5 ms·

They used moneypak transfers, from what I remember. Personally, I would rather live in the world where we have financial privacy and financial freedom even if

They used moneypak transfers, from what I remember. Personally, I would rather live in the world where we have financial privacy and financial freedom even if that means dealing with ransomware. (which is mitigable with proper planning). If a ransomware author doesn't have financial freedom or privacy then that means you don't either. Edward Snowden is being financially censored right now by US Government in a move to take away the proceeds of his book. It is no wonder then that Snowden is a fan of cryptocurrencies which have no such mechanism. Likewise, WikiLeaks was financially censored by PayPal, VISA and Mastercard under unofficial pressure from the US Gov. You don't even have to break any laws to be financially censored. PayPal regularly freezes people's balances for 180 days and does not even provide a reason. The sometimes do this at the behest of political activists looking to use financial pressure to censor their opponents. So, I will accept ransomware as an unavoidable consequence of the greater good - because if all of these people are censored then so am I.

arcticbull 7y ago
The only place it has any advantage is crime. The problem is a social one: we need to lobby the government to ensure folks like Snowden are protected, and not allow the tyranny of the minority through spending money in a way that can't be traced or censored. We can all agree sending money to North Korea is bad. [1] Funding ISIS is bad. [2] Ransomware is bad. [3] Wikileaks and Snowden? There's a debate to be had. You're actively circumventing democracy by preventing us from having that debate and by refusing to abide by democracy's decisions. You're attacking symptoms, not problems, with tools that are just broadly worse. Social problems need social solutions, not anarchy and magic beans that live in your computer. Of course that's harder, but it is better, and there's no "number go up" to compensate you. [1] https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocurrency-for-weapons-programs/ https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocur... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bit... [3] https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts
- Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
  >The only place it has any advantage is crime. What? Wikileaks was censored without even being charged with a crime. The reality is people who have committed no crimes are financially censored on a regular basis. According to the EFF: >The actions of a small number of payment intermediaries— like payment processors, banks, and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard—can heavily influence what kind of speech can exist online. https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship For example, Subscribestar was censored by political activists - they committed no crime. https://reclaimthenet.org/paypal-bans-subscribestar-after-the-site-is-targeted-by-activitists/ https://reclaimthenet.org/paypal-bans-subscribestar-after-th... Paypal censored people for selling erotic fiction. What law did they break? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/legal-censorship-paypal-makes-habit-deciding-what-users-can-read https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/legal-censorship-paypa... The ACLU is currently suing New York state for financially censoring an organization which likewise committed no crime. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be... >The problem is a social one: we need to lobby the government to ensure folks like Snowden are protected, and not allow the tyranny of the minority through spending money in a way that can't be traced or censored. The problem is 9 times out of ten not the government. Here's a better idea: let's make censorship impossible in all forms. Addendum: Not to mention the millions of people who live in censored countries (Iran, Venezuela, etc) who are totally innocent. Or the billions of people worldwide who are cut off from western monetary institutions in the name of anti-money laundering laws - people censored purely because they were born in the wrong country. Or how about the billions of people who live under authoritarian governments which outright censor them. Are they expected to lobby their masters to achieve political change?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    You failed to address literally all the things I pointed out. > The problem is 9 times out of ten not the government. Here's a better idea: let's make censorship impossible in all forms. PayPal and Visa only make money when they process payments. Not processing payments means they don't make money. Not processing payments for Snowden is therefore likely outside pressure from the government. Not processing "immoral" transactions is likely outside pressure from investors or advertisers, or heck, probably their risk management team. PayPal is a private company and can choose not to process payments for anyone, for any reason. The Fed/ACH doesn't have the same issues because they are a service in the public interest. They will process payments for anything legal for 1/10th of a cent each over the span of a couple of business days. By the end of the year, instantly, via RTP. > The ACLU is currently suing New York state for financially censoring an organization which likewise committed no crime. Luckily being a public institution remediation exists through the courts. BTC's irreversibility makes remediation impossible. You're pointing to a big feature as though it's a bug. Just ask the victims of the ransomware. > Addendum: Not to mention the millions of people who live in censored countries (Iran, Venezuela, etc) who are totally innocent. Or the billions of people worldwide who are cut off from western monetary institutions in the name of anti-money laundering laws - people censored purely because they were born in the wrong country. Take it up with your government. That's how government works. You don't like it, change it, don't circumvent it. It's like setting up your own parallel government because you don't like who's in power: that's not how it works. Do I agree with sanctions policy? Lord no. However, I can always lobby to change it. I think you'll find the majority do agree with sanctions policy and that you're undermining democracy. > Or how about the billions of people who live under authoritarian governments which outright censor them. Are they expected to lobby their masters to achieve political change? No, they're expected to overturn the government. Freedom isn't free, and all that. The censorship of their transactions is literally the least of their problems. Social problems require social solutions. Or phrased glibly: bitcoin won't help you as you mine minerals in the gulag. It won't help you avoid the gulag and it sure won't do anything to help you once you get there. In fact, I'd be more worried about transacting on the indelible public (pseudonymous) blockchain than transacting in say, cash, if I didn't want the government to know what I was doing. You don't think the PRC would build automatic deanonymization tooling?

arcticbull 7y ago

The only place it has any advantage is crime. The problem is a social one: we need to lobby the government to ensure folks like Snowden are protected, and not allow the tyranny of the minority through spending money in a way that can't be traced or censored. We can all agree sending money to North Korea is bad. [1] Funding ISIS is bad. [2] Ransomware is bad. [3] Wikileaks and Snowden? There's a debate to be had. You're actively circumventing democracy by preventing us from having that debate and by refusing to abide by democracy's decisions. You're attacking symptoms, not problems, with tools that are just broadly worse. Social problems need social solutions, not anarchy and magic beans that live in your computer. Of course that's harder, but it is better, and there's no "number go up" to compensate you. [1] https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocurrency-for-weapons-programs/ https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocur... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bit... [3] https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts

Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
>The only place it has any advantage is crime. What? Wikileaks was censored without even being charged with a crime. The reality is people who have committed no crimes are financially censored on a regular basis. According to the EFF: >The actions of a small number of payment intermediaries— like payment processors, banks, and credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard—can heavily influence what kind of speech can exist online. https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship https://www.eff.org/issues/financial-censorship For example, Subscribestar was censored by political activists - they committed no crime. https://reclaimthenet.org/paypal-bans-subscribestar-after-the-site-is-targeted-by-activitists/ https://reclaimthenet.org/paypal-bans-subscribestar-after-th... Paypal censored people for selling erotic fiction. What law did they break? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/legal-censorship-paypal-makes-habit-deciding-what-users-can-read https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/legal-censorship-paypa... The ACLU is currently suing New York state for financially censoring an organization which likewise committed no crime. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be... >The problem is a social one: we need to lobby the government to ensure folks like Snowden are protected, and not allow the tyranny of the minority through spending money in a way that can't be traced or censored. The problem is 9 times out of ten not the government. Here's a better idea: let's make censorship impossible in all forms. Addendum: Not to mention the millions of people who live in censored countries (Iran, Venezuela, etc) who are totally innocent. Or the billions of people worldwide who are cut off from western monetary institutions in the name of anti-money laundering laws - people censored purely because they were born in the wrong country. Or how about the billions of people who live under authoritarian governments which outright censor them. Are they expected to lobby their masters to achieve political change?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  You failed to address literally all the things I pointed out. > The problem is 9 times out of ten not the government. Here's a better idea: let's make censorship impossible in all forms. PayPal and Visa only make money when they process payments. Not processing payments means they don't make money. Not processing payments for Snowden is therefore likely outside pressure from the government. Not processing "immoral" transactions is likely outside pressure from investors or advertisers, or heck, probably their risk management team. PayPal is a private company and can choose not to process payments for anyone, for any reason. The Fed/ACH doesn't have the same issues because they are a service in the public interest. They will process payments for anything legal for 1/10th of a cent each over the span of a couple of business days. By the end of the year, instantly, via RTP. > The ACLU is currently suing New York state for financially censoring an organization which likewise committed no crime. Luckily being a public institution remediation exists through the courts. BTC's irreversibility makes remediation impossible. You're pointing to a big feature as though it's a bug. Just ask the victims of the ransomware. > Addendum: Not to mention the millions of people who live in censored countries (Iran, Venezuela, etc) who are totally innocent. Or the billions of people worldwide who are cut off from western monetary institutions in the name of anti-money laundering laws - people censored purely because they were born in the wrong country. Take it up with your government. That's how government works. You don't like it, change it, don't circumvent it. It's like setting up your own parallel government because you don't like who's in power: that's not how it works. Do I agree with sanctions policy? Lord no. However, I can always lobby to change it. I think you'll find the majority do agree with sanctions policy and that you're undermining democracy. > Or how about the billions of people who live under authoritarian governments which outright censor them. Are they expected to lobby their masters to achieve political change? No, they're expected to overturn the government. Freedom isn't free, and all that. The censorship of their transactions is literally the least of their problems. Social problems require social solutions. Or phrased glibly: bitcoin won't help you as you mine minerals in the gulag. It won't help you avoid the gulag and it sure won't do anything to help you once you get there. In fact, I'd be more worried about transacting on the indelible public (pseudonymous) blockchain than transacting in say, cash, if I didn't want the government to know what I was doing. You don't think the PRC would build automatic deanonymization tooling?