Western governments should love Bitcoin's privacy features, not fight them

[d5000]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

Well, Bitcoin could help them with that mission. Above all in today's times that authoritarianism is on the rise again.

But they seem to chose to not do so, but instead they try to eliminate Bitcoin's main freedom-providing feature: censorship resistance.

An example: Bitcoin is one of the few ways to fund opposition movements in authoritarian countries. It's unlikely dictators can detect these Bitcoin transactions if they use well known privacy techniques, like CoinJoins, mixers and non-KYC services. Most dictatorship cut off other (fiat) sources, only cash may still work but is a hassle.

But where should these movements spend the money donated to them, if no exchange or merchant accepts their coins, because they are "high risk" and linked to "suspicious" services?

Another example: People in democracies are protected by strict privacy protection laws. Nevertheless, a lot of services thought to be "safe" were hacked in the past, even government-owned data was massively stolen. Thieves use these data for identity theft.

Bitcoin could solve that problem because in contrast to banks and services like PayPal, it is a way to transact money privately without having to store personal data on some server due to KYC requirements. With these KYC requirements, western governments put their citizens in danger to be victims of serious crimes. They also restrict their freedom to buy everything they want (which in 99% of all cases is not illegal stuff) with nobody having insight to the transactions. Because due to the FATF travel rule, many transactions, their originators and beneficiaries are also stored on servers. And if somebody hacks that data and connects them in the right way, everybody can see what you bought.

"Money laundering", "sanctions evasion" and "terrorist financing" are the excuses used by the anti-privacy governments. But available statistics about that issue show that cryptocurrencies are a very minor tool for money launderers, compared to the vast options provided by fiat money. Cryptocurrencies do not even provide what money launderers most want: "clean" money. Privacy services like mixers only are able to blur some tracks. But they can never provide "clean" money, only "cryptocurrencies of uncertain origin." They are maybe useful for small criminals, but not for the "big fishes".

Thus: Western governments should re-think their stance about cryptocurrency privacy. If they want to fight authoritarian dictatorships, they should not treat their citizens like them. Instead, they should respect their freedom to transact privately.

(That also is valid for governments which are not part of the classic definition of the "West", but claim to promote similar democratic values, like Japan, India, South Korea, South Africa etc.)

[milewilda]

Thus: Western governments should re-think their stance about cryptocurrency privacy. If they want to fight authoritarian dictatorships, they should not treat their citizens like them. Instead, they should respect their freedom to transact privately.

Democratic type of government doesnt mean that it will be totally having all the things for it citizens to be able to have that freedom. Government do considers out some aspect but not on something that they can get a hold of Into the things that they dont able to control. They want to see everything and they want to gain up on everything on what their citizens been doing. Taxation do plays a great role and thats why they are that eager out on trying to extract as much as they could and since crypto could have that kind of possibilities on which people could be able to avoid it out then this is what they dont really like. Same goes into those transactions that couldnt be able to trace up or simply having that decentralization and anonymity on which it is totally opposing on what they are wanting. We do know that government doesnt really like or want to have this way and thats why its not shocking that they will be that still not wanting to have that full adoption in regarding on legalizing Bitcoin or crypto. So expect that they wont be that loving it al all. Now we are seeing some decisions about regulation but it doesnt mean that they will be that letting it loose all the way. They will be that wanting to get a hold as much as posisble.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

Not really, And I don't see why you put all Western governments in the same bag. There is a clear difference between the USA and Europe today. Besides the fact that traditionally in the USA they have been more pro-freedom, while Europe is more invasive of privacy in pursuit of security.

When the implementation of CBDCs is accelerating in Europe, it is not because of freedom, the same happens with the future implementation of digital identity or Internet censorship.

As I do not agree with the premise, I will not comment on the subsequent argumentation. What Europe promotes is alleged security, which is more like control and censorship in my book.

[Alpha Marine]

We all know governments are hypocrites. They just talk about freedom, but they're not truly ready to give it. Freedom means people will no longer rely on them, and they won't want that to happen because when people rely on them, they have power.

All their theories on bitcoin is just so they can discourage people from it. They don't have any solid grounds to stand on. At one point, they were focused on the illegal activities route, but it's obvious that bitcoin is not a safe haven for criminals. Especially money launderers and terrorists. Criminals don't want to do business in a place where everything is open for all to see.
They also went the "created from nothing route" as if fiat has anything thing it was created out aside from the fact that they (the government) accepted it.

Even if they may be pro-freedom to an extent, they don't want the kind of freedom bitcoin offers. It will loosen the grip they have on their people. They will never go for it.

[peter0425]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

We all know that this is nothing but a front. No democratic country is actually totally free. As long as we are under the control of government, there is always that authority over us that will never disappear.

Thus: Western governments should re-think their stance about cryptocurrency privacy. If they want to fight authoritarian dictatorships, they should not treat their citizens like them. Instead, they should respect their freedom to transact privately.

To be fair, I think a lot of the governments are now rethinking their stance on bitcoin. Though not as much as because of the things you have said but mainly due to profit they can get. Still, I believe it is progress that they are making.

[348Judah]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

Well, Bitcoin could help them with that mission. Above all in today's times that authoritarianism is on the rise again.

Maybe we should expect something positive within the first year of Donald Trump and that is if they are truly going to proof to the world they really support and understand what a decentralized network is with bitcoin and why everyone should have access to his financial privacy, maybe we should be more expectant in seeing what this year may turns out regarding privacy form his administration, if the victory comes as expected, then all of us from this forum will also be a direct beneficiary because we shouldn't be threatened by the way of our privacy in finance while this same people are only playing us with politics.

[philipma1957]

look we are basically fucking doomed to constant endless oppression in every country none of us are free from our governments.

Btw we are not going to become freed from our governments.

Part of the issue is crowding of the planet.

Part of the issue is we have a habit of killing each other for beliefs which in many cases are not proven.

I know people that sincerely think and believe that muslims want to prevent Armageddon and that christians and jew want to to

start armageddon.

All of us are here on earth which some people sincerely believe is flat and we are affected by the things other governments and people believe.

I try to be kind if possible and not very greedy.

I do not particularly think any country i have spent time in has a simply wonderful government.

And we do need way more help then we want to think we need.

[hyudien]

Do you know what governments exclude from a democratic system? Of course finance, which is not a democratic system but an authoritarian system where finance must be under their complete control. Bitcoin is not included in the same list of financial systems that governments want, but Bitcoin fits what the people want. You now understand that there will always be something they exclude to trick the people into continuing to be shackled by the fiat system.

[BIT-BENDER]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

Well, Bitcoin could help them with that mission. Above all in today's times that authoritarianism is on the rise again.

One thing that the western government love to do is being inconsistent, they say something and practice something else, this isn't just the characteristics of the western government they is how many government around the world act.
They claim to be pursuing freedom but it gives them sleepless nights when they find out they aren't in control. The western government can give you the freedom to be what you want, any sexuality, gender, religion and the list goes on but the financial aspect of a human is very important the reason they won't easily support Bitcoin and crypto-currency in general.
Bitcoin threatens their control over an individual financial, something they have been doing for several years.

[Ucy]

Well, the ones you hope to save the situation aren't really democratic or pro-freedom. Many things are inverted in the matrix (or system of the world), so it'll be hard to tell what is genuine or fake unless you have a special aid to see more clearly. If you are promised democracy expect dictatorship, If you are promised freedom expect bondage, if you're promised peace & security expect choas, war and insecurity, etc. Don't be surprised that the ones they tagged undemocratic/authoritarian are more democratic than they are.
And the main reason they would be against Bitcoin is due to the true freedom it offers. If they could capture it, centralize and create backdoors, then they promote it as a freedom tool. And if it's promoted as freedom tool, it's most likely has been captured and striped off the true freedom it offers. Fortunately Bitcoin can't be capture,

In regards to using Bitcoin to bring down authoritarian governments, well I believe it's more about surviving choas, tyrannical or lawless governments, especially those of dictators who force or impose things that are evil or unlawful/immoral. I would be ok with governments that force people to do what is right if the people's wrong deeds are negatively affecting those that want to do right. Or dictators who intervene to prevent a total collapse of society, especially when people rise up against evil that's about to destroy the society.
These are the kind of things Bitcoin could be used for rather than for things that are bad for society/people

[d5000]

Not really,

You may have overlooked the word "claim". It's just the hypocrisy I'm talking about here.

I agree with you on the focus on "security" in Europe. Europe had a strong privacy movement about 10-15 years ago. It has scored some successes in some countries (there were much worse government proposals in this era, like a mandatory "real name" policy for all social media or, more recently, a German party proposed a registration obligation for Bitcoin addresses) but has lost steam and wasn't able to change much of the core tendency against personal freedoms.

Freedom means people will no longer rely on them, and they won't want that to happen because when people rely on them, they have power.

I agree to some extent. As anarchists found out a long time ago, there's a tendency even in "democratic" governments to sustain themselves, instead of serving their citizens.

But unfortunately the problem often lies deeper. A lot of people do actually support anti-privacy and anti-freedom ideas. That makes it easy for the governments to enact policies against their own citizens.

Take Australia's social media ban for under-16-year-olds, which results in a KYC-style age verification nightmare. This aberration was supported by 77% of the citizens of this country according to a study.

It's thus not only governments, it's also people who have to become conscient.

Maybe we should expect something positive within the first year of Donald Trump and that is if they are truly going to proof to the world they really support and understand what a decentralized network is with bitcoin and why everyone should have access to his financial privacy,[...]

To some extend I am positively surprised by some of the measures of the Trump government (e.g. the recent removal of the anti-mixer policy). But we have to wait a bit longer if this becomes really a state policy. Unfortunately other Trump actions are actually anti-freedom. He's not really a libertarian (and much less an anarchist).

Btw we are not going to become freed from our governments. [...]

I think what you mean with your post is that the "pro-security, anti-privacy" stance of many governments has its root in other problems, such as "real" perceived security problems. And here I can partly agree. See also my answer to @Alpha Marine.

Everything is connected in some way. Some European anti-privacy measures (e.g. cash bans) were justified with the war in Ukraine and sanctions evasion by Russia, for example. Social media censorship laws are driven by the desire of many to stop the widespread hate and shitstorms in social media. And so on.

Perhaps if we all "cooled down" a bit and were more tolerant to dissent, democracy could tend again towards freedom and not "security". At least the public support for pro-privacy would probably rise, and if governments still tried to enact anti-freedom policies then real undesirable intentions would become exposed.

[joniboini]

Take Australia's social media ban for under-16-year-olds, which results in a KYC-style age verification nightmare. This aberration was supported by 77% of the citizens of this country according to a study.

If I remember it correctly, someone from Aus that I know says that the social media problem for teens there is quite severe, hence why parents want to solve it as quickly as possible. While critics pointed out that the ban might not be effective, I guess they can't offer alternatives that can convince parents to disagree with the ban. It's clear that governments don't put privacy and so on as a priority, regardless of what they promote in their speeches, unless it is intertwined with their goals.

[philipma1957]

Not really,

You may have overlooked the word "claim". It's just the hypocrisy I'm talking about here.

I agree with you on the focus on "security" in Europe. Europe had a strong privacy movement about 10-15 years ago. It has scored some successes in some countries (there were much worse government proposals in this era, like a mandatory "real name" policy for all social media or, more recently, a German party proposed a registration obligation for Bitcoin addresses) but has lost steam and wasn't able to change much of the core tendency against personal freedoms.

Freedom means people will no longer rely on them, and they won't want that to happen because when people rely on them, they have power.

I agree to some extent. As anarchists found out a long time ago, there's a tendency even in "democratic" governments to sustain themselves, instead of serving their citizens.

But unfortunately the problem often lies deeper. A lot of people do actually support anti-privacy and anti-freedom ideas. That makes it easy for the governments to enact policies against their own citizens.

Take Australia's social media ban for under-16-year-olds, which results in a KYC-style age verification nightmare. This aberration was supported by 77% of the citizens of this country according to a study.

It's thus not only governments, it's also people who have to become conscient.

Maybe we should expect something positive within the first year of Donald Trump and that is if they are truly going to proof to the world they really support and understand what a decentralized network is with bitcoin and why everyone should have access to his financial privacy,[...]

To some extend I am positively surprised by some of the measures of the Trump government (e.g. the recent removal of the anti-mixer policy). But we have to wait a bit longer if this becomes really a state policy. Unfortunately other Trump actions are actually anti-freedom. He's not really a libertarian (and much less an anarchist).

Btw we are not going to become freed from our governments. [...]

I think what you mean with your post is that the "pro-security, anti-privacy" stance of many governments has its root in other problems, such as "real" perceived security problems. And here I can partly agree. See also my answer to @Alpha Marine.

Everything is connected in some way. Some European anti-privacy measures (e.g. cash bans) were justified with the war in Ukraine and sanctions evasion by Russia, for example. Social media censorship laws are driven by the desire of many to stop the widespread hate and shitstorms in social media. And so on.

Perhaps if we all "cooled down" a bit and were more tolerant to dissent, democracy could tend again towards freedom and not "security". At least the public support for pro-privacy would probably rise, and if governments still tried to enact anti-freedom policies then real undesirable intentions would become exposed.

A few people with box cutters took down the world trade center.

all governments point to this a a need for security.

[pooya87]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

Well democracy is defined as convincing people that the dogshit they eat tastes like candy as those who invented it also defined it. Which is what makes your topic very weird because the Western governments are specifically anti privacy. In authoritarian regimes (eg. in Saudi Arabia) we see oppression but not so much invasion of privacy. But in democracies (eg. USA) we have invasion of privacy which leads to a much severe oppression.

For example over the past year in the US the "democratic" and "liberal" regime has arrested countless collage students and professors who protested against genocide after they found each of them with their mass surveillance!
That's not to mention that NSA which is the branch of the military under the US department of defense war, is receiving billions of dollars budget to carry out mass surveillance by invading their citizens privacy.

Bitcoin is the last thing they want to exist! Since they can neither control it nor surveil and censor it they way they like to.

An example: Bitcoin is one of the few ways to fund opposition movements in authoritarian countries. It's unlikely dictators can detect these Bitcoin transactions if they use well known privacy techniques,

That's another rabbit hole you don't want to get into.
Who defines dictators and the opposition and who is supposed to fund them? The so called liberal democracies?

A real example: Syria.
Roughly 20 years ago the "democratic" US regime was calling the president of Syria dictator and they started funding groups they claimed were the "opposition". Well today that they have succeeded in destroying Syria and re-establishing ISIS, they are confessing that not only calling Assad a "dictator" was a lie but also they are confessing that the so called opposition they were funding and arming were al-Qaeda terrorists!
Read the Timber Sycamore files and google the confessions of United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in the US congress when she admitted that US government was funding al-Qaeda terrorists.

In this context bitcoin and cryptocurrencies (specially more anonymous ones) are a dangerous tools because the "Neo Dictatorships" commonly known as Democracies use it to fund terrorism abroad. And if these regimes "love privacy features" it is only because of this purpose not for regular people wanting to not be surveilled by them!

[Cekikafa]

In truth all Governments are specifically anti privacy. It is the nature.
West, East, North, South no matter.

[Zlantann]

A well-known opposition leader in my country advocated for freedom. He promised to legalize Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies immediately after he became president. He won the elections, and to my greatest surprise, he became a fierce attacker of Bitcoin. He began to make policies to make the country unfriendly to the crypto industry.

The truth is that all politicians want to control everything about the citizens. They are always scared of opposition, so they will set out plans and strategies to monitor people's activities. Most politicians claim to be democrats but they are autocrats at heart.

I live in a country where kidnapping for ransom is a flourishing business. We usually have thousands of kidnapping cases annually. And only one of these kidnappers has asked for cryptocurrencies as ransom payments. The majority of them asked for physical fiat currency because it is very difficult to track.

[shield132]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".

Well, Bitcoin could help them with that mission. Above all in today's times that authoritarianism is on the rise again.

Local government has been saying for over a decade that they want to join European Union and become part of the West family but instead they are strengthening relationships with Russia and China, soon planning to force Chinese language at schools. What governments claim is very different from what they aim to do. They say beautiful words but do ugly things.

By the way, despite everything, my country is very pro-crypto and isn't strict with paying taxes. There are no-KYC ATMS, local exchanges are regulated and one of them is even owned by a trusted local bank. There is little to no chance of having an unsolved problem with crypto related services if you use local companies. My country treats Bitcoin like it's something virtual and not a currency and I know that from someone who actually has a very high position in the government, he basically said - let the people make money if they do no harm, do not limit them and make things hard for them. Btw there are some things that are more strictly controlled here than in Western countries. Overall, the quality of life here is much worse than in Western countries and I guess, every country and government has its pros and cons. Sadly, there is no perfect country or government.

[Mrbluntzy]

Western governments claim that they promote freedom in the world. They call themselves "democratic" and "liberal".


Thus: Western governments should re-think their stance about cryptocurrency privacy. If they want to fight authoritarian dictatorships, they should not treat their citizens like them. Instead, they should respect their freedom to transact privately.

They don't promote any freedom and they preach what they don't practice. After calling themselves democratic and
liberal people why then do they oppress the people that have elected them to represent them as their leader? They sweet talk the public, make false promises, and when finally chosen as the leader, they don't listen to most opinion of the people.

They can not love Bitcoin privacy because they want the people to remain under their control, they want to make people dance to their tones, they want to show that they are the leaders and can do what they seem fit.
 
These same people have been fighting cases of money laundering for decades and yet have not even been able to stop such incident and are now fighting Bitcoin privacy because they think Bitcoin will contribute to money laundering and yet they are not able to stop money laundering in fiat. That doesn't make any sense.

They want to see what everyone is doing, if it was even possible for them, they will have put a surveillance cameras in the homes of every citizens, to keep watch of everyone 24/7.
"How a $200 check can put you on a government watch list" is what they want, with fiat it can be very easy for them and that's why they are fighting Bitcoin privacy, forgetting that Bitcoin is not going to be their biggest issue. They can still give their people the deserved freedom and fight who ever they are seeing committing crimes but they don't have to deprive people that freedom because of other bad people.

[d5000]

-snip-

I don't want to go too much OT ... Of course as I already wrote above hypocrisy is rampant also on "Western" governments, and I think most people know about NSA and terrorist funding by "Western" governments. The contradiction about what they claim and what they do is explicitly the topic of the thread.

However, in liberal democracies there are ways to influence the government. Mostly on local / regional level, but the local/regional levels can influence the federal policy as well, and widespread action will get noticed.

I wrote in another post that in various European countries mass surveillance laws were proposed, like storing all phone connections of all users (basically a "legalized" way of what NSA did "in secret"), or even complete aberrations like a "real name social media policy". Privacy movements protested and achieved widespread discontent with that proposed measures, and the legislators had to abstain to implement them, or only in a much weaker form.

Unfortunately only a part of these strong privacy movements are also active in the cryptocurrency sector, one of the few is the Human Rights Foundation (HRF). They have also lost importance in the late 2010s and 2020s.

Perhaps a part of the solution is that the crypto movement should get more active in their local privacy movements and make them stronger again.

Of course I'd not be as naive as to say that this could prevent NSA-level surveillance as a big part of these activities are secret, but at least people should not be as indifferent as they are today with these issues. I already wrote in my answers to @philipma1957 and @Alpha Marine that a lot of common folks unfortunately support many anti-privacy laws, and they would even support more drastic measures like a real name social media policy if this would enhance "security". If there was at least some more discontent with that, the most striking aberrations could be prevented. And maybe the US movement away from criminalizing mixers is a little glimpse of hope.

[348Judah]

Government cannot support us because doing so also renders them inactive towards having control over anything that concerns us, instead they will prefer to continue on the attack, but now that we are having more clarity over their beliefs on what bitcoin is, something positive may continue to emancipate from here forward, even though it's going to be a strong bone on their neck to allow every work and operate under a decentralized economy, there may be no need for regulation from them at the cause, which they can't afford to lose such privilege because they know what they earn through it.