3 ms·

If you're caught committing crimes (like for instance, using the computers to arrange transactions of human trafficking) and you invoke a standoff and shootout

If you're caught committing crimes (like for instance, using the computers to arrange transactions of human trafficking) and you invoke a standoff and shootout with the police, then yes, they probably will. That's true with or without blockchains. And because I can see where this is going: The takes along the lines of "it's not illegal, I was just flipping some electrons into ones and zeros" is a really bad take, you can do better than that.

randomhodler84 4y ago
Agreed. Crime is not a good thing, and please do not thing I am trying to endorse it. I just know that it exists and will use whatever resources it has access to. I philosophically disagree with denying ourselves something because someone somewhere can do crime. Now, encryption and by extension cryptocurrency, this is truly revolutionary. They can shoot me in the head, but they cannot read my data, access my devices, or take the money. All that remains is silicon and metal. I like the idea that when I die, everything I have written privately, and every sat I have earned will rest forever, unreachably.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  >I philosophically disagree with denying ourselves something because someone somewhere can do crime. That's not why we should deny cryptocurrency. We should deny it because it is fundamentally bad, it serves no purpose besides scamming and fraud. The technology is broken and can't ever achieve its stated goals except by pure luck, at which point it is no better than any other solutions. >they cannot read my data, access my devices, or take the money Yes, they can. A dedicated aggressor (i.e. a nation state actor) will just torture and blackmail you until you give that up. Of course it gets harder for them if they kill you, then they would have to brute force your data. But then why would they need access to your devices, if you were the target they were trying to get rid of? If your private correspondence was with another party, they can also just blackmail the other party into giving up dirt on you. Cryptography can't actually do anything about these classic "meatspace" techniques.
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    Multisig constructions were created for the torture case. There are unfortunately cases where this has proven true. I know your opinion re usefulness, noted. It contrasts greatly with my experiences. Some of us dream up ways to keep the State out, you keep dreaming up ways the State will defeat it. It is a cat and mouse game for all eternity. I am confident we will survive.
    - hnthrow1010 4y ago
      No, you are looking at this totally the wrong way. I don't "dream" of the state defeating things. This is basic threat analysis, it does you no good to avoid doing it. Being "confident" that something will happen in the future is not the same as being confident that your current solution will hold, which chances are it will not. Also, multisig is not appropriate for a two way communication (like for instance, a financial transaction), you need three or more parties to make it useful.
      - randomhodler84 4y ago
        Agree about understanding the threat — but I really don’t think I am avoiding the threat model here. I’ve been philosophizing on the nature of Bitcoin for a long time. You haven’t given me an attack that would defeat this system yet. If you have a valid attack, I would encourage you to circulate it where technical folks can deal with it. All you are doing is throwing your opinion that it is useless, the state will defeat it, etc. I mean cool, but coiners will not agree with you. There are many others here that have told you their experiences, threat models and uses.

randomhodler84 4y ago

Agreed. Crime is not a good thing, and please do not thing I am trying to endorse it. I just know that it exists and will use whatever resources it has access to. I philosophically disagree with denying ourselves something because someone somewhere can do crime. Now, encryption and by extension cryptocurrency, this is truly revolutionary. They can shoot me in the head, but they cannot read my data, access my devices, or take the money. All that remains is silicon and metal. I like the idea that when I die, everything I have written privately, and every sat I have earned will rest forever, unreachably.

hnthrow1010 4y ago
>I philosophically disagree with denying ourselves something because someone somewhere can do crime. That's not why we should deny cryptocurrency. We should deny it because it is fundamentally bad, it serves no purpose besides scamming and fraud. The technology is broken and can't ever achieve its stated goals except by pure luck, at which point it is no better than any other solutions. >they cannot read my data, access my devices, or take the money Yes, they can. A dedicated aggressor (i.e. a nation state actor) will just torture and blackmail you until you give that up. Of course it gets harder for them if they kill you, then they would have to brute force your data. But then why would they need access to your devices, if you were the target they were trying to get rid of? If your private correspondence was with another party, they can also just blackmail the other party into giving up dirt on you. Cryptography can't actually do anything about these classic "meatspace" techniques.
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  Multisig constructions were created for the torture case. There are unfortunately cases where this has proven true. I know your opinion re usefulness, noted. It contrasts greatly with my experiences. Some of us dream up ways to keep the State out, you keep dreaming up ways the State will defeat it. It is a cat and mouse game for all eternity. I am confident we will survive.
  - hnthrow1010 4y ago
    No, you are looking at this totally the wrong way. I don't "dream" of the state defeating things. This is basic threat analysis, it does you no good to avoid doing it. Being "confident" that something will happen in the future is not the same as being confident that your current solution will hold, which chances are it will not. Also, multisig is not appropriate for a two way communication (like for instance, a financial transaction), you need three or more parties to make it useful.
    - randomhodler84 4y ago
      Agree about understanding the threat — but I really don’t think I am avoiding the threat model here. I’ve been philosophizing on the nature of Bitcoin for a long time. You haven’t given me an attack that would defeat this system yet. If you have a valid attack, I would encourage you to circulate it where technical folks can deal with it. All you are doing is throwing your opinion that it is useless, the state will defeat it, etc. I mean cool, but coiners will not agree with you. There are many others here that have told you their experiences, threat models and uses.