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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

TLDR: read it do the work!

#YESTR

💯💯💯💯💯💯

Would citizens writing to their representatives be a common form of the legal pressure which should be applied, to reduce income tax burden now and in the future? Or must charges be brought to court to be considered legal pressure?

A piece of paper does not protect your "rights." We have to take responsibility not get involved with governments in the 1st place. As you are the only one to protect your Rights and not some government mommy and daddy the wrote something on a piece of paper hundreds of years ago.

The insurgent 14th Amendment turned us all [in the U.S. that is] into U.S. citizens. This status, of one being “subject” to a government. And a government entity is in always public.

This 14th Amendment capture is mostly unknown.

Who would want to be a subject to any legal entity or government entity?

There are steps to remedy this tragedy, to step back into the private status for most of our interactions with other men and women.

Sorry for the grammar f ups

Spot one! Your book was a real eye opener for me! 🔥

Solid points!!

"make privacy tech so ubiquitous that it can’t be isolated and can spread organically in a distributed way"

That pesky little bill of rights. 😂

Spanish:

El aparato fiscal de todo el mundo desarrollado en el siglo XX y que se extiende al siglo XXI depende de la vigilancia financiera ubiqua.

No se rendirán sin lucha. He estado diciendo en varios congresos y podcasts que la privacidad es el principal campo de batalla para la próxima década.

En el siglo XIX y antes, el dinero era principalmente privado. Había suficientes dictadores, pero no existía un método significativo de vigilar todas las transacciones. Por lo tanto, los impuestos generales de ingresos como el IRPF eran inaplicables de facto.

Pero en el siglo XX, a medida que el dinero se movía cada vez más a alta velocidad, las personas necesitaban cuentas bancarias para mantenerse a flote. No se les forzó; lo eligieron. Y esos bancos estaban centralizados, vigilables y manipulables.

Esto permitió a las autoridades pasarse a los impuestos sobre los ingresos, que requieren una vigilancia financiera general para funcionar. Y al final, les permitió pasar al dinero fiduciario en sí.

Ahora en el siglo XXI, Bitcoin y sus diversas capas permiten a las personas mantener y mover el dinero globalmente sin bancos ni permisos. Pueden hacerlo de manera peer-to-peer, o pueden hacerlo con custodias y capas abiertas, etc. A diferencia de la capa base del fiat, la capa base de Bitcoin no requiere permiso.

Esto representa una amenaza para todo el sistema actual de recaudación impositiva y control financiero. Si Bitcoin y especialmente varias metodologías privadas sobre el se adoptan a gran escala, toda la estructura impositiva y otros aspectos tendrían que reajustarse a esa nueva realidad. Y por lo tanto, no les será fácil; intentarán criminalizar la privacidad financiera todo lo que puedan mientras que la red todavía sea pequeña.

Las soluciones son 1) hacer que la tecnología de privacidad sea tan ubiqua que no se pueda aislar y se pueda extender de manera orgánica de una forma distribuida y 2) aplicar presión legal cuando sea posible de modo que los gobiernos tengan que operar dentro los límites de su propia ley, como por ejemplo la Primera y Cuarta Enmienda de las constitución Americana.

Great note as usual by Lyn!

We have to follow both solutions.

Convenience got us into this mess, doing difficult things will get us out, we only need to have the courage to do it.

Every time I read anything by you, it reminds me I need more Bitcoin. Thanks for a great book as well.

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

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...

Viable strategies?

- all clients and nodes communicate via mixnet (e.g. Nym)

- all on-chain transactions (where possible) implemented as PayJoins

you are so clever my little muffin.

the average retard following you will never figure out that, while true, none of what you wrote actually has anything to do with Bitcoin.

because Bitcoin is literally an absolutely arbitrary system among an infinite amount of other such possible systems.

Bitcoin is like the G-d of the bible. Anybody can write their own holy book and claim the G-d they invented is the one true G-d. And that you should give them your money or their G-d will curse you.

Let's work on #1

1) is already done, its called Monero. Get some while you can.

Get out of Monero while you can?

i got into bitcoin because of sovereignty and privacy, all i got was a slow 21m cap chain which can easily be turned into a surveillance nightmare by any government any time.

The state is a pimp

That's the way.

My understanding is that Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous; once someone is able to join your identity (via a KYC on ramp or otherwise) to your addresses then that privacy is gone... XMR, DERO provide the private transactions (for now?)

It's nuanced. Bitcoin does require a fair bit of knowledge to use privately. This playlist is a good primer.

Also projects like ecash, mercury layer, and Ark have big privacy improvements

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIBmWVGQhizLrPjpFMN5bQdbOZRxCQXUg

What steps do you see inevitable from an average person point of view to start on this journey?

Can we continue this line of thought into actionable steps and levels, that we shall jump so that we progress into this direction?

Also would be great if the effort/progress is measurable, otherwise hard to progress.

nostr:note17j59y5satmsheftqkuhh9f7dmpernlyz62r2vrjcz6qwf2da6veseke2ah

Got damn, u smart!