Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

The entire developed world tax apparatus that was built in the 20th century and extends into the 21st century depends on ubiquitous financial surveillance.

They are not going to give that up without a fight. I have been saying at a number of conferences and podcasts that privacy is the main battleground for the next decade.

Back in the 19th century and before, money was mostly private. There were plenty of dictators but there was no major method of surveilling all transactions. Therefore things like broad income taxes were untenable to enforce.

But in the 20th century as money increasingly moved around at the speed of light, people needed bank accounts to keep up. It wasn’t all forced on them; they chose it. And those bank accounts were centralized, surveillable, and ruggable.

This allowed authorities to switch to income taxes, which require ubiquitous financial surveillance to work. And ultimately it allowed them to switch to fiat currency altogether.

Now in the 21st century, Bitcoin and its various layers allow people to hold and move around money globally without permissioned banks. They can do so peer to peer, or they can do so with custodians and open layers, etc. Unlike the base layer of fiat, the base layer of bitcoin is permissionless.

But this represents a threat to the entire current system of taxation and financial control. If bitcoin and particularly various private methods on top of it were to be adopted at massive scale, the entire tax structure and other things would need to reshape themselves around that reality. And so they won’t make it easy; they will try to criminalize financial privacy as much as possible while the network is still pretty small.

The only solutions are to 1) make privacy tech so ubiquitous that it can’t be isolated and can spread organically in a distributed way and 2) to apply legal pressure when possible so that governments sort of have to operate within the bounds of their own law, like the 1st and 4th amendments.

Very difficult to make privacy tech ubiquitous when most people don’t even care about it. People almost gleefully say “oh the government will find some wan to ban it” not understanding their complicit attitude about it all while signaling they’re unwilling to even TRY to add any friction.

Not to mention when the privacy tech is implemented - the government hunts down the inventors and jails them. And we do nothing about it

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You have the answer in your own comment. If trying to add friction lands you in jail, of course few will do it.

In many cases it's not a complicit attitude, but seeing that the proposed tech isn't viable.

We definitely need privacy tech, desperately, but we need well thought-through things that either can't be banned, or that would be essentially foolproof even if banned, so that there is an absolutely minuscule risk of jail by developing, implementing, and especially using it.

It's a huge ask, but it is what we need. Anything less isn't just useless, but counterproductive, as it allows the state to state examples, discouraging even more people from trying.

I hear you and I agree but I meant adding friction by actually having an orientation and attitude against these things rather than tacitly supporting it. I was more thinking about the folks who would relish someone “taxing the rich” etc

Because if people’s attitude was changed and saw someone go to jail for something silly like this perhaps we would have a stronger reaction towards it instead of the apathy we see now.

Anyway thanks for the response

Mainstream media and social media algorithms are the problems. They brainwash people to think the silly things aren't silly at all, and that government "solutions" work well. See "money laundering" for example, that has put a huge surveillance and financial censorship system in place, targeting transactions in the single dollar to hundreds of thousands of dollars range, while the multi-billions are laundered without problem, and the governments are involved in it...