While I can understand :birdsite: @real_vijay's reasoning, it still makes me sad

@FreePietje I think it's an artifact of the trust chain being public. If Sadr had sent Boyapati an invoice via private correspondence, nobody else would know about it or an associated payment, so there would be less concern about rule breaking. Indeed, for all we know, Sadr's node has been routing trust chain xfers and collecting routing fees, leaving all U.S. citizens involved in possible violation of sanctions---but this is hidden, so it's (hopefully) not actionable.

@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" ✌️

@FreePietje Eh, I think it'd be highly irresponsible for Back to send the money to Iran and, if he'd done so, I wouldn't be surprised if he was immediately removed as CEO of Blockstream---a company with many customers that are (somewhat) regulated financial institutions. I don't blame him at all.

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."

@FreePietje @harding I just catched up on the story, I guess it should makes it clear that when the US gov will really try to fight back, we won't win just that easily

@Sosthene @FreePietje I really think that there's confusion here. There's a difference between doing something illegal and tweeting about doing something illegal.

I can't find it, but (apropos this topic) there was a great Tweet by Adam Back a few years ago to the effect of "privacy never seems particularly popular because the people who need it the most are also the people least able to talk about using it."

@harding @Sosthene @FreePietje

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).

@waxwing @harding @Sosthene

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?

@FreePietje @waxwing @harding @Sosthene

If Coinjoin is considered money laundering, then Liquid and Lightning will be labeled as such

@BTCHODL @FreePietje @harding @Sosthene

Well yes and no; with LN you have that you're improving scaling (and cost, speed, all mixed together) while also improving privacy. So that gives cover for improving privacy.

( A lot more to discuss in there ofc, but that's a big deal).

@waxwing @FreePietje @harding @Sosthene

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 (twitter.com/giacomozucco/statu).

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 :birdsite:, doesn't sit well with me.

@Sosthene @waxwing @harding @FreePietje

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".

@Traca @waxwing @harding @FreePietje I wouldn't underestimate an enemy like the state. Bitcoin might be pretty much out of their reach, but we are all mortals

@waxwing @FreePietje @Sosthene My biggest regret[1] in Bitcoin is that I naively began contributing documentation under my real name. If I'd been smart, I'd have used a nym and maybe a slightly different writing style than I used elsewhere (can't use a hugely different style because I like my style---that's why I use it!).

[1] Why not buy coins instead? Read this: https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5jgn6h/to_the_top/dbg64xm/

@harding @waxwing @Sosthene
Having to act schizophrenic has its downsides too ;-P

@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

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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!