes and they will understand how to use Bitcoin. Not for the benefit of the State, but for their own benefit!

Topic is self-moderated for avoiding spam.


Translations (in chronological order):

• Română: Oprimarea bitcoinerilor de către guverne s-ar putea întoarce împotriva lor, translation by GazetaBitcoin
• Filipino: Ang pang-aapi ng Pamahalaan sa mga Bitcoiner ay maaaring bumalik laban sa kanila, translation by Asuspawer09
• Polish: Opresja rządów wobec bitcoinerów może obrócić się przeciwko nim, translation by cygan
• Pidgin: The Oppression wey governs' dey show bitcoiners fit turn against dem, translation by Nheer
• Bengali: বিটকয়েনারদের উপর প্রশাসনের অত্যাচার, translation by Learn Bitcoin
• Russian: Пpитecнeниe биткoйнepoв мoжeт oбepнyтьc, translation by FP91G
• French: L'oppression gouvernementale sur les bitcoiners pourrait se retourner contre eux, translation by iwantmyhomepaidwithbtc2
• Urdu: بٹ کوائنرز پر حکمرانوں کا ظلم ان کے خلاف ہو س, translation by ThemePen
• German: Unterdrückung von Bitcoinern durch die Regierungen könnte sich gegen sie wenden, translation by cygan
• Indonesian: Penindasan pemerintah terhadap kepada para bitcoiner mungkin akan berbalik arah, translation by dansus021
• Ukrainian: Утиcки бiткoйнepiв з бoкy ypядiв мoжyть o, translation by DrBeer
• Turkish: Hükümetlerin Bitcoin Kullanıcılarına Karşı Baskısı Kendilerine Dönebilir , translation by mela65

[Ucy]

I think the community especially this forum should encourage or incentivize people or things that are trying to make everyone use Bitcoin/crypto properly.A nice way to do this would be with the merit system but it seems those who could change things are finding it hard to benefit from it.
When you see people who are doing their best to help others use Bitcoin/crypto properly they should be encouraged. Let's stop encouraging or incentivizing those doing things wrongly and you will see how quickly things change for good. Imagine having the Legendary ranks filled with just passionate and very principled Bitcoiners. The newbies and young users will be guided properly by them.
It is not easy to resist the temptation of not  following the principles Bitcoin is built on. Not easy for the weak. They would probably think "if I insist that people do the right thing, businesses that don't care will employ them with huge pay if they leave, or they will create their own altcoins/platforms that break the principles, and do things the way they want... And they will become richer than me while I remain poor for trying to do what is right". But they forgot that the ones insisting that the right things be done naturally becomes the defacto leaders as long as they practice what they preach, and they will discover their power/authority no one can disobey (or be punished) when they issue orders . You can do alot of things with that kind of power and authority, even becoming the richest in that your community if you want to... and as long as you remain principled.

It's better we operate in this space like we already have good rules that guide members/participants. Using Bitcoin/crypto properly should be part of the rules. And It is important to encourage those who follow the rules and avoid those who don't. That's how we will help the community remain on the right track and avoid the future consequences or problems you mentioned.

[jackg]

It's now become a lot easier to use dexes to transfer funds and cash them out; it might just be me that thinks this but dexes seem cheaper now than centralised exchanges? I paid 80 cents yesterday to convert 1000 usdc to btc and immediately gained custody of those btc.

I'm not sure if there's statistics but I wonder how many dexes have been attacked (ignoring liquidity pools and focusing on only atomic swaps and manual transfers) it feels a lot safer and a lot more secure so I'd imagine it actually is.

I think the community especially this forum should encourage or incentivize people or things that are trying to make everyone use Bitcoin/crypto properly.A nice way to do this would be with the merit system

There seems to be a lot of companies that do this sort of things but not too many interacting with them imo and publicising it which is likely the reason there are less merits awarded for these activities.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I think the community especially this forum should encourage or incentivize people or things that are trying to make everyone use Bitcoin/crypto properly.A nice way to do this would be with the merit system but it seems those who could change things are finding it hard to benefit from it.
When you see people who are doing their best to help others use Bitcoin/crypto properly they should be encouraged. Let's stop encouraging or incentivizing those doing things wrongly [...]

What you proposed may be a part of the solution for resolving the problem of users which act with their eyes closed or based by greed. However, the other part of the solution consists in people, which should be willing to educate themselves. If we have 10 educative topics about Bitcoin, anonymity and how to avoid centralized exchanges but nobody reads them then there will be no positive outcome, even though the authors of those topics will get merited. Same will happen if those which keep their eyes closed or which are full of greed read those topics but take no action.

Take a look at this topic: 12 years later and people still don't know to use Bitcoin nor what it's good for. Those which appreciated it showed their appreciation. So the part of the solution proposed by you is accomplished. Furthermore, the topic was seen 408 times. Now the hard part comes: how many times was it read by users which don't know how to properly use crypto or by users which only think about getting rich over night? And, even more important, how many of them have changed their behavior after reading the topic?. -- These are the most important questions...

It's now become a lot easier to use dexes to transfer funds and cash them out; it might just be me that thinks this but dexes seem cheaper now than centralised exchanges?

Indeed, the current context is meant to favor those which are focused on their privacy and, why not, those which are dragged back on the right path. Decentralized exchanges keep appearing; wallets containing atomic swaps are developed more (two examples of such wallets are Unstoppable Wallet and AtomicDEX). There are also wallets which contain instant (and anonymous?) exchanges, such as Jaxx Liberty; however, not everybody agrees with this kind of wallets / instant exchanges. But the point is that solutions become available. As time passes more and more solutions become available for those trying to keep their privacy.

I'm not sure if there's statistics but I wonder how many dexes have been attacked (ignoring liquidity pools and focusing on only atomic swaps and manual transfers) it feels a lot safer and a lot more secure so I'd imagine it actually is.

I also don't know that but some information on this subject could be important. However, since atomic swaps become easier to reach within wallets, perhaps more users will choose them instead of decentralized exchanges... But that's just a hunch of mine.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Governs oppress bitcoiners for almost a decade now. Being aware that bitcoiners earn real fiat money from their crypto transactions, governs around the world started to extort bitcoiners, for taking away the money these people earned without having the State helping them in any way. People work, get paid for their work, but the State wants its share.

This is actually happening but i think there's a way it can get mitigated to an extent, if the user learn to go on full decentralization with handling his bitcoin by avoiding the use of the centralized exchanges through which the government can use to track him, here the asset is meant to be secured with more guaranteed safety on a decentralized exchange than a centralized one, you can run a bitvoin full node using bitcoincore, you can as well get yourself a hardware wallet to privately secure your asset and you make use of a decentralized p2p when in need for an exchange to fiat, if you can avoid centralized exchange, then you're almost close to being privately secured and don't announce yourself of your involvement in bitcoin to the public.

[GazetaBitcoin]

This is actually happening but i think there's a way it can get mitigated to an extent, if the user learn to go on full decentralization with handling his bitcoin by avoiding the use of the centralized exchanges through which the government can use to track him, here the asset is meant to be secured with more guaranteed safety on a decentralized exchange than a centralized one, you can run a bitvoin full node using bitcoincore, you can as well get yourself a hardware wallet to privately secure your asset and you make use of a decentralized p2p when in need for an exchange to fiat, if you can avoid centralized exchange, then you're almost close to being privately secured and don't announce yourself of your involvement in bitcoin to the public.

True. As I said in my earlier post, we are lucky to have a context offering some hands of help to those looking for anonymity and those which want to keep govern's eyes away from them:

- centralized exchanges should be avoided no matter what, for all the reasons I mentioned in OP
- decentralized exchanges are more and more; they started to become also more user friendly
- private wallets are a must, in order to be the owner of your private keys; preferably, users should choose those with open source code
- exchanges between a coin and another one should be made either through peer-to-peer transfers between users or through atomic swaps
- bank accounts should never be associated with crypto
- cash-in / cash-out anonymous crypto ATMs should be also used; they can be found through www.coinatmradar.com.

By following these easy steps we can maintain our privacy. The important part, though, is to have users willing to follow these steps and to leave behind all their unhealthy habits (using centralized exchanges, associating bank accounts with crypto accounts, giving personal information to third parties, using custodial wallets or wallets with closed source code etc.).

[ThemePen]

Dear GazetaBitcoin I want to translate this topic in my local language Urdu. If you allow me so confirm it I will start my work. Thanks.

[CODE200]

Crypto exchanges soared and so did their users, without understanding that they are acting against Bitcoin's main principles: peer-to-peer / anonymity / pseudonymity / getting rid of middle man. New laws appeared also together with crypto exchanges, and they forced exchanges to impose KYC to their customers.

I wouldn't say that I've seen this happening a mile away but I'm aware that this is what's going to happen the moment that bitcoin reached a thousand dollars back then, the p2p feature is what a lot of Youtubers have emphasized back then when bitcoin is still at its infancy meaning that they wanted to created a currency that you trade in like fiat but this purpose didn't last long because bitcoin increased in value. Maybe if the people that got introduced into bitcoin knows how to trade p2p, we could've kept the idea of getting rid of the middle man. The sad thing is that we forgot our roots, even a lot of old bitcoiners that have been hodling for a really long time just chose to make a profit because it's the most logical thing to do when everyone's taking profit. @laszlo's story also contributed to the increase of people that see bitcoin hodling their bitcoins to death, they don't want to make the same thing that he did with his bitcoins.

[goldkingcoiner]

Only a natural reaction of the government. They cannot really do anything against decentralization so they try to act as lowly saboteurs. It is a desperate, impotent flail against Bitcoin and decentralization. And it won't work.

All attack vectors are centralized.  One could avoid them by simply not using centralized platforms. A bit of technical know-how on how to use decentralized services like BisQ or how to obfuscate your digital fingerprints with Monero or mixers couldn't hurt, either.

[Fiatless]

Only a natural reaction of the government. They cannot really do anything against decentralization so they try to act as lowly saboteurs. It is a desperate, impotent flail against Bitcoin and decentralization. And it won't work.

All attack vectors are centralized.  One could avoid them by simply not using centralized platforms. A bit of technical know-how on how to use decentralized services like BisQ or how to obfuscate your digital fingerprints with Monero or mixers couldn't hurt, either.

The government could make laws that requires mining firms to report, deny, or block transactions from flagged addresses. Transactions from mixers can be flagged as tainted funds and OFAC can mandate minners to report such transactions. Mixers can be banned and seized by the government claiming that they are used by criminals to promote crimes like terror financing, and drug and arms trafficking. The government can also cook up allegations against decentralized exchanges thereby restricting or criminalizing their services. There are many moves the government can take to fight privacy. Let's just enjoy privacy as it lasts.

[Reatim]

The government could make laws that requires mining firms to report, deny, or block transactions from flagged addresses. Transactions from mixers can be flagged as tainted funds and OFAC can mandate minners to report such transactions. Mixers can be banned and seized by the government claiming that they are used by criminals to promote crimes like terror financing, and drug and arms trafficking. The government can also cook up allegations against decentralized exchanges thereby restricting or criminalizing their services. There are many moves the government can take to fight privacy. Let's just enjoy privacy as it lasts.

The government will do anything to strip control away from our hands. Obviously they want the control all for themselves and their citizens having the ability to conceal that control makes them crazy. It’s not just about whether you are doing something illegal but more of are you plotting something against the government?

If you are an enemy of the state and you are able to enjoy privacy of course they would not like that and instead of hand picking who’s the enemy they just generally restrict everyone.

[d5000]

In general terms I agree with the OP, even if I would formulate some parts of the text differently

But I often see Bitcoiners being a bit too "nihilistic" or too pessimistic in general -- i.e. they believe that "governments" will always be enemies and they will never change.

What about educating governments too that, for example, too strict KYC regulations may have even worse consequences regarding crime than all so-called "money laundering" through cryptocurrencies? (KYC services open up a whole new field of crime, with identity theft being now a real threat for billions of people. 1miau's text has been an eye-opener for me too, because before I considered that while KYC is a hassle it could bring some advantages, but I now am convinced it is not the case.)

Or if they don't want to hear, participate in political movements which propose alternatives? For example, about ten years ago, in Europe there was a quite big privacy movement called the "Pirate" movement (derived from the movement to support Pirate Bay). They even entered some parliaments, like in the Czech Republic and Iceland. But it seems these movements are currently quite weak, at least they are not much talked about in the media, besides perhaps some few regions. They could need all support from Bitcoiners and crypto enthusiasts. Also Anarchist movements in general seem to have weakened in the last 10 years.

I think also that the crypto community should propose some alternatives to the FATF-influenced AML rules. Because if we can convince the majorities that there are better measures than KYC in every corner, then the authorities would have to react, or they lose support by voters.

1) We could first educate lawmakers that even the strictest KYC policy for crypto services will not be effective because the real "bottleneck" to launder money is the creation of "clean" fiat. This means that, it doesn't matter how much you try to obfuscate a transaction history, you will never be able to "launder" big sums of money if you can't demonstrate a legitimate origin. And that's what money laundering usually is about: funding some fake companies which can create a "legitime" income from illegitimate sources. You don't need crypto for that. In other words: Crypto mixing is often a really minor step in the money laundering process.

2) Second, there could be measures for non-KYC crypto services and mixers which would be more effective against crime than KYC in many cases. I could imagine something like a preventive chain analysis for larger deposits to such services, and in case of it being connected with a recent known hack, a wallet which was emptied by a thief, or a wallet connected with terrorism, simply delay the accreditation of the funds -- that all without having to store any KYC data! And if then an order from a court reaches the service, then the funds can perhaps still be frozen and returned to the legitimate owner.

AFAIK the Security Alliance is offering such services, e.g. tracking of hacked funds. We should promote this kind of measures as alternatives to traditional AML, and educate people that they exist and are often more effective than surveillance and storage of personal data.

[GazetaBitcoin]

If you are an enemy of the state and you are able to enjoy privacy of course they would not like that and instead of hand picking who’s the enemy they just generally restrict everyone.

And this leads us, again, to Phil Zimmermann's famous quote -- "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy"...

In general terms I agree with the OP, even if I would formulate some parts of the text differently

Feel free to make any suggestion

But I often see Bitcoiners being a bit too "nihilistic" or too pessimistic in general -- i.e. they believe that "governments" will always be enemies and they will never change.

This is, in fact, an ideology adopted by Cypherpunks, before bitcoiners existed... And Cypherpunks' ideology was inspired by Austrian economists (such as Hayek of Murray Rothbard), or by other libertarians, such as Albert Jay Nock, which is the author of Our Enemy, the State.

What about educating governments too that, for example, too strict KYC regulations may have even worse consequences regarding crime than all so-called "money laundering" through cryptocurrencies? [...] 1miau's text has been an eye-opener for me too [...]

That is thoughtful thinking and, of course, 1miau's essay is a very valuable piece of art... But what I believe about governments is that they don't want to be educated... Or they act like that... Since they can oppress people even more, which leads to collecting more taxes, applying more fines and using all this money for their personal interests -- this is what they care about...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Gazeta, things are currently worse than ever in Bitcoin. Governs continue with the oppression, and they're taking down privacy-enhancing services, one after the other. I cannot foresee sufficient resistance. They are taking a portion of your monthly income and use it to fund blockchain analysis. And people... just don't care, you know? They only care about finding the next memecoin. It's sad that we're a small minority.

I hate altcoin shilling, but you should check Monero. It's closer to the cypherpunk's cryptocurrency principles and ideals. Private by default. Untraceable. Just as peer-to-peer cash should be.

What about educating governments too that, for example, too strict KYC regulations may have even worse consequences regarding crime than all so-called "money laundering" through cryptocurrencies?

Governments don't care what has worse consequences, as long as they get their votes. And since the overwhelming majority doesn't care about privacy and the dangers of KYC, then governments have no incentives to loosen regulations. Pretty much the opposite; KYC is extremely effective measure for them to know who owns what.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

And people... just don't care, you know? They only care about finding the next memecoin. It's sad that we're a small minority.

And those who are not in the crypto world will adopt CBDCs as soon as they are launched. No questions asked. I can already imagine everyone talking about how they've been using them, me dissimulating and when someone asks me, perplexed faces like: 'BUT... you haven't been using them?' As if I said I don't use a mobile phone or something.

I hate altcoin shilling, but you should check Monero. It's closer to the cypherpunk's cryptocurrency principles and ideals. Private by default. Untraceable. Just as peer-to-peer cash should be.

The problem I see is that it will be prosecuted legally. I don't think you will eventually be able to buy a lot of goods and services with it.

[Maus0728]

It's now become a lot easier to use dexes to transfer funds and cash them out; it might just be me that thinks this but dexes seem cheaper now than centralised exchanges? I paid 80 cents yesterday to convert 1000 usdc to btc and immediately gained custody of those btc.

You're not alone thinking about this one, the only reason that I'm keeping on using CEXes now is because of the P2P feature that they give out and most of the DEX that I know of don't have that perfected yet but the moment that it happens, I'm going to jump at the first train metaphorically. It's too costly to move your bitcoin to these platforms too because they've got a fixed rate, sometimes you can't avoid paying the fees that they've set not to mention that they're more risky to use in terms of storage because you know that it's not your keys and not your coins anymore.

The oppression will only end once the people in government organization starts pruning and all the geriatric motherfuckers that have been only serving their own interests starts dying like flies, we would probably see some changes in the level of how stupid the government can be when it comes to technology especially with bitcoin. I guess, they just don't like the idea that they're not in control that they're doing their best to oppress and ostracize those people that uses bitcoin.

Oh well, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

[cryptosize]

Some (math) facts:

99% of the people worldwide don't even hodl a single satoshi. They may have heard about BTC, but they've never used it.

Only 1% uses Bitcoin and even there, only 1% of the 1% cares enough about deeper issues...

Do you honestly expect governments to care about the subset of a minority?

Hell, most people don't even realize how exactly the fiat Ponzi works:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1clh38i/banking_system_visualized_watch_the_full_series/

The funny thing is, there are European elections coming up next month and most people will vote for politicians that can do absolutely nothing to change the financial system.

But even if they could, why would they change a financial system that rewards them at least 10000 EUR per month? (some get paid even more by bribes/lobbyists)

If they were smart, they would try to stack as many sats as possible (it's easy to become a wholecoiner when you earn 5 digits per month) and escape the rat race, but they won't even do that...

[BlackHatCoiner]

And those who are not in the crypto world will adopt CBDCs as soon as they are launched. No questions asked. I can already imagine everyone talking about how they've been using them

Definitely. I've had a talk with a friend of mine recently on that subject. He endorses the idea of a CBDC, because retail banks charge a lot in fees, whereas a CBDC would theoretically charge nothing, as with WeChat in China.

Everyone would adopt them for another reason: allowance. If people knew they would get "free money" from their gov-wallet app, they'd install it before tomorrow morning.

The problem I see is that it will be prosecuted legally. I don't think you will eventually be able to buy a lot of goods and services with it.

Here's the funny part. As long as crypto-swap services accept it, you can buy with Monero whatever you can buy with other "legal" cryptocurrencies.

If they were smart, they would try to stack as many sats as possible (it's easy to become a wholecoiner when you earn 5 digits per month) and escape the rat race, but they won't even do that...

Pardon me, but if you earn 5 digits per month, haven't you already escaped rat race?  

[d5000]

But what I believe about governments is that they don't want to be educated... Or they act like that... Since they can oppress people even more, which leads to collecting more taxes, applying more fines and using all this money for their personal interests -- this is what they care about...

There are several examples that sometimes it worked. For example, in Argentina in the early 2010s electronic voting was to be introduced, which would have been problematic in many ways (possible hacks, privacy problems, dependency on a complex technology which could be abused by corrupt politicians, etc.). But an open-source activist group called Via Libre lobbied against it, convinced influencers like journalists and politic parties, and until now it wasn't introduced (on federal level). In Germany, in the late 2000s the government planned to store all connection data from all phones in the country, also privacy groups were able to lobby against that, and while a part of the measures were implemented, they were much less invasive than the original plans.

Even in the Bitcoin space there are examples. Remember the idea in the European Parliament to ban crypto exchanges to list PoW coins, including Bitcoin? Well there was sufficient lobbying against that idea, in part from the Pirate movement (e.g. Patrick Breyer) I mentioned in the earlier post.

This is why I consider the "nihilism" or "pessimism" even dangerous, because it cuts support for such movements which are extremely important to limit governments' oppression.

The crucial thing is: If politicians fear to lose voters, they will often be willing to learn. That's why it's important to have an outreach to "normal" people, the masses of voters, and not only to "cypherpunk" or "anarchist" groups. Being an outlaw may sound nice but you will be always a minority and have to fear to be oppressed by the majorities. If normal people understand that for example the privacy restrictions are not necessary to fight criminals, and there are better possible alternatives, then populists promising authoritarian measures will have a more difficult job.

[mindrust]

Democracy = Getting ruled by morons and weak people basically.

That's the problem.

Politicians are populists by default and it is because populism brings the most votes. Everybody loves free stuff. When a politician promise free healthcare, free education or hell even free money; everybody likes that person. Nobody asks how teh fuck that's gonna be free.

Massive FIAT printing is the result of that populism because they have to print to carry out their promises. That's how we are getting robbed by the governments.

Governments are the only corporations that never actually go bankrupt. They don't, even when they do. (they used to, but not anymore) Argentina went bankrupt but has Argentina disappeared and become some other country? Nope. It is still there.

I remember I read somewhere that banks used to print their own currencies during the first years of banking and it was backed by gold. I can't remember the details but it was something like that. So people were very careful with the bank where they kept their money. It is because if that bank was a fraud, nobody would bail it out. Nobody would come to the rescue.

It is the exact opposite now.

Now almost every bank is bankrupt but the gov rescues them by printing money massively. A few banks went down last year if I remember right they were small fries. How teh fck Deutcshe Bank is still floating?

The whole system has failed, long time ago.


2030 will be the next stage of that stupidity/populism.

No privacy
No private property
Universal basic income (free monii)