BBC Paints Dark Wallet as working directly with ISIS

[X7]

Getting bored of people saying BTC can do illegal things... as opposed tooooo.... your non illegal USD?

SORRY BRUH CANT BUY THAT GUN... USD POLICY

[1714735011]

1714735011

[1714735011]

1714735011

[1714735011]

1714735011

[1714735011]

1714735011

[1714735011]

1714735011

[tss]

"we are creating the technology that is going to guarantee individual liberty from governments"

[tabnloz]

if BTC is proven to fund terrorist, this may be the end of it.

what about if it funded a vigilante anti isis group, or raised funds to get people out or raised ransom funds?

all just examples of course but shows that you can frame the debate in many ways.

[pawel7777]

Pretty disgusting piece of drivel by BBC to be honest, on the upside we needed some bad news for the price to go back up... so fuck you and thank you! lol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29283124

They conveniently failed to bring up the fact that terrorists also use technology like cell phones and automobiles, not to mention fiat cash.

Agree. But at least they quoted this:

Peter Todd agrees.

...

"Obviously terrorists use the internet, terrorists use freedom of speech and we've accepted that's a trade-off we must make."

[tabnloz]

Another point to make is that terrorist groups have very little trouble getting funding anyway at the moment.

If, [insert your diety] forbid, any such group were to use the blockchain, then this transaction will exist and be up for scrutinisation for as long as the blockchain is. Im sure we will see specialist blockchain forensic companies springing up in the not too distant future (govts are already doing this).

[snarlpill]

Another point to make is that terrorist groups have very little trouble getting funding anyway at the moment.

If, [insert your diety] forbid, any such group were to use the blockchain, then this transaction will exist and be up for scrutinisation for as long as the blockchain is. Im sure we will see specialist blockchain forensic companies springing up in the not too distant future (govts are already doing this).

For sure. Heavily funded and for some reason militarized by our tax dollars, of course.

[krach]

BBC are known for these kinda stunts, this was tame for the most part though.  Not sure why the guys let them in.

the BBC arent totally blameless.   Anarchists like Amir and Cody say things deliberately to maximise sensationalist headlines.  cody's probably the worst.. he goes out of his way to make the press paint him as the devil incarnate.  he wants 'cody's name in lights.   maximum publicity, and the more cartoon character maniacally evil he sounds, the more press he will get.   unfortunately for bitcoin, its bad press and paints bitcoin as the tool of criminals and terrorists.  whats good for cody and amir isnt good for the rest of us who want bitcoin to be taken seriously and widely adopted, which just wont happen if 'the people' think its just a tool for criminals and terrorists to launder money.

and doing your interviews from a 'squat' doesnt help your credibility either (for those who dont know, a squat is a 'stolen' building occupied by people who dont own it).  the uk has some archaic laws that give squatters certain rights that arent really appropriate in the modern age.  protest, sure.. but taking over someone else's building and calling it your own and not allowing the owners back in, and then pretending thats somehow a good thing, just isnt seen as the right thing to do.  bravo.  anti capitalists who are somehow backing the ultimate capitalist currency.  bit of an anathema.   ok, it was far worse when they were 'squattng' into families' homes when they went on holiday and came back to find someone else had broken in and changed the locks.. but luckily thats now illegal - only recently (after hundreds of years of being a legal loophole!)... but there's still a loophole allowing squatters to take over empty commercial buildings.  most likely this loophole will eventually get closed down, as that too cant possibly be seen as right.  you cant just walk into someone else's empty property - change the locks, and suddenly its yours.  makes a mockery of property ownership rights.   and it doesnt make it somehow 'just' and 'fair' because its owned by a company and not a person.  companies are still owned by shareholders.  shareholders are still people.  squatting is still stealing.  even if the ultimate owner is a corporation and not a person.

Hi,
Not sure what you mean by "taken seriously" do you mean more guys in suits with frame glasses at really expensive conferences? I agree that some people give bold answers to the press and it could have to do with building their own media profile, but I cant say that was the real intention in this case.

I think it is good to have a discussion about squating, this squat in particular is owned by an education charity and basicly used as a tax write off (from what I understand) and in the context of the extremely rigged london real estate market , it has a different context. I think the whole "squating vs. property rights" discussion needs its own thread.

This is more about media spinnning things. We had a good discussion about it last night that you can watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4rYXIwD3OE
Including a prediciton that was written into the blockchain on site as the BBC was doing the interview.

[TaunSew]

Big terrorist groups already do their banking at banks throughout the Middle East.  How do you think ISIS stole like $500 million from that bank in Mosul?  It was a digital wire to one of their bank accounts in Dubai, Qatar or where ever it is located.

[cbeast]

Taaki is already on record he doesn't care if children build bombs. His idealism is monopolar.  I also realize that anarchists sometimes say outrageous things purely for shock value. That level of idealism may lead to actions that exemplify such claims. He is also too intelligent to do anything that stupid.

[krach]

Taaki is already on record he doesn't care if children build bombs. His idealism is monopolar.  I also realize that anarchists sometimes say outrageous things purely for shock value. That level of idealism may lead to actions that exemplify such claims. He is also too intelligent to do anything that stupid.

In the video he said that he does not like ISIS. Clearly and directly.

[Velkro]

Shady stuff BBC u done, not nice not nice indeed

[canary]

Big terrorist groups already do their banking at banks throughout the Middle East.  How do you think ISIS stole like $500 million from that bank in Mosul?  It was a digital wire to one of their bank accounts in Dubai, Qatar or where ever it is located.

Well said, ISIS is like new Al-Qaeda right now; OK they're doing bad things, they're butchers and must be destroyed. On the other side everyone can blame ISIS for everything that they want for their purposes, they're the new scapegoat. Now big money wants Bitcoin to dump and they're creating news like this, also they're using ISIS for new strategies in Middle East.

[shawshankinmate37927]

If, [insert your diety] forbid, any such group were to use the blockchain, then this transaction will exist and be up for scrutinisation for as long as the blockchain is. Im sure we will see specialist blockchain forensic companies springing up in the not too distant future (govts are already doing this).

I believe the purpose behind Dark Wallet is to ensure that these efforts are fruitless in the future.

[tabnloz]

If, [insert your diety] forbid, any such group were to use the blockchain, then this transaction will exist and be up for scrutinisation for as long as the blockchain is. Im sure we will see specialist blockchain forensic companies springing up in the not too distant future (govts are already doing this).

I believe the purpose behind Dark Wallet is to ensure that these efforts are fruitless in the future.

Yes, you're right. I completely messed up my point,

[Westin Landon Cox]

I find something fishy about this whole story. In the BBC TV story they showed Chris Ellis, who as far as I know has nothing to do with Dark Wallet. They had short interview clips with Amir Taaki and Peter Todd. I think both have done work that is connected to Dark Wallet, but are either of them the primary coder/developer of Dark Wallet now? I don't think they are. So why didn't the BBC journalists find out who are the main people working on Dark Wallet and interview them? Taaki is an interesting figure and maybe he wants to be the spokesman for the Dark Wallet project. Maybe both the BBC and the Dark Wallet project want Taaki to be the face of the project as well (though probably for opposite reasons).

Ironically, if terrorist groups try to use Dark Wallet in its current alpha stage, it will probably not end well for them. Maybe they should be encouraged to use it so that (1) terrorists lose their money and/or get whacked after being traced and (2) it can help identify flaws in the current implementation of Dark Wallet.

[inBitweTrust]

Taaki is already on record he doesn't care if children build bombs. His idealism is monopolar.  I also realize that anarchists sometimes say outrageous things purely for shock value. That level of idealism may lead to actions that exemplify such claims. He is also too intelligent to do anything that stupid.

I don't understand what is so shocking about kids building bombs? All the male teenagers I knew had a lot of fun building gunpowder, dry ice, and muriatic acid bombs as well as all sorts of weapons like potato cannons. This is a healthy and normal part of childhood and a great way to learn about science.

and doing your interviews from a 'squat' doesnt help your credibility either (for those who dont know, a squat is a 'stolen' building occupied by people who dont own it).  the uk has some archaic laws that give squatters certain rights that arent really appropriate in the modern age.  protest, sure.. but taking over someone else's building and calling it your own and not allowing the owners back in, and then pretending thats somehow a good thing, just isnt seen as the right thing to do.  bravo.  anti capitalists who are somehow backing the ultimate capitalist currency.  bit of an anathema.   ok, it was far worse when they were 'squattng' into families' homes when they went on holiday and came back to find someone else had broken in and changed the locks.. but luckily thats now illegal - only recently (after hundreds of years of being a legal loophole!)... but there's still a loophole allowing squatters to take over empty commercial buildings.  most likely this loophole will eventually get closed down, as that too cant possibly be seen as right.  you cant just walk into someone else's empty property - change the locks, and suddenly its yours.  makes a mockery of property ownership rights.   and it doesnt make it somehow 'just' and 'fair' because its owned by a company and not a person.  companies are still owned by shareholders.  shareholders are still people.  squatting is still stealing.  even if the ultimate owner is a corporation and not a person.

You really need to do a little more research into property rights. Even hardcore anarcho capitalists have provisions from homesteading or squatting with abandoned land and property. Throughout many places in the world homesteading can be done in periods of 12-18 months according to state laws, the US is actually the oddball when it comes to property rights with ending the right to homesteading. To simply suggest that squatting or homesteading is stealing is ignoring all the nuances of the ethical details in the ability to own land in perpetuity on earth and the legitimacy of the original sale and whether any of the previous owners rightfully owned the land or acquired it through corruption, theft or violence.

The details of how quickly one should be able to homestead or under what circumstances squatting is permitted are up for discussion but  frankly if I stopped maintaining and abandoned my property for over a couple years I would have no problem with someone homesteading it.

Here is a little more background into the squatting done in London:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPjhPuJx3Lw

[Kprawn]

A lot of panty sniffers on crack. 

Not to be taken serious, in a world, where freedom of privacy are advocated as terrorism.

Are they following every person, who draw cash from a ATM, to see what they spending their cash on? So why must Bitcoin be different than cash?

[X7]

A lot of panty sniffers on crack. 

Not to be taken serious, in a world, where freedom of privacy are advocated as terrorism.

Are they following every person, who draw cash from a ATM, to see what they spending their cash on? So why must Bitcoin be different than cash?

Because it unmasks the totalitarian banking system? Truth will come out eventually.

[aerobatic]

You really need to do a little more research into property rights. Even hardcore anarcho capitalists have provisions from homesteading or squatting with abandoned land and property. Throughout many places in the world homesteading can be done in periods of 12-18 months according to state laws, the US is actually the oddball when it comes to property rights with ending the right to homesteading. To simply suggest that squatting or homesteading is stealing is ignoring all the nuances of the ethical details in the ability to own land in perpetuity on earth and the legitimacy of the original sale and whether any of the previous owners rightfully owned the land or acquired it through corruption, theft or violence.

The details of how quickly one should be able to homestead or under what circumstances squatting is permitted are up for discussion but  frankly if I stopped maintaining and abandoned my property for over a couple years I would have no problem with someone homesteading it.

Here is a little more background into the squatting done in London:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPjhPuJx3Lw

thanks, interesting video and im sure the people in the video really believe what theyre saying... but their ultimate argument is that nasty capitalists own an expensive prime building that they dont deserve to own, and we're poor students and entrepreneurs and we cant afford to live in a prime central london property, therefore our need is greater than theirs and we've taken over their building.

they ignore the fact that (a) the nasty capitalists probably are in business to buy and sell property, and therefore they need it vacant in order to improve it and sell it... and (b) if poor students and entrepreneurs really cared about having somewhere to live, then it really neednt be in prime central london.  it could easily be anywhere else.  somewhere more affordable.  the internet has no boundaries.  students and entrepreneurs dont need to live in prime central london to go about their business.  this is mostly about the haves and have nots, and the have nots are trying to occuping buildings owned by the haves and justifying it in some way.   and the justifications are shallow because if they really wanted to live somewhere relevant, they would be living somewhere either closer to the schools, or closer to the work, or closer to the centres of innovation (the east end of london is currently the best place to be an entrepreneur, AND its far cheaper to live there than prime central london).  And if thats too expensive, then why live in London!?... theres plenty of other great cities in England that are far cheaper to call home (or in another country... most other countries are cheaper than UK!).   The world is virtual and the internet is ubiquitous.. you really dont need to squat in someone else's expensive prime real estate out of 'need'.  youre only doing it simply because someone rich owns that building, and you want to deprive them of it.  This is pure anti capitalism, and nothing else.

[inBitweTrust]

This is pure anti capitalism fascism, and nothing else.

While I don't necessarily agree with their methods, as I agree with you that it makes anarchists look like welfare recipients. You have to understand from their perspective  they aren't necessarily anti-capitalists but anti-fascists and have good justification for believing so.

Their motivations are many from just being cheap (they value ethics more than money), to actively pointing out the corruption within these charities simply serving as corrupt investments to avoid tax laws, and to actively attacking the corporatocracy that exists by resisting vacating.

These anarchists don't have to live in squalor and could live in a posh apartment but choose not to for a reason. If you think they are simply looking for a free place to stay because they are homeless and cannot afford better than you are surely mistaken.

These people are talented coders who could easily get hired by any software company or directly get angel/venture capital and start up their own companies but choose not to. Some are anti-capitalist, yes , but when you have a long discussion with these individuals you will see that they aren't necessarily opposed to capitalism but crony-capitalism or fascism.  

Personally, vacant, unused and unmaintained buildings should be open to squatters after a certain periods of time. This being said , I don't think this was necessarily the case here and in a capitalist economy this behavior should be considered unacceptable.....but do we really have a free market capitalist economy?