Jump to content


Bitcoin Dark Wallet


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Goldstein

Michael Goldstein

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 31 October 2013 - 02:41 PM

Cody Wilson and Unsystem have released their fundraising campaign for their Dark Wallet project (as discussed here): http://www.indiegogo...oin-dark-wallet

They see a schism in Bitcoin, and DarkWallet as a "line in the sand" between both Bitcoin/regulators and more radical bitcoiners/bitcoins "working with regulators." Do you think these schisms exists in the way they claim?

Regardless, I think this is a very exciting project.

#2 Pierre Rochard

Pierre Rochard

    Member

  • Former Member
  • Pip
  • 157 posts
  • LocationUnion Square, New York City

Posted 31 October 2013 - 02:59 PM

Well I've always seen the Foundation as a Trojan Horse of sorts, adding a veneer of respectability to what is inherently and unavoidably an anarchist, anti-corporatist currency & payment system. Some of the Greeks are experiencing a form of Stockholm syndrome whereby they think that the Trojans (i.e. the regulators and banks) are actually our friends and they're going to love this horse. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, having some sincere collaborators helps get the horse past the gates.

That said, the horse is useless without the forty Greeks inside, so it's important that Bitcoin not become co-opted by State regulators and their banking cartel, the Dark Wallet technologies/software is an important effort in that regard.

#3 Saivann Carignan

Saivann Carignan

    Member

  • Lifetime
  • Pip
  • 247 posts
  • LocationQuebec, Canada

Posted 31 October 2013 - 07:13 PM

Having a browser extension wallet is cool, but what's the so called "privacy and security" enhancement features that other wallets don't provide, or are not scheduled to provide? Can't find relevant informations..

I noticed a short appearance of current "unstable-incomplete" CoinJoin implementation of Amir Taaki. Is this "The" privacy feature? If true, then one implementation is good, but what's really important here is to make sure this protocol is standardized, tested and improved to the point so it can have a chance to be included or used somehow with existing wallets, because this feature requires larger adoption in order to really provide an acceptable level of privacy.

Also, I don't know much about libbitcoin. Is it used anywhere? And in particular, is it stable enough not to be a threat for its users? Or for the network if it's a full node implementation capable of creating a chain fork.

#4 Gavin Andresen

Gavin Andresen

    Administrator

  • Lifetime
  • Pip
  • 206 posts

Posted 31 October 2013 - 09:43 PM

In my humble opinion, that group is terrible for Bitcoin public relations.

"Dark" is a terrible phrase for privacy; it implies crime, corruption, scariness.

I'm particularly annoyed that almost as soon as we lost one PR disaster (the Silk Road) we seem to be getting another.

All of that is completely independent of my personal feelings on drugs (I think we should be allowed to put whatever the hell we want into our own bodies) or wallet privacy (I think financial transactions should be 100% private between the people transacting).

I think the schism is between people who think the way to change the system is Radical Change!  Get The People To Wake Up And See Reality And Overthrow The Powers That Be!

And the people who think that the path to change is to get mainstream adoption. In the Trojan Horse analogy, there is no jumping out of the horse at night and hacking off everybody's head; instead, why not make friends with the Trojans?  Have some Trojan/Greek babies who will wonder what the heck their parents were so fired up about....

#5 Charles Hoskinson

Charles Hoskinson

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 243 posts
  • LocationBoulder, Colorado

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:36 PM

Quote

"Dark" is a terrible phrase for privacy; it implies crime, corruption, scariness.

I tried to tell Ladar Levison and Co that when they started the darkmail foundation. I advocated for a name like CINA. I agree completely with you in this respect. This said, the need for privacy and personal autonomy is fundamental to being human. We live in a world that has massive dragnets, secret police, political persecution and varying levels of control over commerce for legitimate and illegitimate means.

I think having the ability to safely control your identity and money without middlemen is a worthwhile endeavor. In America, it seems like a paranoid overstep at times, but in Iran, China, Syria and other nations it can mean the difference between life and death. I read the other day a man being outed as gay in an african nation has resulted in a death sentence. We sometimes need secrets because the truth gets us killed by the ignorant, corrupt and evil.

Quote

I think the schism is between people who think the way to change the system is Radical Change!  Get The People To Wake Up And See Reality And Overthrow The Powers That Be!

And the people who think that the path to change is to get mainstream adoption. In the Trojan Horse analogy, there is no jumping out of the horse at night and hacking off everybody's head; instead, why not make friends with the Trojans?  Have some Trojan/Greek babies who will wonder what the heck their parents were so fired up about....

Not a terribly fair analogue. The world is multipolar and technology is rapidly changing the nature of both freedom and tyranny. This frankly has never been a debate about overthrowing the government nor radically changing the money system for most people. It has been a debate about privacy and human rights. It has been a debate about rampant emerging government corruption and 50% interest rate microfinance loans. Yes this technology could be used to harm prism, the current banking system and other such things, but it also can be used to lift 5 billion people out of poverty who are kept there mostly by bad institutions. We need tor, darkwallet and other tools. And we need anonymous conversion of value from cryptocurrency to fiat.  

I'm not going to apologize for a PR disaster that happens to eventually save lives and promote freedom. I'm going to both embrace it and endure the ridicule from the eventual losers.


#6 Pierre Rochard

Pierre Rochard

    Member

  • Former Member
  • Pip
  • 157 posts
  • LocationUnion Square, New York City

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:43 PM

View PostGavin Andresen, on 31 October 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

why not make friends with the Trojans?  

Because the global credit system is denominated in fiat currencies. Because a significant percentage of high net worth individuals' assets are in fixed income securities denominated in fiat currencies. Because practically everyone "knowledgable" about monetary policy sees it as a legitimate function of any democratic government that needs to be implemented by an independent central bank with an "elastic" (inflationary) currency. Because governments cannot run persistent deficits if they don't control monetary policy.

In sum, there are irreconcilable economic, ideological, and political differences between the advocates of government monetary sovereignty and those of Bitcoin. Metaphorically, it would be nice if the Trojans let us in peacefully, but that would be profoundly irrational of them given what's at stake.

#7 Jerry Brito

Jerry Brito

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 02:21 AM

FWIW, here are my thoughts: http://techliberatio...shouldnt-worry/

#8 Pierre Rochard

Pierre Rochard

    Member

  • Former Member
  • Pip
  • 157 posts
  • LocationUnion Square, New York City

Posted 01 November 2013 - 02:35 AM

Jerry Brito said:

I am interested in helping policymakers get the cost-benefit analysis right, which I think is that the costs of regulating Bitcoin far outweigh the benefits.

Public choice economics seems to indicate that this calculation will not be done in an objective, disinterested manner.

In the abstract, I completely agree with your article. However, regulators will quickly realize that their current stance, regulating only the USD/XBT exchanges, is untenable for their purposes (AML and taxation for Treasury/states, counterfeiting for the Fed). That's when they will see regulating Bitcoin itself as an imperative and will push regulation directly onto Bitcoin either in the form of "new features", restrictions on merchants accepting it, or onerous taxation.