3 ms·

Why would they be interested?

by dmos62 6y ago

sneak 6y ago
Large amounts of censorship-resistant payment ability can be used to challenge sovereign prerogatives (aka "national security") up to an including financing a war. Knowing who or where someone is sitting with 40 billion dollars in cash that can be teleported instantly and irreversibly to anyone, anywhere on the planet is something that I would be surprised if they were not interested in. Every other system of moving large amounts of money long distances is under some form of sovereign control, either via bank/wire regulation, or customs searches in the case of physical gold or currency. My first talk on Bitcoin and digital currencies in 2011 was titled "Financing The Revolution"[1] for precisely this reason. Cryptocurrencies, due to their censorship resistance and inherently transnational nature, ultimately pose a threat to sovereign nations if they remain open access and fungible. The CIA asked one of the bitcoin core developers to come to Langley and present to them on the matter in 2011. It's been on their radar for a while. [1]: https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/camp/2011/Fahrplan/events/4591.en.html https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/camp/2011/Fahrplan/events/459... https://vimeo.com/27653912 https://vimeo.com/27653912
- dmos62 6y ago
  I definitely agree that institutions have an interest in surveilling or tampering with the network. It's just that the backstory of its invention isn't something I see as being practical information. I'm inclined to nitpick your argument about cryptocurrencies being a threat to sovereign nations. Isn't everything that isn't censorable and is resilient to attack a threat to everything else? Your argument could be used to advocate authoritarianism.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > It's just that the backstory of its invention isn't something I see as being practical information. It wouldn't be, except that circumstantial evidence suggests that the creator(s) of bitcoin were involved in early mining and possibly (perhaps even likely) have access to approximately $40B USD worth of the currency, having the mining rewards from some ~22,000 early blocks at 50 bitcoin each. There's also other circumstantial evidence that suggests that the keys may be lost, the person/people who have/had the keys may be dead, that the person/people who mined those blocks would likely never spend them, et c. But the risk is there, and it's nonzero. Getting more information on the matter, and perhaps an identity, from the published information available (satoshin@gmx.com) is a straightforward and low-cost task for nation-states. Almost all of the other people who have anywhere near that much bitcoin had to give their name and address and bank account to someone, somewhere, or they were one of the few dozen of us computer nerds who were mining way back then, and likely not terrorists/violent revolutionaries.
baq 6y ago
Why wouldn’t they? Creating a multi-billion dollar global commodity out of thin air is quite a feat. I would want to know what the authors of Bitcoin are up to after they moved on.
- dmos62 6y ago
  But how would you make the pitch? Q: How does your research project proposal relate to national security? A: Bitcoin is a feat and I'm really interested in who started it.
- sneak 6y ago
  I think this might be a "great man"-style fallacy. It's not so much that that/those specific person/people are important, but that anyone who potentially controls that much transnational cash is immediately a person of interest to those that are concerned with the Master List Of All Humans Who Can Potentially Hire An Army And/Or Buy Thousands Of Jets/Tanks Immediately. (People with $40B USD in a bank account aren't usually in that list.) If you're in that exclusive club, it pays to know an exhaustive list of everyone else who is in that club.

Why would they be interested?

by dmos62 6y ago

Why would they be interested?

Large amounts of censorship-resistant payment ability can be used to challenge sovereign prerogatives (aka "national security") up to an including financing a war. Knowing who or where someone is sitting with 40 billion dollars in cash that can be teleported instantly and irreversibly to anyone, anywhere on the planet is something that I would be surprised if they were not interested in. Every other system of moving large amounts of money long distances is under some form of sovereign control, either via bank/wire regulation, or customs searches in the case of physical gold or currency. My first talk on Bitcoin and digital currencies in 2011 was titled "Financing The Revolution"[1] for precisely this reason. Cryptocurrencies, due to their censorship resistance and inherently transnational nature, ultimately pose a threat to sovereign nations if they remain open access and fungible. The CIA asked one of the bitcoin core developers to come to Langley and present to them on the matter in 2011. It's been on their radar for a while. [1]: https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/camp/2011/Fahrplan/events/4591.en.html https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/camp/2011/Fahrplan/events/459... https://vimeo.com/27653912 https://vimeo.com/27653912

dmos62 6y ago
I definitely agree that institutions have an interest in surveilling or tampering with the network. It's just that the backstory of its invention isn't something I see as being practical information. I'm inclined to nitpick your argument about cryptocurrencies being a threat to sovereign nations. Isn't everything that isn't censorable and is resilient to attack a threat to everything else? Your argument could be used to advocate authoritarianism.
- sneak 6y ago
  > It's just that the backstory of its invention isn't something I see as being practical information. It wouldn't be, except that circumstantial evidence suggests that the creator(s) of bitcoin were involved in early mining and possibly (perhaps even likely) have access to approximately $40B USD worth of the currency, having the mining rewards from some ~22,000 early blocks at 50 bitcoin each. There's also other circumstantial evidence that suggests that the keys may be lost, the person/people who have/had the keys may be dead, that the person/people who mined those blocks would likely never spend them, et c. But the risk is there, and it's nonzero. Getting more information on the matter, and perhaps an identity, from the published information available (satoshin@gmx.com) is a straightforward and low-cost task for nation-states. Almost all of the other people who have anywhere near that much bitcoin had to give their name and address and bank account to someone, somewhere, or they were one of the few dozen of us computer nerds who were mining way back then, and likely not terrorists/violent revolutionaries.

baq 6y ago

Why wouldn’t they? Creating a multi-billion dollar global commodity out of thin air is quite a feat. I would want to know what the authors of Bitcoin are up to after they moved on.

dmos62 6y ago
But how would you make the pitch? Q: How does your research project proposal relate to national security? A: Bitcoin is a feat and I'm really interested in who started it.
sneak 6y ago
I think this might be a "great man"-style fallacy. It's not so much that that/those specific person/people are important, but that anyone who potentially controls that much transnational cash is immediately a person of interest to those that are concerned with the Master List Of All Humans Who Can Potentially Hire An Army And/Or Buy Thousands Of Jets/Tanks Immediately. (People with $40B USD in a bank account aren't usually in that list.) If you're in that exclusive club, it pays to know an exhaustive list of everyone else who is in that club.