While I can understand @real_vijay's reasoning, it still makes me sad
@harding Yep, I think that's the reason too. Giacomo laid out that scenario as well.
Nonetheless, I've always been annoyed by people shaming others for being morally deficient, Statist!!, you're not a true cypherpunk, etc
And it's those same people who are now pulling a Kevin Pham.
The people who screamed the loudest "uncensorable, borderless money" are now saying "Uncle Sam doesn't want me to, so I won't", which seems at least a bit hypocritical.
Love Ziya's rebuttal:
The moment Samson Mow tweeted enthusiastically that Reid Hoffman (whom I didn't know) had send a LN invoice, I knew Adam Back would fail the test (imo) :-/
Ziya has, again, posted a new invoice and hodlnaut has brought extra attention to this situation which I find quite damaging for bitcoin's reputation/standing.
Also worth noting:
Someone responded to a Ziya tweet "Will you send it to Israel?" and his answer was a straightforward "Yes" ✌️
Agreed, and thus I understand this too.
What is also true, is that this has caused severe damage to my wish/hope that bitcoin was a way to get away from the tyranny of the United States.
While realizing that technically/theoretically bitcoin is still censorship resistant, the following line from Linus Torvalds pops into my head:
"Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time."
Sosthene, I totally agree that this is a subject to be discussed. But this pattern has been repeated over the years. Pretty much all prominent core devs have been super-straight laced.
For example, people you'd expect to be enthusiastic about developing coinjoin decided not to do it (more than one), even though it's a real stretch to imagine that it's illegal or something.
This is a job for nyms, not people, ultimately (gray area for now).
Coinjoin/mixers are considered money laundering in NL.
And I agree with you.
I think the main issue I have with this situation is all those people who talked tough and principled, bail out when it comes to actually putting it into action.
I really understand the reasoning/arguments (esp bc it's public), but if 'OGs' aren't willing to take a principled stance, who will?
It is 2025 & there is moderate bitcoin adoption
I have a garage sale. 50+ people buy shit from me with Bitcoin
The government still only accepts fiat for taxes so I send my garage sale bitcoins to an exchange to sell for fiat
1 of the garage sales customers gives me "dirty" bitcoin, so the exchange freezes my account
This means I spend more money on a lawyer over 2+ months to appeal
Or i just use a mixer
As you say"cost speed all mixed together"
@waxwing @harding @FreePietje I think I wasn't very clear, and maybe a bit hot-headed. I got @harding point about doing sth != tweeting about it, and I won't criticize Adam Back or anyone else for not boasting on Twitter. My point was more that honey moon is still not over, and I'm a bit afraid when I read (not here) that gov have already tried to fight Bitcoin, bc we have really seen nothing yet, and even now if some devs are afraid to work on some projects, I think it's a matter of concern.
@Sosthene @waxwing @harding
I completely agree with you and also your previous toot.
I also agree with David and understand Adam/Vijay/Giacomo (https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1099949947053584384).
At the same time, I too think it's a matter of concern. And this is 'just' financial censorship.
I think we've seen nothing yet when it comes to how govs can make it hard for bitcoin to thrive and them already 'succeeding' by excluding an Iranian, given the over-confidence on , doesn't sit well with me.
I guess if we haven't seen "nothing yet" its because they can not... since the beginning of history they have always attacked anything which can competes with their monopoly of money. The last I reemember is the news of running a node could be ilegal as some pedo content was included in blockchain so storing full blockchain should be illegal as its sharing "child pornography".
@harding @waxwing @FreePietje I noticed that outsiders often don't get why there are so many pseudonyms in Bitcoin, it looks like childish folklore to them. I must admit I was thinking this also before, but later on I began to understand there's more to that, and now I think that maybe we all should try to imitate Satoshi to the best of our capacity. Ideally no one serious about his involvement in bitcoin should ever go along with his real identity
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!