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.

[legiteum]

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

Cool. You hooked up the forum software to ChatGPT. I've got to check that out.   

If the monetary layer starts censoring, it stops being a global standard and becomes a centralized tool.

The US dollar is a global standard.

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,

If we know the plane the criminal is on, and there is a remote way to stop it, then yes we absolutely do.

nor do we demand the physical dollar bills to magically combust.

Again, google is your friend. Banks have been using exploding money for decades to catch criminals.

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.

Governments were formed many thousands of years ago because people realized that the world isn't Galt's Gulch. In the real world there are criminals who try to steal things from you using fraud.

Governments can have many, many problems, but we have no other choice. Anarchy is just plain stupid. The only solution is better government and better regulations.

The only reason Bitcoin has a market cap of $1T+ is because it's connected to this thing that those governments and regulations created called, "civilization". The only reason mainstream investors put money in Bitcoin is because they know it's safe, which is based on the fact that the US government sanctions their investment and protects the Bitcoin network from state-actor-initiated 51% attacks.

If Bitcoin were made illegal in major countries it would have 1/10,000th the market cap it has today. The only reason Bitcoin exists is because of the US government (which created the Internet, for instance).

(And oh yeah, the more fact-consistent theory of Satoshi is that he/they was a group within a major US agency like the CIA, NSA or DARPA ).

[bone777]

Lol, calling everyone who writes a well-structured argument in English "ChatGPT" is the ultimate sign that you ran out of actual points. English is not my native language, so yes, I use advanced LLM tools to properly translate and structure my thoughts because I respect the forum audience enough not to post broken Google Translate mess. But the ideas and the books I read are mine. Focus on the arguments, not the software.

Now, let’s shred your statism logic:

1. The Plane and the Exploding Money:
You missed the entire concept of a fundamental infrastructure layer. Banks use ink tags on THEIR OWN physical property (cash inside a branch). A pilot can land a plane. But what you are advocating for is giving a centralized switch to a third party to control the underlying physics of the universe. If Bitcoin can freeze coins remotely, it is no longer decentralized digital gold—it is just PayPal 2.0. If you love centralized control so much, why are you even on Bitcointalk?

2. The "Satoshi is CIA" Tin Foil Hat:
Saying Bitcoin only exists because of the US Government or that Satoshi is a CIA/NSA creation is peak irony. If the US government created Bitcoin, why is the SEC suing crypto companies, and why are central banks rushing to create CBDCs to fight it? Bitcoin was designed as a direct weapon against the endless money printing of those exact agencies.

An open, neutral protocol doesn't care about your political utopian view of "good governments". Bitcoin is math. Math doesn't bend to your centralized regulations, and that's exactly why we are all here.

[legiteum]

Lol, calling everyone who writes a well-structured argument in English "ChatGPT" is the ultimate sign that you ran out of actual points.  [...]

So I was right, we're reading AI slop here. Cool. 

If you love centralized control so much, why are you even on Bitcointalk?

Almost all Bitcoin bought and sold today is done so through centralized entities like apps, brokers, and ETFs.  That's why Bitcoin has a serious market cap, not the silly little toy market cap that it would have if it were confined to Ayn Randroids.

2. The "Satoshi is CIA" Tin Foil Hat:

It's just a theory that has factual support. In lieu of a stronger theory, it's certainly worth contemplating...

If the US government created Bitcoin, why is the SEC suing crypto companies,

Since Trump was elected, all SEC lawsuits have been dropped. The SEC sued companies because they asserted they were defrauding customers, not because they were using Bitcoin. Bitcoin is perfectly legal in the USA. Again, google is your friend...

and why are central banks rushing to create CBDCs to fight it? Bitcoin was designed as a direct weapon against the endless money printing of those exact agencies.

No it wasn't. It had nothing to do with investment, it was designed as a centralized means of value trade. The idea of Bitcoin being an investment came later.

Also, only poor people consider their sovereign currency an investment. Most people use various instruments to save, such as stocks, bonds, ETFs and so forth. Comparing Bitcoin to USD is only for people who know no other way of saving than stuffing their physical cash in their mattress.

An open, neutral protocol doesn't care about your political utopian view of "good governments". Bitcoin is math. Math doesn't bend to your centralized regulations, and that's exactly why we are all here.

Do you understand that the code you are talking about runs on this thing called, "the Internet"? The internet is wires, switches, copper, and thousands of other things (including thousands of regulations).

If you want to see what your libertarian utopia looks like (no governments), check out this streaming series:


The Last of Us

[bone777]

Imagine thinking that routing regulations on physical internet cables is the same thing as censoring a decentralized cryptographic protocol. You are completely confusing the pipes with the water inside them.

Since you love tracking US politics and watching TV shows so much, maybe focus less on Hollywood drama like "The Last of Us" and more on how decentralized networks actually function.

You keep celebrating that I use advanced translation tools, but the irony is that a "translated newbie" is still making more logical sense than a Full Member who believes Bitcoin was made by the CIA and depends on centralized regulators to survive.

I’ll leave you to your Netflix and conspiracy theories. Thanks for keeping my thread in the top charts!

[legiteum]

Imagine thinking that routing regulations on physical internet cables is the same thing as censoring a decentralized cryptographic protocol. You are completely confusing the pipes with the water inside them.

Imagine thinking that Bitcoin could exist without the Internet, or that Bitcoin would make any sense outside the context of human civilization.

I'll leave you to your Netflix and conspiracy theories. Thanks for keeping my thread in the top charts!

Yeah, they tend to crack down on bot traffic here eventually. Good luck.

[bone777]

It’s funny how a discussion about Andreas Antonopoulos's book turned into you crying about bots and Netflix.

No one said Bitcoin works without electricity or the internet. The point was about ledger neutrality, which you completely failed to understand.

Thanks for bumping my thread to the first page again. Keep the free traffic coming!

[Nathrixxx]

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?

That you are here on this platform is an opportunity to get advanced exposure to bitcoin and cryptocurrency, days of socials that you have the interest of learning about, and also to join in discussions on the various opportunities and benefits of bitcoin adoption.

Of course this platform will always be committed to given the reliable information update about bitcoin safety and other necessary steps to be taken for every user, but we must never forget that it is also in our disposition to decide on how we control our assets by ourselves, this means that the security lies in our hands, if we don't give in a chance for scammers to take advantage of us, there will be always be on a safer end with our Bitcoin.

Centralized platform are not to be considered as the best option or portfolio to hold our assets, any form of custodial means to handling our bitcoin should be seen as a loophole, non-custodial storage is the most preferred, while institutional investors are also not in charge of the market to determine how it perform, every one of those are all actors in this regard over the network.

[bone777]

Centralized platform are not to be considered as the best option or portfolio to hold our assets, any form of custodial means to handling our bitcoin should be seen as a loophole

Spot on. You touched the exact reason why I started this discussion. Centralized platforms are completely reshaping how newcomers view Bitcoin, and not in a good way. Many people today think having crypto means looking at a balance on a casino or exchange app. They completely forget the main rule that Andreas Antonopoulos always talks about—not your keys, not your coins.

When we give our coins to a custodial third party, we are giving up the very financial neutrality that Satoshi built for us. We go right back to the old banking system where a centralized boss can block your transactions, freeze your funds, or manipulate the rules behind closed doors.

Bitcoin was designed to replace trusted third parties, not to make them richer and more powerful. If the community keeps choosing comfort over true ownership and relies on these big centralized players, we will slowly lose the censorship resistance that makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place. Total self-sovereignty is hard, but it is the only way to keep the network pure and neutral. Thanks for the great input!