Edward Snowden Final Warning for Bitcoin

[nutildah]

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.

Litecoin, which signaled MWEB into activation in May 2022, has always been something of a test environment for features later implemented in Bitcoin. Litecoin was the 1st to have SegWit, a Lightning Network, and now MWEB, which is an optional privacy enhancing feature, used by Grin as default.

Here's a pretty in-depth article about how it all works. I honestly don't see why this can't also be integrated with BTC, if miners signaled for it... maybe there's a good reason but I don't know what it is.

[cryptosize]

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.

Litecoin, which signaled MWEB into activation in May 2022, has always been something of a test environment for features later implemented in Bitcoin. Litecoin was the 1st to have SegWit, a Lightning Network, and now MWEB, which is an optional privacy enhancing feature, used by Grin as default.

Here's a pretty in-depth article about how it all works. I honestly don't see why this can't also be integrated with BTC, if miners signaled for it... maybe there's a good reason but I don't know what it is.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say WEF & BlackRock wouldn't like it very much...

[NeuroticFish]

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.

I think that Bitcoin still doesn't have privacy built-in at protocol level exactly because a certain type of reaction from governments and regulators is expected.
And, sadly, I think that because of this we will never have privacy built-in... or we will have it only when something will change (greatly) in the ways the governments "see" the things.

Bitcoin's future seems to be ETF and KYC. I hope I'm wrong though.

[MeGold666]

Bitcoin's future seems to be ETF and KYC. I hope I'm wrong though.

Bitcoin came to light too early, developers are now afraid of devaluation consequences and possible chain splitting.
It would be much easier for the developers to take action if not the high marketcap.

They have bet a lot on LN development and unfortunately it failed at what it promised and it's becoming more centralized everyday.
We now know that privacy must be on L1 and scalability issues of L1 will hinder L2 capabilities.

Trying to build something on current Bitcoin base layer is like building an upside-down pyramid - it won't stand.

[nutildah]

If I had to take a guess, I'd say WEF/BlackRock wouldn't like it very much...

Yeah but I don't think anyone truly down with the bitcoin ethos (miners included) has ever really cared what those two entities have to say about... anything.

Eventually - if/when - we get invaded by aliens, a one-world government might not be such a bad idea. We'll really need to get our shit together. Until then we'll continue to argue with anyone who holds different beliefs than we do.

[MeGold666]

Yeah but I don't think anyone truly down with the bitcoin ethos (miners included) has ever really cared what those two entities have to say about... anything.

Miners who secured the network in the early days cared about the core values of Bitcoin, current miners (big companies) care only about FIAT profit.
They don't care about ethos.

Eventually - if/when - we get invaded by aliens, a one-world government might not be such a bad idea. We'll really need to get our shit together. Until then we'll continue to argue with anyone who holds different beliefs than we do.

We wrongly belief that government is needed. I think there would be much less wars / less deaths that are usually fueled by profits,  if there was no government at all.

[cryptosize]

If I had to take a guess, I'd say WEF/BlackRock wouldn't like it very much...

Yeah but I don't think anyone truly down with the bitcoin ethos (miners included) has ever really cared what those two entities have to say about... anything.

But they do care about their profitability (which is directly affected by BTC/USD and ETF inflows), don't they?

Eventually - if/when - we get invaded by aliens, a one-world government might not be such a bad idea. We'll really need to get our shit together. Until then we'll continue to argue with anyone who holds different beliefs than we do.

An informal one-world government already exists and people keep arguing about West vs Russia (controlled opposition).

Be careful what you wish for, because this might turn into a global technocracy/dictatorship (we got a small taste back in 2020-2021)...

[Tungbulu]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127

Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this  
The clock is ticking...

I've been following up this case and I've come to understand that this wasn't the first time Edward Snowden has highlighted vulnerabilities in Bitcoin's privacy measures, over 10 years now he's been repeatedly warning Bitcoin developers that Bitcoin's protocol level has been flawed.

It's really shocking how they've chosen to pay no mind these several warnings over the years even after knowing the essentiality of privacy and anonymity in the Bitcoin community.
Perhaps his last warning now about the clock ticking would awaken their interests on this issue. Or not.

The community needs to understand that, putting privacy measures in place, just like conjoin, confidential transactions as well as other anonymity enhancement techs at Bitcoin's protocol level could be quite a viable option towards maintaining the privacy and security of the Bitcoin network.
The community needs to put some unanimous effort towards addressing this issue in order to make sure that bitcoin remains safe and privacy preserving asset for all of its users.
Let's just hope it doesn't require or take another ten years or decade before this issue is addressed just like Jameson had potentially said.

[0t3p0t]

Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this  
The clock is ticking...

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.

Well yeah I think it should just be that way since we do have choices with Altcoins like Monero if we wanted a full privacy when it comes to our assets. Maybe devs just live it what it is before or maybe they are cooking something to enhance the privacy of Bitcoin who knows right? Is it because of emerging supercomputers with incredible computing power that might be threat to it, or just the privacy alone? I  just don't understand why he is concerned about Bitcoins privacy wherein privacy coins are available around for many years now. Please enlighten me here since I don't know much about technicalities.

[stompix]

Yawnnn! I see a lot of what the community should do, what developers should do, and how we need to achieve whatever but very little on how many users or investors outside this forum would really want this, would really need this and more importantly would take privacy over risks of huge profits blown away by such move!

Common, some really need to understand that there are Bitcoin lovers of different degrees, some like the maximalist here and some others who only DCA cause it will go up, the moment you present them with an option that they might not need but would mean the end of ETFs and as much of there trading on CEXs you would need to be daydreaming to think they will support it.

Turning Bitcoin into a privacy coin would lead to a mass government ban of BTC around the world.
The BTC price would most likely go back to the levels before 2015. I'm sure that 90% of the Bitcoin investors don't want this to happen.
They prefer big profits over privacy. I kinda understand them.

Make that 2011 as getting restrictions after being accepted will be one hundred times worse than when it was just a gray area.

[synchronym]

Of course we should invest with Bitcoin privacy because many times it is better to invest by watching. Many times we discuss about Bitcoin privacy in public. If Bitcoin is not accepted in our country, then it is never right for us to discuss it in front, so if we consider it from that point of view, if we can invest while maintaining the privacy of Bitcoin, it is very positive from our side. Bitcoin is a digital currency so we must invest patiently while maintaining enough privacy in that investment, we will get success through investment.

[btc78]

Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.

If I am being honest, I am quite fine with the amount of privacy there is to bitcoin as of right now however I see that many people are not satisfied and thus they seek out services of other projects.

Now we are seeing that the government seems to be sniping down on privacy projects hence why Snowden must have been alarmed. Is it possible that the government is doing something again to take away the privacy we think we have?

[Maus0728]

Of course we should invest with Bitcoin privacy because many times it is better to invest by watching. Many times we discuss about Bitcoin privacy in public. If Bitcoin is not accepted in our country, then it is never right for us to discuss it in front, so if we consider it from that point of view, if we can invest while maintaining the privacy of Bitcoin, it is very positive from our side. Bitcoin is a digital currency so we must invest patiently while maintaining enough privacy in that investment, we will get success through investment.

Again, the problem is as stated by @dkbit98, improved privacy means more transaction size and longer verification time so it's not viable to just put it in at a protocol level just because it's a good idea to do. There's Lightning Network which can improve your bitcoin privacy but that's not a good long-term solution. As much as I agree with you that privacy improvement is a top priority for bitcoin, it's not easy especially with such conflicting ideas from other developers, don't lose out of hope though because I'm sure that they'll find a way to do it but I hope that they do it soon.

[Accardo]

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.

Litecoin, which signaled MWEB into activation in May 2022, has always been something of a test environment for features later implemented in Bitcoin. Litecoin was the 1st to have SegWit, a Lightning Network, and now MWEB, which is an optional privacy enhancing feature, used by Grin as default.

Here's a pretty in-depth article about how it all works. I honestly don't see why this can't also be integrated with BTC, if miners signaled for it... maybe there's a good reason but I don't know what it is.

The reason could be the strong crackdown the US government has on privacy oriented softwares. Bitcoin developers seem cautious of new forks or changes in the network regarding privacy. Read through your shared link, and it's true of the privacy features on Litecoin network. The similarity it has with bitcoin's POW shows how simple it'll be to run similar updates on Bitcoin. But, Litecoin is not as mainstream as Bitcoin, despite its lesser fee features and faster integration of blocks, the government would be very strict on such changes if it came from Bitcoin developers.

A privacy oriented startup Zksnack has removed their coinjoin features from wallets that utilizes it, such as btcpay, because they want to obey the government. Since they want to keep track of all transactions happening in the Bitcoin network launching a privacy oriented upgrade on bitcoin may get an immediate attention of the government on Bitcoin. Snowden on the other hand, has been reminding Bitcoin developers of this for a long time. He commends projects like Zcash for their privacy features, so I think of him as someone who cherish privacy on cryptocurrency transactions. But, he's been ghosted all through these years by Bitcoin developers. Hence the government happens to be a reason why.

[franky1]

Here's a pretty in-depth article about how it all works. I honestly don't see why this can't also be integrated with BTC, if miners signaled for it... maybe there's a good reason but I don't know what it is.

the article is not indepth at all
70% of the article just tells you about bitcoin and litecoin.. then it just says MWEB offers privacy due to confidentiality, and thus uses confidentiality to give privacy
its just a bundles of words shuved together that doesnt go in depth at all

so lets explain
you lock funds up and then those coins are grouped together and pegged where it only publishes the group total holdings and a hash.. the hash is for the group to work within as their proof of certain things only they know whereby outsiders cant see the raw data of your transaction because only the hash is published of the sum total.
you personally wont see your transaction on the litecoin network

but when you want to exit the group you then become individual again and now your funds are normal litecoin transactions on the litecoin network

the major downside is your funds are part of a group fund and then when in the group you are then only playing with pegged units that are not audited by the litecoin network

for instance
here is someone locking in ~4.25LTC into the group (of ~29k ltc) of the other network group stash
lock:
https://blockchair.com/litecoin/transaction/dd375cbbc377b7e6d1985a4a201b661ccc8db124811a9efaac6e63edbf646485
combining:
https://blockchair.com/litecoin/transaction/afdfb3e076b9a355fab8057e21585364efe4cee86fb69fcc8d9c0c0787b57ecd

its not making your payments private. its instead you giving away your coin to a group so you can then make silly private IOU pegged notes to each other in a separate network not seen by the litecoin network

the second major downside is you cant make real litecoin transactions to normal litecoin users. you are only making iou pegged notes to other MWEB users in the group

[cryptosize]

Personally, I don't like optional privacy in altcoins (like LTC or Zcash). Only 10% of ZEC's transactions use shielded addresses, which kinda defeats the purpose. I don't even understand why Snowden used to shill ZEC.

I prefer mandatory privacy (XMR, BEAM etc.)

When it comes to BTC, some people argue that transparency is needed to avoid (rare) bugs like this one.

Theoretically if this bug happened on XMR nobody would ever notice it (well, unless someone was dumb enough to dump so many coins in an exchange ).

[dansus021]

Edward Snowden is right I mean bitcoin is not totally anonymous in my opinion now there is organization that can track about bitcoin transaction heck you can track people.

But organization like Arkham can do the job more detail. So no wonder that Edward Snowden worries about this

[tread93]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1786170805728039127

Edwards Snowden just made a tweet with final warning for everyone that privacy for Bitcoin is needed on protocol level.
I tend to agree with him on this and I really don't understand why nothing has been done regarding that for years, unless this was done intentional.
Funny comment was made by Jameson that we might take another ten years to do this  
The clock is ticking...

I wonder exactly what he means by "the clock is ticking" maybe he is pointing at the inevitability of a CBDC becoming the ultimate medium of exchange in the future in every country? Something like that? I'm not sure what else he would be speaking to, but I would certainly agree that this needs to be implemented. Privacy is key, why else would USD say "this is legal tender for all debts public and private" If cash now is anonymous in physical form then BTC should also be anonymous at the digital level if it will ever be the primary "medium of exchange" or world reserve currency used by the entire globe.

[pooya87]

That is simply impossible because Bitcoin was not designed that way. If we add privacy features into the existing protocol (eg. though some weird soft fork) that won't fix anything because opt-in privacy is not improving the whole system.

Why not? RingCT in Monero wasn't a thing back in 2016, and it got implemented in January 2017. XMR amounts hidden, boom. More privacy gained. Bitcoin could have optional privacy with softforking to confidential transactions and ring signatures. It's just that we want it to enter the system like a trojan horse, therefore we can't risk with stuff like that.

It won't solve anything for the same reason people are still using P2PKH/P2Sh addresses even though we added SegWit many years ago and it offers a lot of benefits.
An opt-in option is not going to help much with privacy specially in a world where centralized places are rejecting CoinJoin transactions (opt-in) they can reject the said opt-in privacy feature too hence forcing its adoption to remain low which means it won't solve anything.

[Poker Player]

Aside from the technical issue, here's what happens:

Turning Bitcoin into a privacy coin would lead to a mass government ban of BTC around the world.
The BTC price would most likely go back to the levels before 2015. I'm sure that 90% of the Bitcoin investors don't want this to happen.
They prefer big profits over privacy. I kinda understand them. Bitcoin being a speculative financial asset with a potential future price of 100K USD(or even more) is way more exciting than BTC being a privacy coin used only by shady people and criminals, with a price in the range of 100USD-1000USD. Achieving full privacy in the modern day internet is almost impossible.

If that were to happen, which is not going to happen, as things are now, the Bitcoin would only be used to buy stuff on the deep web and today it would not even be used to bet in casinos, since there are hardly any unlicensed casinos left, and with all the cryptocurrency alternatives there are, they would be forced not to accept bitcoin.

Make that 2011 as getting restrictions after being accepted will be one hundred times worse than when it was just a gray area.

Something like that.