I expect we agree about more than we disagree. Sorry if our wires got crossed. PV 🤙
Discussion
I just read Andrew Tate has been charged with rape in Romania…ok, those are his choices and problem, what I find interesting and relevant is that Romanian authorities seized his Bitcoin assets rumored to be worth $300 million. It seems likely Tate would have had those assets in some secure wallet. If it can happen to him, it can happen to you if you run afoul of the law. Bitcoin is not substantially different or better than fiat in the banking system, and because of the public blockchain it is substantially worse than fiat in a safe at home.
So you don’t think there’s any way on this green and blue earth that they said “we know you’re vocal on social media and if you don’t give us that bitcoin we’ll make you disappear”
He gave them access/they found the keys, it doesn’t mean they hacked the Bitcoin network. Not close.
Not hacked, compelled legally. There is a difference, and the distinction is important. They can prove you have the money using the blockchain and compel you to give it to them. No plausible denial of possession.
He was shoulda coin joined.
Also he could have lost his keys. But yes no theater would be nice
Let’s take it all the way to the extreme what you doing when/if government says “holding btc is illegal” 1971style
This is another argument in favor or plausible deniability and an encrypted blockchain. Maybe the answer is for people who are interested in privacy to manage it themselves. Shared IP exchanges, obfuscation, and new Bitcoin send and receive addresses for every transaction. With those protocols in place, I suspect transactions would be practically impossible to trace. Maybe it’s like this, you can advertise your money by putting it in a bank, or you can obfuscate your money by putting it in a safe.
I think really the point I’m trying to make is if you’re dealing with a centralized authority and they WANT you as the person of interest? There is no such thing as plausible deniability.
This is exactly my point. There is plausible deniability unless there isn’t. Your approach to this is well, it’s difficult so let’s assume it’s impossible and somehow therefore unimportant. Difficult does not in any way equal unimportant. Stick to principals in all things. A principled person dies with fewer assets and regrets than a treacherous one. I’ll always be the one to sacrifice a few dollars for a clear conscience, or some difficult work for a truly tenable solution.
There’s no such thing when you’re trying to make change as a unimportant perspective.
Sorry to have wasted your time.
I don’t consider any of these discussions to be a waste of time. I didn’t mean to insult you, if I did then you have my sincere apologies.
It’s not insulting and my feelings don’t matter; it’s just surprising how often people say things like “let’s discuss!” And someone will offer a line of thinking that doesn’t quite perfectly fit in the way others think and they refuse to use or engage with it like they would/do others more traditional views.
Nothing wrong with that; I just find it strange. And that’s on me so I apologize if you feel somehow less or inadequate.