Why Network Neutrality Matters: The Truth About "Criminals" and Bitcoin

[bone777]

Hello friends, bone777 here.

I’ve been recently revisiting some of Andreas Antonopoulos’s early work from "The Internet of Money", and it really got me thinking. It's amazing how the mainstream media still uses that tired old narrative — "Bitcoin is only for criminals" — to scare regular people, completely missing what a truly neutral financial framework actually means.

When people blast Bitcoin just because bad actors happen to use it, they completely fail to understand that a currency, much like global infrastructure, must remain agnostic.

Here are a few key points we should always keep in mind when explaining Bitcoin's true nature:

1. Money must always be blind
If a financial network gets to decide who can use it and who is blocked, it ceases to be an open system. At that point, it just becomes a political weapon. True money needs to be as neutral as water, electricity, or the Internet. The web router delivering this post to you doesn’t care if I am a saint or a sinner; its only job is to route packets. Bitcoin must do the exact same with value.

2. The Paradox of "Criminal" Adoption
Historically speaking, bad actors are almost always the earliest adopters of any cutting-edge tech. They were the first to use fast cars for getaways, pagers for quick coordination, and the early Internet for dark markets. Why? Because criminals operate in high-risk zones where they absolutely require the most robust, censorship-resistant tools available. The fact that bad actors use Bitcoin isn't a sign that Bitcoin is flawed; it is actual proof that its security and decentralized nature are working perfectly.

3. Tools vs. Human Intent
A simple hammer can be used to build a home, or it can be used to commit a crime. We don’t ban hammers from stores, and we don't ask for a passport to buy one. Bitcoin is simply an advanced tool that allows absolute, uncensored ownership of value. How people choose to use that freedom is a human problem, not a technological defect.

If we strip away Bitcoin's neutrality just to make regulators happy, we will destroy the exact feature that makes it so valuable in the first place. Once you allow censorship for the "bad guys," it’s only a short matter of time before the system expands that definition to target ordinary citizens.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the crypto community is doing a good job defending pure network neutrality today, or are we giving up too much ground trying to please big centralized players?

Let's discuss.

[Iranus]

Look at this, according to report by Chainalysis, the share of illicit crypto activity last year was less than 1% of total attributed transaction volume.
And 84% of the illicit volume was in stablecoin, lol..

Criminals eat food too. Does that mean food is mainly for criminals?
So first place, Bitcoin is only for criminals, such type of narrative is a fallacy and an illogical one.

[Z-tight]

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the crypto community is doing a good job defending pure network neutrality today, or are we giving up too much ground trying to please big centralized players?

At protocol level, the BTC network is censorship resistant, miners aren't going to block or refuse to mine your tx, and if a pool does so, then you'd expect an exodus of miners from such a pool. However, with government regulations you can expect a certain level of censorship, especially for crypto asset service providers and there is nothing bitcoiners can do about that, except sticking to p2p and decentralized services, which has its own limitations.

[bone777]

Thank you both for such high-quality replies, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to trigger.

@Terasas, that Chainalysis chart is gold. The analogy with "criminals eat food too" is perfect. It’s hilarious how media points fingers at BTC while 84% of illicit volume happens on stablecoins and centralized networks. Figures don't lie.

@z-light, you made a very solid and realistic point about the layer of censorship. On the protocol/base layer, Bitcoin is pure freedom, but the bridges to the fiat world (centralized exchanges, custodians) are where governments are applying pressure. It feels like we are moving towards a two-tier ecosystem: a highly regulated, KYC-heavy system for corporate money, and the original, pure P2P network for those who still value sovereignty, despite its limitations.

It seems the struggle for network neutrality is shifting from the code itself to the way regular users interact with centralized on/off ramps.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

Hello friends, bone777 here.

I’ve been recently revisiting some of Andreas Antonopoulos’s early work from "The Internet of Money", and it really got me thinking. It's amazing how the mainstream media still uses that tired old narrative — "Bitcoin is only for criminals" — to scare regular people, completely missing what a truly neutral financial framework actually means.

You can debunk such attacks. It's easy because criminals can use many things for their crimes as well as money laundering. Bitcoin blockchain, bitcoin and Bitcoin transactions are only one of tools used by criminals. Criminals can use fiat currencies but nobody say and attack fiat currencies which are created by governments and central banks as fiat currencies are for criminals.

"Bitcoin is for criminals"
A common critique: Bitcoin is used by criminals.

[bitbollo]

this is a very old etiquette... but in a certain way initially most of users was using bitcoin as medium for payment (likewise in darkmarkets).
Paying with btc was very common at that time. I know personally one guy that was using an illicit dark web site.
He told me that btc spent at time time today would worth millions...
Here I see another paradox related to "criminals". He was buying something that in other countries was completely legal. 

[bone777]

Thank you both for bringing such incredible value to this thread.

@SeriouslyGiveaway, you are spot on about fiat currency. Criminals use cash, drive cars, and use cell phones every single day, yet no one blames the central banks, Ford, or Apple for complicity. The double standard applied to Bitcoin by mainstream media is just mind-blowing.

@bitbollo, that personal story is fascinating, and you pointed out a massive, brilliant paradox. Legality is completely geographical. A citizen buying something that is banned in their country but perfectly legal just across the border is labeled a "criminal" by their local politicians. Bitcoin doesn't have borders, and it doesn't care about local political definitions. It treats every human asset equally, which is exactly why pure financial neutrality is a human rights feature, not a bug.

Hearing stories about people spending millions worth of BTC in the early darknet days always puts things into perspective!

[Inior]

We have heard a lot of people talking about Bitcoin being used by criminals because it's easy to use Bitcoin without being caught but the truth is, Bitcoin was not created for thieves, it was created to solve a money problem and the most interesting part is, it is working. Nothing else matters, no matter how bad they try to make Bitcoin look it will still survive because people with good intenations are making more use of Bitcoin than these scammers and hackers. The good part is, if they make mistakes in linking those Bitcoin to CEX they will be caught.

[uchegod-21]

Thank you both for bringing such incredible value to this thread.

@SeriouslyGiveaway, you are spot on about fiat currency. Criminals use cash, drive cars, and use cell phones every single day, yet no one blames the central banks, Ford, or Apple for complicity. The double standard applied to Bitcoin by mainstream media is just mind-blowing.

It is indeed mind blowing. For years, fiat as been exchanged by criminals countless times, never have we heard any thing negative from the government, stating reasons why we should be careful of fiat transactions. The government could not even hide their hate for bitcoin.

Now I am glad that some of these governments are realising that they are missing out and are doing everything possible to have some bitcoins for themselves. But that is not enough. Now they are trying to force themselves into controlling bitcoin through regulations of centralised platforms. Now we should know why the government is not happy; they were not consulted before bitcoin was created and they can't control it either.  Hence, the double standard against Bitcoin.

[bone777]

Thank you guys, these are top-tier points from both of you.

@Enosor, you highlighted a brilliant paradox that the mainstream media completely ignores: Bitcoin transactions leave a permanent, public ledger. The ironic part about criminals using Bitcoin is that they are literally recording their own tracks forever. The moment they make a mistake and try to cash out via a centralized exchange (CEX) with KYC, blockchain forensic tools map their entire history instantly. The data proves that legitimate usage completely dwarfs illicit activity.

@oshogbo-21, your phrase "they were not consulted before bitcoin was created" hits the nail on the head. That is the exact reason for the geopolitical double standard. Governments hate what they cannot control or switch off. For decades, they enjoyed a complete monopoly on printing and tracking fiat money, and Bitcoin completely broke that monopoly. Their sudden rush to stack bitcoins for state reserves while simultaneously putting heavy regulatory pressure on retail centralized ramps just proves how hypocritical they are.

It’s great to see this level of understanding here in the thread. The core philosophy of a borderless and neutral network is definitely alive.

[legiteum]

A couple of things:

1. Net Neutrality has nothing directly to do with Bitcoin. Maybe google a term before you make a posting out of it.

2. You don't see gun manufacturers bragging about how many crimes are committed with their products, but its a common refrain among Bitcoin hard cores to talk about how great it is that murders like Iran and Russia use Bitcoin to enhance their murderous regime ("because they can!"). I could never understand this.

1. Money must always be blind
If a financial network gets to decide who can use it and who is blocked, it ceases to be an open system. At that point, it just becomes a political weapon. True money needs to be as neutral as water, electricity, or the Internet. The web router delivering this post to you doesn’t care if I am a saint or a sinner; its only job is to route packets. Bitcoin must do the exact same with value.

In other words, if you steal a bunch of money, such as in the recent hack of millions of Bitcoin wallets, you should be absolutely free to move your stolen money around any way you want to, right?

Right?

2. The Paradox of "Criminal" Adoption
Historically speaking, bad actors are almost always the earliest adopters of any cutting-edge tech. They were the first to use fast cars for getaways, pagers for quick coordination, and the early Internet for dark markets. Why? Because criminals operate in high-risk zones where they absolutely require the most robust, censorship-resistant tools available. The fact that bad actors use Bitcoin isn't a sign that Bitcoin is flawed; it is actual proof that its security and decentralized nature are working perfectly.

Bad actors were not the early adopters of CD players, or self-driving cars, or the measles vaccine, or a thousand other new inventions.

Bitcoin was invented specifically to evade government oversight. In other words, while Bitcoin has perfectly legitimate uses, it's a product that is designed in a way that it uniquely enables criminal activity.

3. Tools vs. Human Intent
A simple hammer can be used to build a home, or it can be used to commit a crime. We don’t ban hammers from stores, and we don't ask for a passport to buy one. Bitcoin is simply an advanced tool that allows absolute, uncensored ownership of value. How people choose to use that freedom is a human problem, not a technological defect.

We regulate the sale of guns, we regulate the transfer of other forms of money, we don't let people buy dynamite, and so on. "Absolute freedom" is libertarian garbage that doesn't work. We live in a dangerous world with a lot of bad actors, and they ruin things (to some extent) for all of us. That's life. Bitcoin and digital currencies have done amazing things even though there's a lot of regulation around them. We can have both.

[bone777]

Thanks for the aggressive breakdown, always good to have a sharp critic in the thread. Let’s break down your points.

1. Net Neutrality vs. Monetary Neutrality:
You are technically right about the specific origin of the term "Net Neutrality" (telecommunications). However, Andreas Antonopoulos and many crypto philosophers explicitly borrow this concept to describe "Monetary Neutrality". The principle is identical: infrastructure layer shouldn't inspect the packets or filter transactions based on political intent. If the monetary layer starts censoring, it stops being a global standard and becomes a centralized tool.

2. The "Stolen Money" Trap:
No one is saying stealing money is good. The point is about WHERE the enforcement should happen. If a criminal robs a bank, flies away on a plane, and spends cash, we don't demand Boeing to freeze the plane mid-air, nor do we demand the physical dollar bills to magically combust. The enforcement happens at the human/legal layer, not by destroying the neutrality of the underlying protocol. Once you build a "backdoor" into Bitcoin to freeze hacker coins, you give that power to governments to freeze dissident coins. There is no middle ground.

3. Criminals and Innovation:
Of course criminals didn't adopt the measles vaccine first—it has no utility for their survival in high-risk zones. But they absolutely were early adopters of encrypted communication (PGP), offshore banking, pagers, and early internet forums. They adopt tools that offer high censorship-resistance. Denying that bad actors test the robustness of an adversarial network is just ignoring technological history.

Absolute protocol freedom isn't "libertarian garbage"—it is a mathematical necessity for an open, borderless system. If you want a safe, heavily regulated network where transactions can be reversed by a central authority, CBDCs and traditional banks already exist. Bitcoin was built precisely because people realized that centralized control always leads to systemic abuse.