7 ms·

I'm suspicious of this.

tambienben 9y ago
For those of you who are down voting, perhaps you could explain why this case might be different from any other value hype. What happened to trust no one--verify?
- Fnoord 9y ago
  Its different because Snowden has credibility. He didn't receive any money for the movie Snowden (it was donated to The Guardian instead) [1]. He didn't sell any of the NSA data. He doesn't have a track record of profiting, apart from working (like we all do) and receiving some donations. So the claim that Snowden is a proponent of Zcash because he has invested in it has no merit. There is zero proof for such statement, and his track record doesn't suggest it either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film)
  - tambienben 9y ago
    >So the claim that Snowden is a proponent of Zcash because he has invested in it has no merit. Maybe you're using hyperbole. The /suspicion/ at least, has plenty of merit. I agree that doing something like that would go against his track record, but believing a subjective statement on face value doesn't keep that track record intact (except in your own mind, maybe). I trust Snowden's opinion as much as anyone here, but you can't ignore basic precautions simply because someone is popular for "the right reasons". I very much think that Mr. Snowden would agree with my frame of mind on this. You may disagree.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > The /suspicion/ at least, has plenty of merit. Merit? I've seen no merit whatsoever. A vague conspiracy theory, that's what I've seen. > I trust Snowden's opinion as much as anyone here, but you can't ignore basic precautions simply because someone is popular for "the right reasons". What you propose doesn't fall under basic precautions; it is a conspiracy theory. And one consisting of very little theory, I'm afraid. For the record your two quotes: "I'm suspicious of this." "For those of you who are down voting, perhaps you could explain why this case might be different from any other value hype. What happened to trust no one--verify?" You're trying to shift the blame. The burden of proof lies at you.
      - tambienben 9y ago
        So you would trust anything he says on face value? Regardless of what he might stand to gain? My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. That's the entire point of blockchain technology. I'm not openly accusing him of anything. Im only stating that, as for myself, I regard the statement (given its content) with a reasonable amount of suspicion. Again, you may disagree.
        spurcell93 9y ago
        I wonder if you're conflating skepticism with suspicion. I don't believe it's a meaningless distinction.
        tambienben 9y ago
        I concede to your point. I should probably have used different language.
        Fnoord 9y ago
        > My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. Because he has credibility due to his track record. That's the basis of how networking works. The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility within their peers as well as the general public. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, credibility can be abused; as a matter of fact, he did abuse his credibility. Snowden broke his credibility to the NSA (and US government), but for a greater good of both the people of the USA as well as the international community. The price he paid? He lost his well paid job, he lost seeing his family and friends, he lost the luxury life in the USA, his house and any and all of his assets, and a substantial part of the USA hates him (tho a more vast, significant part in the world, is thankful). Ie. his credibility with the rest of the world has substantially increased. Now, you may think he may abuse his credibility, and it'd be a great plot for a movie, but that doesn't make it realistic. And why? Isn't the same true for any programmer on Zcash, Bitcoin, Etherium, and anything else? If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Are you sure that's air you're breathing? Are you sure the color white is white? You'll end up with a full blown paranoid psychosis if you go with that line of reasoning (speaking from personal experience as well here). My point is that, at the very basic level, we need to trust and take some basics for granted (and, all of us do). So what we need from you, is some kind of facts (not theory) as to why we cannot trust Snowden. The fact, as far as I can tell, contradict what you wrote: Snowden hasn't acted in the past based on financial gains. For example, he didn't sell NSA information to media or foreign agencies. Instead, his actions were solely based on moral grounds plus personal survival (hence he ended up in Russia). I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. I have no indication Snowden is a psychopath; tho I'm not sure about those he worked for at the CIA and NSA.

For those of you who are down voting, perhaps you could explain why this case might be different from any other value hype. What happened to trust no one--verify?

Fnoord 9y ago
Its different because Snowden has credibility. He didn't receive any money for the movie Snowden (it was donated to The Guardian instead) [1]. He didn't sell any of the NSA data. He doesn't have a track record of profiting, apart from working (like we all do) and receiving some donations. So the claim that Snowden is a proponent of Zcash because he has invested in it has no merit. There is zero proof for such statement, and his track record doesn't suggest it either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowden_(film)
- tambienben 9y ago
  >So the claim that Snowden is a proponent of Zcash because he has invested in it has no merit. Maybe you're using hyperbole. The /suspicion/ at least, has plenty of merit. I agree that doing something like that would go against his track record, but believing a subjective statement on face value doesn't keep that track record intact (except in your own mind, maybe). I trust Snowden's opinion as much as anyone here, but you can't ignore basic precautions simply because someone is popular for "the right reasons". I very much think that Mr. Snowden would agree with my frame of mind on this. You may disagree.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > The /suspicion/ at least, has plenty of merit. Merit? I've seen no merit whatsoever. A vague conspiracy theory, that's what I've seen. > I trust Snowden's opinion as much as anyone here, but you can't ignore basic precautions simply because someone is popular for "the right reasons". What you propose doesn't fall under basic precautions; it is a conspiracy theory. And one consisting of very little theory, I'm afraid. For the record your two quotes: "I'm suspicious of this." "For those of you who are down voting, perhaps you could explain why this case might be different from any other value hype. What happened to trust no one--verify?" You're trying to shift the blame. The burden of proof lies at you.
    - tambienben 9y ago
      So you would trust anything he says on face value? Regardless of what he might stand to gain? My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. That's the entire point of blockchain technology. I'm not openly accusing him of anything. Im only stating that, as for myself, I regard the statement (given its content) with a reasonable amount of suspicion. Again, you may disagree.
      - spurcell93 9y ago
        I wonder if you're conflating skepticism with suspicion. I don't believe it's a meaningless distinction.
        tambienben 9y ago
        I concede to your point. I should probably have used different language.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        > My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. Because he has credibility due to his track record. That's the basis of how networking works. The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility within their peers as well as the general public. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, credibility can be abused; as a matter of fact, he did abuse his credibility. Snowden broke his credibility to the NSA (and US government), but for a greater good of both the people of the USA as well as the international community. The price he paid? He lost his well paid job, he lost seeing his family and friends, he lost the luxury life in the USA, his house and any and all of his assets, and a substantial part of the USA hates him (tho a more vast, significant part in the world, is thankful). Ie. his credibility with the rest of the world has substantially increased. Now, you may think he may abuse his credibility, and it'd be a great plot for a movie, but that doesn't make it realistic. And why? Isn't the same true for any programmer on Zcash, Bitcoin, Etherium, and anything else? If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Are you sure that's air you're breathing? Are you sure the color white is white? You'll end up with a full blown paranoid psychosis if you go with that line of reasoning (speaking from personal experience as well here). My point is that, at the very basic level, we need to trust and take some basics for granted (and, all of us do). So what we need from you, is some kind of facts (not theory) as to why we cannot trust Snowden. The fact, as far as I can tell, contradict what you wrote: Snowden hasn't acted in the past based on financial gains. For example, he didn't sell NSA information to media or foreign agencies. Instead, his actions were solely based on moral grounds plus personal survival (hence he ended up in Russia). I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. I have no indication Snowden is a psychopath; tho I'm not sure about those he worked for at the CIA and NSA.