Edward Snowden Final Warning for Bitcoin

[famososMuertos]

THE `'empirical'` administration to support/not approve... ideas to bitcoin, whether to project itself into current or future discussions, is generally always led by external agents,( "x"/OP), there are no "official" spokespersons who lead a talk in reference to the topic in an open manner. Anyway...

Anyone can send an email (bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org), then plan your ideas or improvements, instead of launching a Tweet, x. Snow, you did that formality : )

[darkangel11]

Is privacy good for Bitcoin?

I am skeptical that Bitcoin only give us completely control of our bitcoins but with privacy, only pseudoprivacy, not completely privacy. If turning to complete privacy can cause more anti Bitcoin regulations, I will not want it to happen.

If people want superb privacy, they can go with Monero.

Sure, go transact in an altcoin that many exchanges do not accept anymore.
Let's say I own bitcoin and want to privately transact using XMR - how do you expect me to do that? Exchange it on DEX and then transact and again exchange it back?
That's going to take some time and be really expensive.
Let's face it, most bitcoin owners will not send their transaction through an altcoin network just for increased privacy.

[cryptosize]

Is privacy good for Bitcoin?

I am skeptical that Bitcoin only give us completely control of our bitcoins but with privacy, only pseudoprivacy, not completely privacy. If turning to complete privacy can cause more anti Bitcoin regulations, I will not want it to happen.

If people want superb privacy, they can go with Monero.

Sure, go transact in an altcoin that many exchanges do not accept anymore.
Let's say I own bitcoin and want to privately transact using XMR - how do you expect me to do that? Exchange it on DEX and then transact and again exchange it back?
That's going to take some time and be really expensive.
Let's face it, most bitcoin owners will not send their transaction through an altcoin network just for increased privacy.

EUR owners/no-coiners will tell you the same... why should they transact in BTC? Why should they use any kind of exchange (CEX/DEX)?

EUR is more hassle-free.

ps: Kraken still accepts it:

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/#Markets

[franky1]

THE `'empirical'` administration to support/not approve... ideas to bitcoin, whether to project itself into current or future discussions, is generally always led by external agents,( "x"/OP), there are no "official" spokespersons who lead a talk in reference to the topic in an open manner. Anyway...

Anyone can send an email (bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org), then plan your ideas or improvements, instead of launching a Tweet, x. Snow, you did that formality : )

when you learn who moderates all "prefered" technical discussion platforms, you soon learn using the "preferred" method doesnt get people anywhere in any awareness discussions of issues that already exist or proposals that want something outside of the roadmap plan.. , you soon learn it falls on deaf ears if the proposal/critique/observation doesnt match the ideals of the moderator. which is when people end up discussing things outside of the "preferred" method, because it avoids being muted, ejected, banned, deleted from the "preferred" method

[ChiBitCTy]

lol what the fuck is he going to do.  What "final warning"?  I was and am still in large part on his side for what he did in exposing the governments surveillance tactics and what not, but the more I listen to this guy talk, the more I realize how full of shit he is and how little he actually knows about a lot of these topics that he's constantly harping about.

Not to mention, aren't there other countries he could have chosen over Russia?  I'm not a fan.

[thecodebear]

I think Bitcoin has the right amount of privacy. Strict privacy at protocol level I think would be a major negative for Bitcoin adoption. Just build better privacy through the ecosystem. I think we've seen with privacy cryptos that they only get a niche use and are generally seen in a negative light. I think its good for privacy cryptos to exist, so when people do feel they need total privacy they can use those altcoins, but if that was implemented on Bitcoin it would basically hamstring it into more niche use cases and adoption.


Maybe in like three or four decades once Bitcoin is already widely adopted and used on a daily basis, to the point where this wouldn't be able to affect adoption, maybe then it would be okay. But not before.

[cryptosize]

Maybe in like three or four decades once Bitcoin is already widely adopted and used on a daily basis, to the point where this wouldn't be able to affect adoption, maybe then it would be okay. But not before.

Are you serious?

It will be much harder if the network effect gets even bigger.

TBH, I think Satoshi had the power to enforce a hard fork back in 2009-2010 at the latest, but no more than that.

It's immensely difficult to convince thousands of miners today (15 years later), let alone 30-40 years from now...

ps: Of course there's always the possibility of letting the AI take over control of everything (ASICs, writing BTC code, bug testing etc.), but I think this isn't a good idea.

[MeGold666]

I understand that anonymity is one of the rules of cryptocurrencies, but personally I do not use Monero and I think that I have no reason to hide, because I do not do anything forbidden.

If you have nothing to hide, show us your bank statement from the very beginning to now... unless you're a criminal ? /s

And if Bitcoin also becomes anonymous, then there is a chance that regulators will make even more problems for Bitcoin.

So now regulators decide how Bitcoin will be developed ?

I think Bitcoin has the right amount of privacy.

For regular Joe, it has no privacy. You're saying it has the right amount for the right people ? that's not very comforting.

Maybe in like three or four decades once Bitcoin is already widely adopted and used on a daily basis, to the point where this wouldn't be able to affect adoption, maybe then it would be okay. But not before.

It's already too late to make that big of a change, why you think it will be easier even later ?

From what I see in the comments, people are afraid of changes because that could affect the price. No one wants to upset the REGULATORS!
Please, Just don't call yourself cypherpunks.

And calm down, I'm pretty sure that true privacy enhancing technology will never be added to the Bitcoin nor any substantial changes, so you will be able to run a worthless, non-mining full node on your Pentium 1 CPU and slow Internet connection that contributes nothing to the network security.

If Snowden wasn't paid for shilling ZCash in the early days, he would probably just said it straight like McAfee did - use Monero.

Bitcoin will always be a true hero for bringing our attention to the problem of financial freedom and privacy issues, for showing us the way, but it's outdated - on purpose.

[cryptosize]

you will be able to run a worthless, non-mining full node on your Pentium 1 CPU and slow Internet connection that contributes nothing to the network security.

HmmMAA, is that you?

Last time I checked, a Raspberry runs circles around a Pentium 1...

[MeGold666]

HmmMAA, is that you?

Nope.

Last time I checked, a Raspberry runs circles around a Pentium 1...

Well, that was my point - technology advances, you get faster hardware for the same amount of money, whole infrastructure is upgrading but Bitcoin still can't be updated because it wouldn't run on computers from decade ago..

https://www.popsci.com/technology/fiber-optic-wavelength-record/ - I'm glad Bitcoin can run on 56k modem... /s

[cryptosize]

HmmMAA, is that you?

Nope.

Last time I checked, a Raspberry runs circles around a Pentium 1...

Well, that was my point - technology advances, you get faster hardware for the same amount of money, whole infrastructure is upgrading but Bitcoin still can't be updated because it wouldn't run on computers from decade ago..

https://www.popsci.com/technology/fiber-optic-wavelength-record/ - I'm glad Bitcoin can run on 56k modem... /s

Have a look at IPv4 and then tell me why can't we ditch it for the superior IPv6. Modern computers/CPUs can easily handle 128-bit numbers, unlike 8-bit CPUs from the early 80s.

ps: I'm not sure if Bitcoin can run on 56k modems, I'd say ADSL is the bare minimum.

Would you enjoy it if Bitcoin became IPv6-only? Why do they keep IPv4 compatibility? Why keep hacks like NAT and UPnP when we can all have a real IP address?

[MeGold666]

Have a look at IPv4 and then tell me why can't we ditch it for the superior IPv6. Modern computers/CPUs can easily handle 128-bit numbers, unlike 8-bit CPUs from the early 80s.

It must stay for compatibility, maybe in future it will be ditched altogether.

ps: I'm not sure if Bitcoin can run on 56k modems, I'd say ADSL is the bare minimum.

/s = sarcasm.

Would you enjoy it if Bitcoin became IPv6-only? Why do they keep IPv4 compatibility? Why keep hacks like NAT and UPnP when we can all have a real IP address?

If we could start everything from the beginning, I'm sure many compatibility layers used today wouldn't be required and many things would be designed differently, with encryption and privacy in mind.

But we don't need Bitcoin running for compatibility reasons, it's not a backbone of cryptocurrency.

[cryptosize]

Have a look at IPv4 and then tell me why can't we ditch it for the superior IPv6. Modern computers/CPUs can easily handle 128-bit numbers, unlike 8-bit CPUs from the early 80s.

It must stay for compatibility, maybe in future it will be ditched altogether.

Thanks for proving my point.

IPv4 will never be ditched. Same for BTC (block size debates and whatnot).

If we could start everything from the beginning, I'm sure many compatibility layers used today wouldn't be required and many things would be designed differently, with encryption and privacy in mind.

But we cannot start everything from the beginning. Trillions of dollars would be required to change all the IT infrastructure globally. Perhaps the A(G)I could do it by itself in the distant future, but that opens a whole new can of worms for humanity.

That's why we have monstrous x86-64 CPUs (instead of lean and mean RISC) with tons of legacy baggage (including 16-bit/DOS compatibility), Windows, even WINE on Linux...

But we don't need Bitcoin running for compatibility reasons, it's not a backbone of cryptocurrency.

I hate to break it to you, but Bitcoin is the TCP/IP of money. It's as ossified as the ancient IPv4.

Imagine if TCP/IP offered default privacy on a protocol level and Tor wasn't even needed... where would the internet be today? Would the elites permit such a global network to exist?

[MeGold666]

I hate to break it to you, but Bitcoin is the TCP/IP of money. It's as ossified as the ancient IPv4.

Well, I hate to break it to you as well, but you are simply wrong.

Bitcoin is just another cryptocurrency project, it was first (decentralized) project - that's it.

It's not as important as you may think, it was important in the evolution of other projects - yes.

But it is not required for the cryptocurrency ecosystem to live.

It's late where I live, maybe someone else will answer your other funny assumptions.

[Kruw]

Why did you crop the context out of the screenshot? Snowden's post is about Wasabi Wallet's default coordinator:



This isn't as hopeless as he originally thought. Anyone can run a WabiSabi coinjoin coordinator because the code is open source. I run one myself, all you have to do to connect to it is add this line to your Wasabi config file:

Code:

"MainNetCoordinatorUri": "https://btcpay.kruw.io/plugins/wabisabi-coordinator/",

[cryptosize]

I hate to break it to you, but Bitcoin is the TCP/IP of money. It's as ossified as the ancient IPv4.

Well, I hate to break it to you as well, but you are simply wrong.

Bitcoin is just another cryptocurrency project, it was first (decentralized) project - that's it.

It's not as important as you may think, it was important in the evolution of other projects - yes.

But it is not required for the cryptocurrency ecosystem to live.

It's late where I live, maybe someone else will answer your other funny assumptions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1cfw1nf/the_creator_of_gmail_on_the_promise_of_bitcoin_at/

According to your "logic", TCP/IP and the internet aren't needed either for Bitcoin, because we have Blockstream's satellite and radio waves.

Sorry to break it to you, but if Bitcoin goes to zero for whatever reason (nuclear WW3 or whatever), then literally every cryptocurrency will go to zero.

Bitcoin for the cryptocurrency ecosystem is the equivalent of USD for the fiat ecosystem.

Sleep tight!

[MeGold666]

Bitcoin is not an TCP/IP equivalent, Bitcoin is just a transaction processor.

So if you want to put it in analogy, Intel 8086 made in 1978 was the first processor of the x86 family.
From your logic, we should only use the original instruction set and never add any new instructions or superscalar pipelines and we should stick forever with 16 bits.
Well, go ahead - switch to 8086 from 1978, any other are just forks (shitcpus).

The TCP/IP analogy was made up by uneducated Bitcoin fanboy who tried to imply that Bitcoin is the backbone of cryptocurrency and even if something better comes, Bitcoin will stay relevant.
That everything else will be just a second layer for it, the problem with this logic is that other projects have their own evaluation based on usage and Bitcoin "standard" is just a pipe dream.
You can see it on charts when Bitcoin gets into bear market but some projects don't react at all or even go up.

Sleep tight!

Seems like you're just a troll, I will not continue discussion with you.

[ABCbits]

It wouldn't be surprising. Aside from potentially hindering Bitcoin adaption, privacy feature usually leads to higher TX size or longer verification time. In addition, gmaxwell propose Confidental Transaction back on 2015[1], but it was never added into Bitcoin protocol and added into Monero protocol (as part of RingCT) on 2017.

Monero is cool and has better privacy, but we need something that is easier to implement in Bitcoin protocol, maybe privacy sidechain would work great for this, without increasing TX size.

Privacy sidechain? Liquid network might be what you're looking for since they implement Confidental Transaction. For something easier or lighter on Bitcoin on-chain, MimbleWimble or other form of non-interactive CoinJoin probably are better option than CT.

Edwards Snowden think he's Satoshi Nakamoto, so he has a huge power to make the developers listen to him, while actually he's just an Average Joe in Bitcoin...

I wouldn't call him "Average Joe in Bitcoin" considering his history and expertise in computer security.

[cryptosize]

Bitcoin is not an TCP/IP equivalent, Bitcoin is just a transaction processor.

So if you want to put it in analogy, Intel 8086 made in 1978 was the first processor of the x86 family.
From your logic, we should only use the original instruction set and never add any new instructions or superscalar pipelines and we should stick forever with 16 bits.
Well, go ahead - switch to 8086 from 1978, any other are just forks (shitcpus).

The TCP/IP analogy was made up by uneducated Bitcoin fanboy who tried to imply that Bitcoin is the backbone of cryptocurrency and even if something better comes, Bitcoin will stay relevant.
That everything else will be just a second layer for it, the problem with this logic is that other projects have their own evaluation based on usage and Bitcoin "standard" is just a pipe dream.
You can see it on charts when Bitcoin gets into bear market but some projects don't react at all or even go up.

Sleep tight!

Seems like you're just a troll, I will not continue discussion with you.

Not only you are a troll, but also technically illiterate.

I mentioned the x86 analogy first to prove a point: you need to have backwards compatibility at all costs to be successful in the IT field.

That's why we have monstrous x86-64 CPUs (instead of lean and mean RISC) with tons of legacy baggage (including 16-bit/DOS compatibility), Windows, even WINE on Linux...

Intel/AMD stick to the x86 standard, they don't do hard forks (Itanium teached them a lesson), they only do "soft forks" (instruction additions from x86-64 to AVX-512).

So stop bringing strawman arguments and embarrassing yourself!

You don't even remember that way better technologies (Commodore Amiga, SGI, RISC) went the way of dodo.

That's because the IBM PC/x86 standard offered BC and absorbed every single exotic technology (modern Nvidia/AMD GPUs are like Blitter/SGI on steroids).

Guess what? Bitcoin seems to follow the exact same path.

It absorbed NFTs (Ordinals) from ETH and now they're also trying to absorb smart contracts (BitVM) without compromising backwards compatibility (legacy addresses, 1MB blocks etc.)

Is that so hard to understand?

[DooMAD]

Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this  
The clock is ticking...

What is Jameson implying by that statement. Does he mean that Bitcoin developers don't see eye to eye on this?

Every individual developer will have their own priorities and things they'd like to see implemented first.  Privacy improvements will naturally be more important to some compared to others.  It's all a question of who is putting the work in and what they can convince others to accept.   

Is privacy good for Bitcoin?

In theory, yes.  However, it's impossible to tell how governments and regulators will react.  Plus, it's all largely moot if the majority of users are simply handing their funds and their personally identifiable information over to total strangers in the internet (KYC'd exchanges) to hold onto anyway.  Some people just can't be helped.