BitcoinTalk
Wikileaks contact info?

View Satoshi only

External link

Hey,

I wanted to send a letter to Wikileaks about Bitcoin since unfortunately they've had several incidents where their funds have been seized in the past.
http://wikileaks.org/media/support.html

Anyone know where to send a message to them?
Bitcoins could be really useful to them. Good idea.
I don't know the answer to your question though, sorry.
Well, you know, if you don't find a proper contact, you can always send an ancient letter, made from paper. Cheesy

They have a postal address on this page you linked.
Yeah this may be good for wikileaks, but not nocessarily good for Bitcoin. If bitcoin becomes publicly associated with wikileaks before going semi-mainstream, then it will be viewed by the "ruling class" (read: US government) as a tool for doing money laundering and another "gray" buisnesses.

This may make bitcoin be considered by governments as a serious threat, and they will start fighting it too soon, holding back mainstream adoption.

Of course i know that they (governments) will start fighting bitcoin at some point, but the later, the better. If we go mainstream first, then such efforts will be probably futile, and BTC will probably be unstoppable without shutting down whole internet.
I have their e-mail saved from when it was published ... it's wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org

Try it Wink It should work ...
Yeah this may be good for wikileaks, but not nocessarily good for Bitcoin. If bitcoin becomes publicly associated with wikileaks before going semi-mainstream, then it will be viewed by the "ruling class" (read: US government) as a tool for doing money laundering and another "gray" buisnesses.
By your logic the USA should forbid money.  At least on paper and metal, a lot of currencies, and money transfers to uncontrollable countries like Bermuda and Switzerland.  Perhaps go completely communist.  On a worldwide basis porn and gambling is a lot more controversial than Wikileaks.  Only China and Thailand censor Wikileaks.  A lot more countries censor porn and gambling sites.  I don't think this will make the US government blink.
Contrary to popular opinion it is not illegal to create your own currency. If they try to claim there is something illegal in the mere act of transferring value or bits of data they will look ridiculous.
Yeah this may be good for wikileaks, but not nocessarily good for Bitcoin. If bitcoin becomes publicly associated with wikileaks before going semi-mainstream, then it will be viewed by the "ruling class" (read: US government) as a tool for doing money laundering and another "gray" buisnesses.
By your logic the USA should forbid money.  At least on paper and metal, a lot of currencies, and money transfers to uncontrollable countries like Bermuda and Switzerland.  Perhaps go completely communist.  On a worldwide basis porn and gambling is a lot more controversial than Wikileaks.  Only China and Thailand censor Wikileaks.  A lot more countries censor porn and gambling sites.  I don't think this will make the US government blink.

I hope you're right.

Contrary to popular opinion it is not illegal to create your own currency. If they try to claim there is something illegal in the mere act of transferring value or bits of data they will look ridiculous.

Well, they already claim that something like "exchanging information about whereabouts of data" (BitTorrent sites) is illegal, so why not this ? I see no large difference.
You can send a paper letter to an address?

Apparently so. See "How do I send a letter?"
Well, they already claim that something like "exchanging information about whereabouts of data" (BitTorrent sites) is illegal, so why not this ? I see no large difference.
Exchanging information about the whereabouts of data is not illegal anywhere, as long as the data is legally acquired and distributed.  It's very much the same with any goods.
This may make bitcoin be considered by governments as a serious threat, and they will start fighting it too soon, holding back mainstream adoption.

Of course i know that they (governments) will start fighting bitcoin at some point, but the later, the better. If we go mainstream first, then such efforts will be probably futile, and BTC will probably be unstoppable without shutting down whole internet.

I think that governments trying to fight Bitcoin would actually help in adoption because of the Streisand effect.
Bitcoin makes it possible to secede from government. They dont like it when the slaves do that. Cheesy
You can send a paper letter to an address?

Apparently so. See "How do I send a letter?"


Hahaha

Quote
5. Via Postal Mail

You can post a donation via good old fashion postal mail to:

WikiLeaks
(or any suitable name likely to avoid interception in your country)
BOX 4080
Australia Post Office - University of Melbourne Branch
Victoria 3052
Australia

Thats about 2 hours away from me. I can post something for $0.50c so if you like write up something and link to it here and I will print it out.

An idea might be to set up a mybitcoin account and send them the login info with the letter.They would be more likely to accept if there is a few dollars already awaiting collection. Julian Assange is a fellow Aussie. Grin
Well, they already claim that something like "exchanging information about whereabouts of data" (BitTorrent sites) is illegal, so why not this ? I see no large difference.
Exchanging information about the whereabouts of data is not illegal anywhere, as long as the data is legally acquired and distributed.  It's very much the same with any goods.

Actually, if i tell you that "there is money in the safe of bank XXX", that is information about whereabouts too.
The same if I tell you that there is some heroin (which is itself illegal) in the police storage facitilities.

And all that informations are legal, the same as bittorrent should be legal, because it is only information about whereabouts of other information, which logically should be NEVER illegal.
But the governments together with media industry are trying hard to make BitTorrent (and all P2P in gerneral) illegal, in spite of obvious idiocy of such doing.
Bitcoin makes it possible to secede from government. They dont like it when the slaves do that. Cheesy

Why do i feel more and more convinced that the internet era will end governments in the form we know them ? Tongue
This may make bitcoin be considered by governments as a serious threat, and they will start fighting it too soon, ...
if they gonna fight it anyway, isn't it better the sooner they do?
or do you want to invest (time/money/effort) into it first and have them fight it later?
I was thinking about this overnight, Wikileaks has in-house cryptology and security experts; they could do an audit on the Bitcoin security and we could donate bitcon to pay for it\u0085 scratch my back and I\u0092ll scratch yours.
I don\u0092t know about the feasibility, but on the surface it sounds like it would be beneficial to both wikileaks and bitcoin.
This may make bitcoin be considered by governments as a serious threat, and they will start fighting it too soon, ...
if they gonna fight it anyway, isn't it better the sooner they do?
or do you want to invest (time/money/effort) into it first and have them fight it later?

The later the better.  The longer that governments wait to act, the stronger the bitcoin network grows, and the harder it becomes to harm it.
Well, they already claim that something like "exchanging information about whereabouts of data" (BitTorrent sites) is illegal, so why not this ? I see no large difference.
Exchanging information about the whereabouts of data is not illegal anywhere, as long as the data is legally acquired and distributed.  It's very much the same with any goods.

Actually, if i tell you that "there is money in the safe of bank XXX", that is information about whereabouts too.
The same if I tell you that there is some heroin (which is itself illegal) in the police storage facitilities.

And all that informations are legal, the same as bittorrent should be legal, because it is only information about whereabouts of other information, which logically should be NEVER illegal.
But the governments together with media industry are trying hard to make BitTorrent (and all P2P in gerneral) illegal, in spite of obvious idiocy of such doing.

Well,they can try. The problem for people who control things through having bigger guns is that you cant shoot bittorrent.
I was thinking about this overnight, Wikileaks has in-house cryptology and security experts; they could do an audit on the Bitcoin security and we could donate bitcon to pay for it\u0085 scratch my back and I\u0092ll scratch yours.
I don\u0092t know about the feasibility, but on the surface it sounds like it would be beneficial to both wikileaks and bitcoin.

I love this idea. Know that Julian Assange (the founder and head of Wikileaks) was a former Free Software programmer and wrote lots of cryptographic tools. He is very knowledgeable in this area himself and will understand Bitcoin technically.
Well, they already claim that something like "exchanging information about whereabouts of data" (BitTorrent sites) is illegal, so why not this ? I see no large difference.
Exchanging information about the whereabouts of data is not illegal anywhere, as long as the data is legally acquired and distributed.  It's very much the same with any goods.

Actually, that's not true.  Strong encryption, regardless of the nature of the information, is (rather rediculously) considered a 'munition' under US export law.  Depending on how a court looks at this law, it's either unconstitutional or the exportation of such encryption methods gets the sender sent to prison for violation of international trade bans on weapons.  So it's a pretty good thing that Bitcoin doesn't actually encrypt anything itself, but I'm not sure that a court would be savvy enough to know the differences.
Hey,

I wanted to send a letter to Wikileaks about Bitcoin since unfortunately they've had several incidents where their funds have been seized in the past.
http://wikileaks.org/media/support.html

Anyone know where to send a message to them?

Eh. Wikileaks is almost certainly run by the CIA anyway. I doubt they'll be interested.
Hey,

I wanted to send a letter to Wikileaks about Bitcoin since unfortunately they've had several incidents where their funds have been seized in the past.
http://wikileaks.org/media/support.html

Anyone know where to send a message to them?

Eh. Wikileaks is almost certainly run by the CIA anyway. I doubt they'll be interested.

Thanks Adam Curry.  Cheesy
Well,they can try. The problem for people who control things through having bigger guns is that you cant shoot bittorrent.

They can't shoot bitcoin or bittorrent itself, but they can discourage big buisnesses from accepting bitcoin. And that can easily hold mainstream adoption even for tens of years.
They (governments) are very good in this particularly. Large companies such as Google, Microsoft, Wal-mart etc are very susceptible to government regulations.
I think we should try again to get WikiLeaks to accept bitcoin donation, as a thanks for their latest leak.  Should we pool some money together to include with a letter?
I was thinking about this overnight, Wikileaks has in-house cryptology and security experts; they could do an audit on the Bitcoin security and we could donate bitcon to pay for it\u0085 scratch my back and I\u0092ll scratch yours.
I don\u0092t know about the feasibility, but on the surface it sounds like it would be beneficial to both wikileaks and bitcoin.
There is nothing to be audited as far as an academic cryptographer would be concerned. For that to happen, the specification of Bitcoin would have to be of better quality. That needs to happen first and only when that is done, there is a chance someone will want to take a serious look.

Only the author or a volunteer could publish a specification of sufficient quality. It's not acceptable as a Master thesis subject on a respectable university, because there is no research involved, it's just "work". The "coolness" factor is of no interest there.
I'm going to go online tonight and talk to some Wikileaks staff see if they can start the ball rolling on the insides.
I was thinking about this overnight, Wikileaks has in-house cryptology and security experts; they could do an audit on the Bitcoin security and we could donate bitcon to pay for it\u0085 scratch my back and I\u0092ll scratch yours.
I don\u0092t know about the feasibility, but on the surface it sounds like it would be beneficial to both wikileaks and bitcoin.
There is nothing to be audited as far as an academic cryptographer would be concerned. For that to happen, the specification of Bitcoin would have to be of better quality. That needs to happen first and only when that is done, there is a chance someone will want to take a serious look.
Satoshi's paper is a good introduction I'd think.

And another thing, I'm not sure about academic cryptographers, but in the 'real world' security auditing is regularly done on source code, or sometimes even without source code (either by reverse engineering or black box testing).
They can't shoot bitcoin or bittorrent itself, but they can discourage big buisnesses from accepting bitcoin. And that can easily hold mainstream adoption even for tens of years.
They (governments) are very good in this particularly. Large companies such as Google, Microsoft, Wal-mart etc are very susceptible to government regulations.

Screw big business. Google, Microsoft and Wal-Mart can all eat flaming death as far as I'm concerned, creatures of state privilege as they are.

My task, and where systems like Bitcoin can be helpful, is in making both government and big business irrelevant and obsolete.

Burn, Hollywod, burn.
I think we should try again to get WikiLeaks to accept bitcoin donation, as a thanks for their latest leak.  Should we pool some money together to include with a letter?

Currently all intelligence services are working to smash wikileaks. I would not want to suddenly posthumously come into Al-Qaeda.

As the cables were published, the White House released a statement condemning their release. "Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals."

Smiley
They can't shoot bitcoin or bittorrent itself, but they can discourage big buisnesses from accepting bitcoin. And that can easily hold mainstream adoption even for tens of years.
They (governments) are very good in this particularly. Large companies such as Google, Microsoft, Wal-mart etc are very susceptible to government regulations.

Screw big business. Google, Microsoft and Wal-Mart can all eat flaming death as far as I'm concerned, creatures of state privilege as they are.

My task, and where systems like Bitcoin can be helpful, is in making both government and big business irrelevant and obsolete.

Burn, Hollywod, burn.

I'm only saying that it may be difficult for bitcoin to go mainstream, but i seriously doubt they can stop adoption in general.
They would have to shut down the internet entirely, which is not easy (possible breaking ICANN is not enough, we can always use alternative DNS roots).


I think we should try again to get WikiLeaks to accept bitcoin donation, as a thanks for their latest leak.  Should we pool some money together to include with a letter?

Currently all intelligence services are working to smash wikileaks. I would not want to suddenly posthumously come into Al-Qaeda.

So far they have failed. I hope it stays that way.
Apparently someone did a massive ddos against wikileaks today.

In more inspiring news operation payback took down the warner bros website for a few hours and ifpi.org is currently unreachable.  Cheesy

The cable leak has been turned into a torrent file and is currently being mirrored on thousands of servers all over the world. The pirate bay's entire torrent database is available as a torrent you could fit on a 32gb flash drive.

All in all what has the government accomplished except to tread on an ants nest.  Lips sealed
Apparently someone did a massive ddos against wikileaks today.

Really is that so ? http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/ worked perfectly for me for the last 12 or 18 hours.
They can't shoot bitcoin or bittorrent itself, but they can discourage big buisnesses from accepting bitcoin. And that can easily hold mainstream adoption even for tens of years.
They (governments) are very good in this particularly. Large companies such as Google, Microsoft, Wal-mart etc are very susceptible to government regulations.

Screw big business. Google, Microsoft and Wal-Mart can all eat flaming death as far as I'm concerned, creatures of state privilege as they are.

My task, and where systems like Bitcoin can be helpful, is in making both government and big business irrelevant and obsolete.

I'm only saying that it may be difficult for bitcoin to go mainstream, but i seriously doubt they can stop adoption in general.
They would have to shut down the internet entirely, which is not easy (possible breaking ICANN is not enough, we can always use alternative DNS roots).

Gotcha. It's just a difference of emphasis, really.

I believe very strongly that a successful effort to supplant state money is going to be a ground-up effort. The big players in today's pink economy are going to be the last to adapt, kicking and screaming, to the new economic reality. For years before that happens, though, individuals, sole traders and small enterprises are going to be taking more and more of their income away as, simultaneously, a) the new monetary system's benefits impact more and more people, b) the inevitable institutional dumbness of big organizations makes them stumble and lag, and, c) continually eroding confidence in the state, its institutions and the entities that rely upon them drives more and more people into the new economy.

If you're reading this, you're part of the vanguard building the new economy and the new world. Mainstream acceptance will come by weight of numbers and via network effects. Who ever heard of Wikileaks or Twitter four years ago? And today we've got Admiral Chairman-of-the-Joint-Fucking-Chiefs Mullen tweeting his dismay over Wikileaks -- no doubt via the intermediation of an office full of PR analysts and bureaucrats, at extremely low relative impact.

BTW, Shadow, when they shut down the internet, I know how to build a new one. Want to help? Smiley
Quote
I think we should try again to get WikiLeaks to accept bitcoin donation, as a thanks for their latest leak.  Should we pool some money together to include with a letter?

Currently all intelligence services are working to smash wikileaks. I would not want to suddenly posthumously come into Al-Qaeda.

So far they have failed. I hope it stays that way.

As I understand the problem of state right now is that if wikileaks crew a long time does not appear in the network automation will send the AES key to wikileaks insurance file.

But damaging torture can not be withstand. I'm curious why they is still free and may be freely interviewed.
I believe very strongly that a successful effort to supplant state money is going to be a ground-up effort. The big players in today's pink economy are going to be the last to adapt, kicking and screaming, to the new economic reality. For years before that happens, though, individuals, sole traders and small enterprises are going to be taking more and more of their income away as, simultaneously, a) the new monetary system's benefits impact more and more people, b) the inevitable institutional dumbness of big organizations makes them stumble and lag, and, c) continually eroding confidence in the state, its institutions and the entities that rely upon them drives more and more people into the new economy.

I like that idea of Yours, however what i don't like about it is the amount of time it needs to become reality.
However i guess we don't have any choice, as the "old economy" will never adapt - I concede with you there. Bankers & other people who gain from the current system will never resign of their false fraudulent dream world, unless it totally collapses itself first.

BTW, Shadow, when they shut down the internet, I know how to build a new one. Want to help? Smiley

No need for that, they cannot really "shut down the internet". They would have to take all the physical equipment away from people - Linux servers, routers, switches, wires, cables etc. And that is not possible at all without some major disaster (nuclear war or something).

They cannot take our equipment from us, and with the equipment geeks will quickly build a new internet from the scratch. It's just a matter of little rewiring & changing configuration. Not so difficult as one would think.
But damaging torture can not be withstand. I'm curious why they is still free and may be freely interviewed.

That's probably because USA is not Soviet Russia (yet).
They started censorship, but there is still long way from that to becoming a true totalitarian country like Russia.

If they torture or murder somebody from wikileaks, they really risk getting their asses kicked on the international arena.
But damaging torture can not be withstand. I'm curious why they is still free and may be freely interviewed.

That's probably because USA is not Soviet Russia (yet).
They started censorship, but there is still long way from that to becoming a true totalitarian country like Russia.

Come on, kill a few people to save tens or hundreds? Trifling matter, since all countries do.

Quote
If they torture or murder somebody from wikileaks, they really risk getting their asses kicked on the international arena.

Again, remember the tortures at Guantanamo? The end justifies the means. Nobody stops reckon with the U.S. due to a couple of dead geeks.

Sad but true.
Again, remember the tortures at Guantanamo? The end justifies the means. Nobody stops reckon with the U.S. due to a couple of dead geeks.

Sad but true.

If that was so easy as You said, they would have done so long ago. Wikileaks is not here since yesterday.

Also, wikileaks has the encrypted insurance file already distrubuted among people long ago (God knows what it may contain ? perhaps 9/11 inside job proof ?). USA may be also afraid of that.
Again, remember the tortures at Guantanamo? The end justifies the means. Nobody stops reckon with the U.S. due to a couple of dead geeks.

Sad but true.

If that was so easy as You said, they would have done so long ago. Wikileaks is not here since yesterday.

But the pain in the ass it inflicts with the exponential progression.

Quote
Also, wikileaks has the encrypted insurance file already distrubuted among people long ago (God knows what it may contain ? perhaps 9/11 inside job proof ?). USA may be also afraid of that.


File without the key is garbage. State can find out who have the key and find out what conditions it will be published.
I like that idea of Yours, however what i don't like about it is the amount of time it needs to become reality.
However i guess we don't have any choice, as the "old economy" will never adapt - I concede with you there. Bankers & other people who gain from the current system will never resign of their false fraudulent dream world, unless it totally collapses itself first.
I don't like that aspect either. I want freedom by next Tuesday, damnit! This is an urgent problem!
[/quote]

BTW, Shadow, when they shut down the internet, I know how to build a new one. Want to help? Smiley

No need for that, they cannot really "shut down the internet". They would have to take all the physical equipment away from people - Linux servers, routers, switches, wires, cables etc. And that is not possible at all without some major disaster (nuclear war or something).

They cannot take our equipment from us, and with the equipment geeks will quickly build a new internet from the scratch. It's just a matter of little rewiring & changing configuration. Not so difficult as one would think.

It's a veeerry long shot, but US fiat could dictate all non-governmental telecom landings in the US and its territories shut down, and enforce it. A hundred soldiers at each of the two or three dozen major US traffic-switching nodes and the US internet implodes. A tactical nuke on MAE-West? YES WE CAN!

On top of that, the US military has the resources and intelligence necessary to sever the undersea fiber that carries almost all transcontinental internet traffic, plus the assets in place to accomplish immense comms disruption in all of the 100+ countries in which it maintains military bases.

Mind you, this is a doomsday scenario, and not likely. Destroying the internet would be suicide for the US government, as doing so would destroy Wall Street along with the remnant shreds of its reputation.

Anyway, if it ever comes to it, you and I will build a new internet. End-to-end crypto will be mandatory everywhere. All links, all nodes, all sessions. And DNS will be distributed. Smiley
Humane russian offer to torture a few people. Angry american are ready to unleash a nuclear war.

Well, who is the devil? Smiley
But damaging torture can not be withstand. I'm curious why they is still free and may be freely interviewed.

That's probably because USA is not Soviet Russia (yet).
They started censorship, but there is still long way from that to becoming a true totalitarian country like Russia.

Come on, kill a few people to save tens or hundreds? Trifling matter, since all countries do.

Killing them will make martyrs of them... And will make the thing much and much worse than it is now. Currently, wikileaks gets a lot of flak from people that don't completely agree with what they are doing. As long as the US stays reasonable, it is fairly easy to ignore the whole thing. No matter what information wikileaks reveals, people will forget about it.

But if it happens that a Wikileaks member disappears or is killed, there will be books, movies, conspiracy stories, political movements etc... the whole thing will be very hard to contain, and the last thing the USA wants is to tilt the global opinion even more against them.


No, I brought the murder as an example. In this case, nobody should be killed.

They need just threat of torture. Then the confiscation of computers, information, check sources, searches and arrests. And it's over.
They need just threat of torture. Then the confiscation of computers, information, check sources, searches and arrests. And it's over.
Yes but if they are tortured and they live to tell about it, it will have the same effect. Especially if they are abducted from some foreign European country. It's not like wikileaks is based in the US, it's an international organization with members everywhere. Also, wikileaks is a non-violent organisation, so using violence against them will be quite shocking (at least to European people), even more shocking than the leaks. It would be a media circus!



Maybe somebody should sell robots that record activities of government agents for bitcoins.


We could have...

"YOUR LITTLE BROTHERS ARE WATCHING YOU!"

Plus, camera tend to prevent abuse of authority by policemen.
Maybe somebody should sell robots that record activities of government agents for bitcoins.

[...]

Plus, camera tend to prevent abuse of authority by policemen.

I've long believed that if we are to have government officials, they should be tailed 24/7 by public sensor robots. Or ridiculously hot young Asian boys. Either one.
File without the key is garbage. State can find out who have the key and find out what conditions it will be published.

Surely a lot of people have the key.

Good luck finding them on TOR or freenet.
(FYI: TOR is completely untrackable when connecting from one TOR node, to another TOR node, contrary to connecting to/from "normal internet" from/to TOR).
No, I brought the murder as an example. In this case, nobody should be killed.

They need just threat of torture. Then the confiscation of computers, information, check sources, searches and arrests. And it's over.

As witchspace already pointed out, things that are easy in Soviet Russia are not necessarily so easy in "normal" semi-democratic world.

There are many problems:
1. The matryr thing - as explained by witchspace
2. Streissand Effect (similiar to creating martyrs). The more You want to censor something , the more people will download it.
3. The wikileaks insurance (random people around the world may have the key and they will release it when time comes
4. Bad PR for USA if they start shooting people from wikileaks. I mean what would be the difference between them and Russia/China if they do this ? None. This could further break diplomatic relations with (semi)democratic countries.
... Soviet Russia ...

In Soviet Russia, coin bit you!

(sorry)
Maybe somebody should sell robots that record activities of government agents for bitcoins.

[...]

Plus, camera tend to prevent abuse of authority by policemen.

I've long believed that if we are to have government officials, they should be tailed 24/7 by public sensor robots. Or ridiculously hot young Asian boys. Either one.

haha that is a great idea.

These people think they can hide amongst the beauracracy and claim "im just doing my job". Ive got news for them.
They forget that they can be tortured too.

 Wink
Anyone know where to send a message to them?

Sorry.   Did we ever find any contact information for Wikileaks, other than their postal mailbox....?

I've added Wikileaks to our "target list" on BitcoinPromote.com
I have some of the staff on IRC.
I have some of the staff on IRC.

Where? Freenode?
This does not seem like the best time to be creating some sort of wikileaks-bitcoin connection.
They run there own anonymous IRC server.
chat.wikileaks.org port 9999 i think or the secure one.
No, I brought the murder as an example. In this case, nobody should be killed.

They need just threat of torture. Then the confiscation of computers, information, check sources, searches and arrests. And it's over.

As witchspace already pointed out, things that are easy in Soviet Russia are not necessarily so easy in "normal" semi-democratic world.

There are many problems:
1. The matryr thing - as explained by witchspace
2. Streissand Effect (similiar to creating martyrs). The more You want to censor something , the more people will download it.
3. The wikileaks insurance (random people around the world may have the key and they will release it when time comes
4. Bad PR for USA if they start shooting people from wikileaks. I mean what would be the difference between them and Russia/China if they do this ? None. This could further break diplomatic relations with (semi)democratic countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp (grep torture)

You joined to protest on the streets or spent at home with your computer?
You joined to protest on streets or spent at home with your computer?
Can you explain the purpose of going into the streets? A minority will only go into the streets. Even if a majority would go into the streets (which has never happened before, AFAIK), the government will simply state that it was a minority.

Before the government had good riot control weapons demonstrations had the option of escalating and actually overthrowing the government in the worst case. That simply is not the case anymore. People have no weapons and are literally without power.

The same money they pay in taxes will get them killed if they oppose the government too much.
Err Huge protest in Greece in 2008. Huge protest now in UK over the student cuts. I think they know its a majority and also the France strikes were pretty popular. Your minority government cover up idea is not real.
Err Huge protest in Greece in 2008. Huge protest now in UK over the student cuts. I think they know its a majority and also the France strikes were pretty popular. Your minority government cover up idea is not real.

When will all these tuition strikers learn about Wikiversity?
Err Huge protest in Greece in 2008. Huge protest now in UK over the student cuts. I think they know its a majority and also the France strikes were pretty popular. Your minority government cover up idea is not real.
The truck drivers in Greece got fucked over in the end. The people in France lost. Don't think it will go different in the UK. As far as I am concerned you are only supporting my point.

The same money they pay in taxes will get them killed if they oppose the government too much.

Young man, you seriously overestimate the power of an unpopular government.  The greatest tool of control available to any government is the meme that the government represents the will of the people, followed closely by the meme that the government's collective force exceeds that of those who would oppose it.  Vary rarely has either of those conditions actually been proven true once put to the test.
Protests are weak and least likely to do anything.

All you do is put up signs and gather in a large rally.....that does nothing.
Protests are weak and least likely to do anything.

All you do is put up signs and gather in a large rally.....that does nothing.

Mostly, but not quite.  Rallies also help to combat the first meme that I mentioned above by dispelling the belief that those who quietly oppose the ruling class are part of a impotently small minority. 
Fine
Spanish Civil War.
Fine
Spanish Civil War.
I already said that there was a time in which demonstrations could have consequences for those in power. That time is over.

Another example: look at the nuclear waste transports through Germany. It took 75 hours to travel a distance which should be more like 10 hours or so. The only thing which was displayed is that there are a lot of people that don't like nuclear waste, but the objective of the government was still achieved.


You joined to protest on streets or spent at home with your computer?
Can you explain the purpose of going into the streets?

The aim is to show that you have a lot people and you are committed.

So. You're not going to deny human rights violations on the Guantanamo base ? And nothing happened!

I think if something happens with wikileaks crew nothing to happens too. The more that citizens are also no consensus on the good they do or not and it is also advantageous to the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp (grep torture)

You joined to protest on the streets or spent at home with your computer?
Well, those are prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It would be different with a citizen of our own country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp (grep torture)

You joined to protest on the streets or spent at home with your computer?
Well, those are prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It would be different with a citizen of our own country.



Assange are also not citizen of the U.S.!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp (grep torture)

You joined to protest on the streets or spent at home with your computer?
Well, those are prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It would be different with a citizen of our own country.



Assange are also not citizen of the U.S.!
I know Smiley I'm neither. But if the U.S. went kidnapping people here and then torturing them, we'd be very shocked.
You joined to protest on streets or spent at home with your computer?
Can you explain the purpose of going into the streets?

The aim is to show that you have a lot people and you are committed.
Committed to do what? If you cannot touch the leaders in a meaningful way, it is pointless.

Let's take a look at Iran. A large part of the world does not agree with their actions of developing the exact same technology they already have. The CIA could demonstrate, but they can also just blow up a few nuclear scientists (which is likely what they have done). The credo "might is right" of the Nazi's is spot on. No might, no right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp (grep torture)

You joined to protest on the streets or spent at home with your computer?
Well, those are prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It would be different with a citizen of our own country.



Assange are also not citizen of the U.S.!
I know Smiley I'm neither. But if the U.S. went kidnapping people here and then torturing them, we'd be very shocked.

Ok, I agree: torturing of dirty afghans is ok, but australians is savagery.
You joined to protest on streets or spent at home with your computer?
Can you explain the purpose of going into the streets?

The aim is to show that you have a lot people and you are committed.
Committed to do what? If you cannot touch the leaders in a meaningful way, it is pointless.

To starting an armed struggle against the authorities. In this case, blood is spilled.

The street protests means that.

To starting an armed struggle against the authorities. In this case, blood is spilled.

The street protests means that.

If you want to die against military trained killers, good luck with that.

What you need to do is:

1. Undermine their credibility.
2. Reduce dependence on the state.
3. Increase your credibility.

Rebellions will likely be crushed. Even if you succeed, a power-hungry demagogue will rise to power and make your life even worser. Don't count on it.
You joined to protest on streets or spent at home with your computer?
Can you explain the purpose of going into the streets?

The aim is to show that you have a lot people and you are committed.
Committed to do what? If you cannot touch the leaders in a meaningful way, it is pointless.

To starting an armed struggle against the authorities. In this case, blood is spilled.

The street protests means that.
Oh, I imagine the government must be really scared of trying to attack its population with the most modern weapons money can buy. An armed struggle will just destabilize the country, but will not have any effect on the government if they want (look at dictatorships), unless the military decides to stop supporting the government (which is why unmanned vehicles are getting so popular).

We are going to a society in which the president can select all the demonstrators from a database (automatically based on camera data, of course), press one button and kill all of them. This might be done by sending missiles, but it could also be done by analysing the DNA, finding a biochemical agent which mysteriously kills a particular part of the population of just one specific individual (they can create flying machines the size of a musquito already that no doubt could also be equipped with some untraceable poison). You can do it slowly enough, and the people will never notice what hit them. You also don't have to completely kill them, you just have to weaken them. For an example of that look at the presidential candidate of some Eastern-Europe country that was poisoned.

This might sound radical, but I am not the one who invented the every increasing more efficient weaponry on which the US (and other nations) spend about a trillion dollars a year. Everything in the previous paragraph is technically already possible, and 80% is probably already implemented or could be operational in a year after the system is desired. Systems of control like that simply have never existed before in history.

In a country in which there exists an asymmetric power balance between large parts of the population and the government, you get tyranny. I am not suggesting that everyone should have access to their own nuclear bomb, but owning a gun or even a tank (if lots of people in the community vouch for you for example) should be perfectly reasonable and perhaps even mandatory.

To starting an armed struggle against the authorities. In this case, blood is spilled.

The street protests means that.

If you want to die against military trained killers, good luck with that.

Willingness to die is not the same thing that die.

To starting an armed struggle against the authorities. In this case, blood is spilled.

The street protests means that.

If you want to die against military trained killers, good luck with that.

Willingness to die is not the same thing that die.

A million thing can go wrong...
I feel a disturbance in the force...

Is it a revolution coming ?
I feel a disturbance in the force...

Is it a revolution coming ?
I think you need to check your Feel-Oh-Meter.  Wink
Talk to one of the members on the board of directors who has met with Julian he said he likes the idea and will pass it around.
Talk to one of the members on the board of directors who has met with Julian he said he likes the idea and will pass it around.

Thats great!. Did you see the asshats added him to the interpol most wanted list? Some stupid politician even asked for his execution for treason. The idiotic part is that hes not even American  Undecided   Stupid populism is stupid.

Ive heard the next leak will embarrass a major bank in the US .  It would be ironic if they started accepting bitcoin before that happens. Cheesy

It would be awesome.
Fortunately, bitcoin is a distributed system, so it doesn't matter if they take out   Undecided
Paypal just blocked them, and they're trying to get other US banks do the same. This would be a great moment to open bitcoin donations.
as much as what's going on with wikileaks is not right,
do we really think it makes sense to push bitcoins into wikileaks is making sense in the current environment?
i am scared that this poses a big risk for bitcoins to consciously go against too many and too big enemies

It would potentially be much better to first make bitcoinbe far more widespread and accepted in a safe way vs going against the big ones already now
as much as what's going on with wikileaks is not right,
do we really think it makes sense to push bitcoins into wikileaks is making sense in the current environment?
i am scared that this poses a big risk for bitcoins to consciously go against too many and too big enemies

It would potentially be much better to first make bitcoinbe far more widespread and accepted in a safe way vs going against the big ones already now

One thing I have learned in this community:

You can't prevent bitcoiners from doing whatever they want. They throw caution to the wind.
exactly this is both, a great benefit and also a great danger .
in the wikileaks case its a great danger.

As this is an open and free forum, I can at least voice my concerns
Great danger? But wait, isn't bitcoin invincible?! (Well, perhaps if it adopts random ports, protocol obfuscation, DHT bootstrapping...)
Lot of little Davids versus a few Goliaths. What can the worst happen?
in the wikileaks case its a great danger.

+1, I agree completely

We know that private and government forces are actively tracing, and trying to shut down, sources of wikileaks funding through all available means of pressure.

Does it make sense to actively give multiple world governments incentive to shut down bitcoin?

No matter how symathetic wikileaks' cause...  if you care about bitcoin's success, the answer is no.
worst case for me would be that bitcoin businesses would be forbidden .
Even if this would be wrong this would be the end of making bitcoins what most of us want.
then there will only be a handful of davids left but overall bitcoins would be forgotten soon
in the wikileaks case its a great danger.

+1, I agree completely

We know that private and government forces are actively tracing, and trying to shut down, sources of wikileaks funding through all available means of pressure.

Does it make sense to actively give multiple world governments incentive to shut down bitcoin?

If you care about bitcoin's success, the answer is no.

That is exactly the issue.

I am so worried about the intent behind this wikileaks thread that, if i could, would only want to have "legallysafe" bitcoins in my wallet that are not connected to wikileaks or any other illegal matter.
those who want to play this aggressive game against governments can do it, but i dont want to be connected to that.
I am so worried about the intent behind this wikileaks thread that, if i could, would only want to have "legallysafe" bitcoins in my wallet that are not connected to wikileaks or any other illegal matter.
That's just stupid.  I don't want to have any drug money in my wallet, but that is hard.  99% of all bank notes are tainted with cocaine, according to a british study.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/464200.stm

Don't donate to Wikileaks if you don't want to.  Wikileaks is perfectly legal in most countries.  Only The US government, China and a few arab states takes measures to sensor Wikileaks.
There is nothing wrong with revealing the truth (i.e. from Wikileaks. In this respect, I like a lot the concept behind Wikileaks).

All I am saying is that it is suicide for bitcoins to connect with Wikileaks today, where many big powers are against.

The time is not ripe yet.


It's like a runner who wants to run a marathon. He better trains a bit before trying.
I also think that they try to ban bitcoin business. But I also remember that monitoring of financial flows for combat with organized crime came only 50 years ago and it is unnatural. And that monitoring works worse and worse every year.
In any case, I think this is the happiest opportunity that happens in any very successful project
This is very well-written, and he is very well spoken...

I believe very strongly that a successful effort to supplant state money is going to be a ground-up effort. The big players in today's pink economy are going to be the last to adapt, kicking and screaming, to the new economic reality. For years before that happens, though, individuals, sole traders and small enterprises are going to be taking more and more of their income away as, simultaneously, a) the new monetary system's benefits impact more and more people, b) the inevitable institutional dumbness of big organizations makes them stumble and lag, and, c) continually eroding confidence in the state, its institutions and the entities that rely upon them drives more and more people into the new economy.

If you're reading this, you're part of the vanguard building the new economy and the new world. Mainstream acceptance will come by weight of numbers and via network effects. Who ever heard of Wikileaks or Twitter four years ago? And today we've got Admiral Chairman-of-the-Joint-Fucking-Chiefs Mullen tweeting his dismay over Wikileaks -- no doubt via the intermediation of an office full of PR analysts and bureaucrats, at extremely low relative impact.

BTW, Shadow, when they shut down the internet, I know how to build a new one. Want to help? Smiley

I agree 100%.
in the wikileaks case its a great danger.

+1, I agree completely

We know that private and government forces are actively tracing, and trying to shut down, sources of wikileaks funding through all available means of pressure.

Does it make sense to actively give multiple world governments incentive to shut down bitcoin?

No matter how symathetic wikileaks' cause...  if you care about bitcoin's success, the answer is no.

This is a very good point.

"PayPal Freezes WikiLeaks Account"   http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/paypal-wikileaks/

We must weigh...

---> the potential financial benefit bitcoin would give to wikileaks at This moment

vs.

---> the potential demise of bitcoin itself (or at least the impact of bitcoin being mortally wounded at this very early stage of its existence.)

I think that -- no matter how righteous anyone may feel about the work wikileaks does...

1.  They don't need that much money to do what they do.
2.  What they could potentially get via bitcoin at the moment wouldn't be a drop in the bucket of what they're receiving via other private means.
3.  Nothing wikileaks is doing is WORTH the potential demise of Bitcoin.

We don't need to make Bitcoin, or each of US for that matter, into targets of world governments.   Especially not so early in Bitcoin's life.

Wikileaks is probably being funded, at least partially, by other governments with interests in leaking damaging information.

But in any case, Wikileaks probably has a bankroll larger than the ENTIRE bitcoin economy at this point in time.

Also, when you create a new Iron Man suit in your lab, you don't take on all the militaries of the world on your first trip out on the "test track".   Bitcoin is still in "beta", remember.  Smiley

I say, we MUST get Bitcoin accepted at Starbucks and the local grocery store....  BEFORE it gets accepted at Wikileaks.

Then, we'll have a chance.

Starbucks.   Anyone have contact info for them?
very well explained
+1
Your torment understandable but really nothing does depend from us. For WikiLeaks crew does not cost anything to setup the client, to generate the address and publish it.

So we must just pray to our gods that they may take our point of view.
By the way, the greatest benefit Bitcoin could give to Wikileaks...  MIGHT be in them using Bitcoin PRIVATELY.... not PUBLICLY.

They could ( / can / will / are / ? ) use Bitcoin to transmit their funds easily across all borders, exchange them into all currencies as needed, and even Back Them Up electronically (as long as their wallet.dat file is encrypted too).   There's no need for them to advertise publicly that they are using Bitcoin.... for them to benefit from all the advantages of using Bitcoin privately/secretly/anonymously.

It would be Much Better for Everyone Involved if they do NOT express their support for Bitcoin publicly...  and they just go about using it very privately.    (And who's to say that they aren't already...?)
Yes, there are arguments for not pushing bitcoins as a solution for orgs such as wikileaks.

On the other hand, the same crowd that is attracted to sites such as wikileaks will be attracted to a distributed currency, it would also be a way to gain popularity, coders, crypto people auditing the protocol, and so on. That way, the project can grow.

Everything is a compromise...
I suspect the first targets if Bitcoin got associated with Wikileaks would not be miners or participants, but the money changers. People buying and selling Bitcoins for dollars and other currencies would be natural targets for shutting down. Without them, Bitcoin is back to being play money.
Yes, there are arguments for not pushing bitcoins as a solution for orgs such as wikileaks.

On the other hand, the same crowd that is attracted to sites such as wikileaks will be attracted to a distributed currency, it would also be a way to gain popularity, coders, crypto people auditing the protocol, and so on. That way, the project can grow.

Everything is a compromise...


Problem is...  It would attract 9 world governments, along with their Intelligence Services (thier CIA's), trying to shut down Bitcoin.... for every one new crypto coder supporter.

Let's achieve this result through POSITIVE publicity....    not NEGATIVE publicity.

Do we want Bitcoin to be known forever in slang as, "Wilileaks Money"?    No.

Let's get Whole Foods, and McDonalds, and Startbucks, and Cocacola vending machines....  to accept Bitcoin.

In fact, the BEST POSITIVE publicity is not even businesses....  It is famous charities!

Red Cross, UNICEF, United Way, etc.    Would you rather Bitcoin be known as "wikileaks money"....   or "the money large charites use for donations"....?

Think of all these ideas from a PR perspective.   Bitcoin needs SUPPORTERS.    It needs to make no enemies....  not yet.   It's too weak to take on enemies right now.
It wasn't exactly frozen.  It was restricted, and Wikileaks can't take donations directly via PayPal anymore.  Hardly a problem, since several other organizations take donations to Wikileaks.  No funds are confiscated in any country or bank, as far as public information goes anyway.  None of the newspapers publishing the leaks in full have gotten their bank accounts frozen either.  Their operation is perfectly legal in every country with free speech.  This is nothing but a publicity stunt for PayPal, and it would be a better publicity stunt for the Bitcoin community to to the opposite.

-1.  I think you are overreacting.
It wasn't exactly frozen.  It was restricted, and Wikileaks can't take donations directly via PayPal anymore.  Hardly a problem, since several other organizations take donations to Wikileaks.  No funds are confiscated in any country or bank, as far as public information goes anyway.  None of the newspapers publishing the leaks in full have gotten their bank accounts frozen either.  Their operation is perfectly legal in every country with free speech.  This is nothing but a publicity stunt for PayPal, and it would be a better publicity stunt for the Bitcoin community to to the opposite.

-1.  I think you are overreacting.

This is not true.  When PayPal shuts down your account, they TAKE and KEEP all of the money in it.   There is no refund.   Never.   Never.    Their email tells you that "there is no process to appeal".   PayPay is owned by eBay.   ....and the "e" in eBay stands for "evil".   Google "PayPay" it if you don't believe me.

Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.
Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.
Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.

Wikileaks are not the people that leaked the information though. They are simply a press organization that likes transparency and does not take sides with any government or big corporation. They got sent the information and they do what any media would do, they publish. Which is, in my opinion, very refreshing and good for democracy.

Ignore all the fuss about traitors, terrorists, and other distorting comments. Those people don't understand it, don't repeat them.

Ignore all the fuss about traitors, terrorists, and other distorting comments. Those people don't understand it, don't repeat them.


Security is not made by invading foreign nation and inadvertently increasing heroin production in the process, inadvertently killing more Americans through heroin overdose...
Fortunately, bitcoin is a distributed system, so it doesn't matter if they take out   Undecided

I meant to write: "Fortunately, Wikileaks is a distributed organization, so it doesn't matter if they take out the current "leader", Assange."
Looking on the bright side, if Bitcoin did get known as the Wikileaks currency, attacked by governments all over the world, at least we'd get our Wikipedia page back!
It wasn't exactly frozen.  It was restricted, [...]
-1.  I think you are overreacting.
This is not true.  When PayPal shuts down your account, they TAKE and KEEP all of the money in it.
True, but according to the PayPal blog, it wasn't closed.  It was restricted.  It cannot receive donations, but it doesn't say anywhere it was closed, shut down or confiscated.
Quote
Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.
Wikileaks have not stolen any secrets or signed any confidentiality agreements.  They are just printing documents given to them by other people.  The people who gave the secret documents to Wikileaks were probably doing something illegal.  Not Wikileaks, or the newspapers which printed the leaked documents before they were available from Wikileaks.  So, why aren't the editors of the newspapers arrested, threatened to be murdered, getting their servers and DNS shut down., accounts closed, etc?  Because what they are doing is perfectly legal, and so is Wikileaks.  Just unpopular among some who believes the press should write what the government tells them to write.
Looking on the bright side, if Bitcoin did get known as the Wikileaks currency, attacked by governments all over the world, at least we'd get our Wikipedia page back!

This is so true.  There certainly wouldn't be a shortage of "reliable sources" about Bitcoins at that point.  I think it would likely show up on the front page of most newspapers and be talked about extensively on both radio talk shows and the other broadcast networks too.

For myself, I'm getting to the point to say "bring it on" in regards to Wikileaks.  Note that I'm using my real name here instead of a psuedonym and I'm willing to personally say "bring it on" in terms of being associated with Bitcoins as a project.  I've had police come into my house without my permission already and do all kind of stupid stuff, so for me that line being crossed has already happened.  I am also connected to enough people politically that if something was to happen to me that it would be noted and things would happen too.

It is the morally correct thing to be supporting Wikileaks, and if they'll take a few of my bitcoins, I not only want to donate but to let the world know that they can donate to Wikileaks through Bitcoins as well.

I can't speak for everybody here in the Bitcoins community but I am speaking for myself on this matter, and I'm not afraid of anything that the U.S. government might do to me if I was associated with backing Wikileaks financially.  If anything, it would show that I no longer live under a constitutional government any more.  If the U.S. government wants to tip their hand to expose themselves in that way, so be it.  If the U.S. government kills me or puts me in jail, I'll certainly set a way for this community to find out.  I really don't think it would come to that either, but I don't care if it did.

If I have to "vote" on this matter, I would encourage the Bitcoin community to take up the plate like we did with the EFF and encourage Wikileaks to put up a Bitcoin address on their website for donations.  It would bring in some new blood into the Bitcoin community regardless, and it might be beneficial to Wikileaks as well.  Leave it to Wikileaks to see if they want to use Bitcoins or not.  In terms of governmental review of Bitcoins, we know that is going to happen sooner or later, so why are we fighting that inevitable result?  Anything other than a low-key investigation is only going to make more people interested in Bitcoins, which is only going to help the project even more.  It can't be killed as a project, only slowed down a little bit in its growth at this point and more likely its adoption would be accelerated by any kind of publicity that would happen.

The only possible concern I would have is over how sound the protocol itself is right now.  If anything, a major flux of new people into Bitcoins would help there too, and the worst that could happen is that Bitcoins itself would be broken in some way where a new cryptocurrency would have to be created fixing the problems of Bitcoins.  It is the idea of cryptocurrency that would then persist, and it is incredibly hard to censor an idea.

Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.

-- Robert S. Horning
Logan, Utah
"Fortunately, Wikileaks is a distributed organization, so it doesn't matter if they take out the current "leader", Assange."

Well, it does matter a bit if you happen to be Assange.

Interestingly, it turns out there is some Wikileaks infighting, probably upset at Assange's leadership:

Quote
Assange: That is a procedural issue. Don\u0092t play games with me.

Domscheit-Berg: stop shooting at messengers

Assange: I\u0092ve had it.

Domscheit-Berg: likewise, and that doesnt go just for me

Assange: If you do not answer the question, you will be removed.

Domscheit-Berg: you are not anyones king or god

Domscheit-Berg: and you\u0092re not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now

Domscheit-Berg: a leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself

Domscheit-Berg: you are doing the exact opposite

Domscheit-Berg: you behave like some kind of emporer or slave trader

Assange: You are suspended for one month, effective immediately.

Domscheit-Berg: haha

Domscheit-Berg: right

Domscheit-Berg: because of what?

Domscheit-Berg: and who even says that?

Domscheit-Berg: you? another adhoc decision?

Assange: If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday.

So maybe a leaderless organization is the better direction for WikiLeaks to go?  Opinions?

...

I can't speak for everybody here in the Bitcoins community but I am speaking for myself on this matter, and I'm not afraid of anything that the U.S. government might do to me if I was associated with backing Wikileaks financially.  If anything, it would show that I no longer live under a constitutional government any more.  If the U.S. government wants to tip their hand to expose themselves in that way, so be it.  If the U.S. government kills me or puts me in jail, I'll certainly set a way for this community to find out.  I really don't think it would come to that either, but I don't care if it did.

...

Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.

Amen, RHorning!  As The Voluntaryists argue, Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power.  If the U.S. government wants to tip their hand to expose themselves in that way, so be it.  Without an aura of moral legitimacy, they will be seen as the gang that they truly are.

So maybe a leaderless organization is the better direction for WikiLeaks to go?  Opinions?


There's alway a leader of some kind. It might be a person with a high reputation.
Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.

Thanks for being willing to helpfully impose risk upon others.  For people who are just starting to build businesses on bitcoin, this could be devastating to their new business.

And it could permanently marginalize bitcoin, keeping it out of the mainstream for good.  Is that really the end result the bitcoin community most desires?

Some of us are working hard to build tools and programs that encourage businesses to invest their time, money and energy into bitcoin.  It would be very sad to see all that go down the drain.
Success is not guaranteed; access risk; act wisely; remember knowledge gaps.

It's funny to see a miniarchist libertarian say "Bring it on" when anarchists like me are advising cautions.

It look like I am right, people throw cautions to the wind.
Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.

Thanks for being willing to helpfully impose risk upon others.  For people who are just starting to build businesses on bitcoin, this could be devastating to their new business.

And it could permanently marginalize bitcoin, keeping it out of the mainstream for good.  Is that really the end result the bitcoin community most desires?

Some of us are working hard to build tools and programs that encourage businesses to invest their time, money and energy into bitcoin.  It would be very sad to see all that go down the drain.

What would go down the drain?  Really, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill and if you want to stay anonymous I'm not necessarily stopping you from doing that either.  Some are willing to stand up and others want to hide in the background.  I choose to stand in front if that is necessary.  Many are participating on this project using a pseudonym, and if they are very paranoid through a Proxy IP address and using https for communications to this forum and perhaps taking other precautions.  I am not, because I'm not afraid.  I'm not necessarily against anonymity and even would encourage it for those who find it necessary for whatever reason they have.

In short, I don't wish to impose this risk upon others but I am willing to take this risk for myself.

I also fail to see how this would marginalize Bitcoin as a software project either.  The best thing, from a political perspective, would be to completely ignore that Bitcoin even exists at all.  If that is marginalizing Bitcion, how is that different from what is going on right now?

I suppose the hope here is that Bitcoin will be used by a bunch of people first (it already is) and that perhaps Bitcoin can be known for doing other things than financing Wikileaks.  I am not encouraging that the main page of bitcoin.org have a huge banner across the top "the official fundraising method for Wikileaks".  We don't have to tie ourselves that closely, and anybody who checks out Bitcoin will discover what it is.... an alternative to PayPal and other on-line financial transaction systems with perhaps some other interesting benefits as well.  Is that necessarily a bad thing?  Is there anything new that hasn't been said repeatedly elsewhere?  If you were trying to stay off people's radar, publicity should be avoided altogether.

This is also about doing what is right, and this is the right thing to do.  I get the arguments advocating caution, but sometimes you also have to take a stand on an issue too.  There is a down side, and talking about concerns over that perhaps is useful.

Success is not guaranteed; access risk; act wisely; remember knowledge gaps.

It's funny to see a miniarchist libertarian say "Bring it on" when anarchists like me are advising cautions.

It look like I am right, people throw cautions to the wind.

I agree, success is not guaranteed.  Sometimes you have to take some risks and sometimes do so with imperfect knowledge.  It is a golden opportunity right now for the Bitcoin community, however, to encourage Wikileaks to accept Bitcoin donations and I personally don't think the extra publicity that we may or may not get from having a link on the Wikileaks website would necessarily be a bad thing.  There isn't even any sort of guarantee that Wikileaks will even take Bitcoins if they are being offered.

But seriously, what are the downsides anyway?  Do you really think the "Men in Black" are going to shut down Bitcoin?  Really?  If Bitcoin is that fragile and vulnerable to attack, what are we doing anyway and why is it so consistently being defended?

This is also about doing what is right, and this is the right thing to do.  I get the arguments advocating caution, but sometimes you also have to take a stand on an issue too.  There is a down side, and talking about concerns over that perhaps is useful.

Your stand could impact my money, and everyone else's.  Don't pretend your actions could impact only you.
If Bitcoin is that fragile and vulnerable to attack, what are we doing anyway and why is it so consistently being defended?

Exactly.  I feel the same way.  Survival of the fittest.  If bitcoin has some fundamental flaw, it will not be able to survive a government attack.  Then it is better to weed it out now, so we aren't wasting our time promoting something that will not work, and can instead devote our resources and time to other efforts that hopefully will work and to other currencies to build up the alternative economy.  

This is also about doing what is right, and this is the right thing to do.  I get the arguments advocating caution, but sometimes you also have to take a stand on an issue too.  There is a down side, and talking about concerns over that perhaps is useful.

Your stand could impact my money, and everyone else's.  Don't pretend your actions could impact only you.

I have spent many hours reading through the bitcoin forums about its robustness and resiliency to attacks...asking so many questions "What if the government does X?", and I have come to the conclusion that basically, bitcoin can't be shut down absent shutting down the internet.  But the government wouldn't likely not shut down the internet, since they depend on tax revenue for their operations.  If bitcoin has some flaw, then we need to resolve it now.
If bitcoin has some flaw, then we need to resolve it now.

I suggest assembling a tiger team or make security bounties or do both.

But, you have to remember that the security of the network also come from the strength of people running it. So, wikileaks might add more legit computing power rather than cheating nodes, or not. It's hard to know.

Brute-force attacks are least likely. We probably have some bugs lurking in the system.
If Bitcoin is that fragile and vulnerable to attack, what are we doing anyway and why is it so consistently being defended?

Exactly.  I feel the same way.  Survival of the fittest.  If bitcoin has some fundamental flaw, it will not be able to survive a government attack.  Then it is better to weed it out now, so we aren't wasting our time promoting something that will not work, and can instead devote our resources and time to other efforts that hopefully will work and to other currencies to build up the alternative economy.  

This is also about doing what is right, and this is the right thing to do.  I get the arguments advocating caution, but sometimes you also have to take a stand on an issue too.  There is a down side, and talking about concerns over that perhaps is useful.

Your stand could impact my money, and everyone else's.  Don't pretend your actions could impact only you.

I have spent many hours reading through the bitcoin forums about its robustness and resiliency to attacks...asking so many questions "What if the government does X?", and I have come to the conclusion that basically, bitcoin can't be shut down absent shutting down the internet.  But the government wouldn't likely not shut down the internet, since they depend on tax revenue for their operations.  If bitcoin has some flaw, then we need to resolve it now.
I approve of this message. If Bitcoin blows up, a new system can be build without this flaw. The probability of Bitcoin _not_ containing some fatal flaw is pretty small (as almost all software has flaws).

All Wikileaks needs to do is say "Following the PayPal incident we have decided to accept a new kind of payment, Bitcoins. You can find more information on donating via Bitcoins on URL <some suitable URL hosted by Wikileaks>.  "

They could post it in their news section or something like that. It is possible that main stream media would pick it up if they would contrast Bitcoin with PayPal like that.
Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.
Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.



One that note, I smell a rat.  I've worked for the beast, and there is no way whatever that a private is going to have access 1) to top-secret communications 2) unmonitored 3) on a secure computer 4) with a cd-rom drive 5) that has access to secrets not in his own section.

There is no way this kid did this.
in the wikileaks case its a great danger.

+1, I agree completely

We know that private and government forces are actively tracing, and trying to shut down, sources of wikileaks funding through all available means of pressure.

Does it make sense to actively give multiple world governments incentive to shut down bitcoin?

If you care about bitcoin's success, the answer is no.

That is exactly the issue.

I am so worried about the intent behind this wikileaks thread that, if i could, would only want to have "legallysafe" bitcoins in my wallet that are not connected to wikileaks or any other illegal matter.
those who want to play this aggressive game against governments can do it, but i dont want to be connected to that.

Agreed, i have already spoken about this in some other wikileaks-related topic (or perhaps this one ?).

Engaging in wikileaks before Bitcoin has a chance to unfold its wings may kill it.
Engaging in wikileaks before Bitcoin has a chance to unfold its wings may kill it.

It may allows us to unfold our wings.

Beside, what is done, done. Bob182 already talked to a person within the wikileak organization.

But there are much safer route to unfolding our wings.
We should be doing something to get a full security audit done on bitcoins. Something we can point to that is third party and not connected to bitcoin in any way. Now who do we contact to get this done?

This should be our first priority rather than engaging in political statements.  Smiley


Edit: Bradley Manning supposedly leaked the documents NOT Julian Assange.

the US government cant even beat a few  fighters in the afghanistan dessert... Cheesy

The bigger concern is the international banking mafia.  Angry  They are the real scary ones.
We should be doing something to get a full security audit done on bitcoins. Something we can point to that is third party and not connected to bitcoin in any way. Now who do we contact to get this done?

I don't have money but I think we should set up a bitcoin bounty for security, like I been suggesting everywhere. It will be a start.
Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.
Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.



One that note, I smell a rat.  I've worked for the beast, and there is no way whatever that a private is going to have access 1) to top-secret communications 2) unmonitored 3) on a secure computer 4) with a cd-rom drive 5) that has access to secrets not in his own section.

There is no way this kid did this.

I'm glad that you have left the dark side, creighto.  You make an interesting point that a private could not have gotten access to all this (but then again, some of these gubbamint bureacracies are extremely inefficient).  Bradley Manning may simple just be a fall guy, scapegoat, or framed by the real leaker...who may never be caught.  Anyway, it's all speculation. 
Bradley Manning may simple just be a fall guy, scapegoat, or framed by the real leaker...who may never be caught.  Anyway, it's all speculation. 

A top secret anarchist cabal penetrated the US government. It's simple really.
Bradley Manning may simple just be a fall guy, scapegoat, or framed by the real leaker...who may never be caught.  Anyway, it's all speculation. 

A top secret anarchist cabal penetrated the US government. It's simple really.

It is entirely possible.  Some government agent may have converted to anarchism after climbing up the ranks and then accidentally reading Rothbard or some other anti-statist philosopher or website.  Or maybe just saw the crap going around him and decided he is an anarchist.
Or maybe just saw the crap going around him and decided he is an anarchist.

Using that guy as a sacrificial lamb isn't exactly what I called, anarchistic. Unless, he agreed to cover for the real leaker.
Or maybe just saw the crap going around him and decided he is an anarchist.

Using that guy as a sacrificial lamb isn't exactly what I called, anarchistic. Unless, he agreed to cover for the real leaker.

Of course.  And yeah, it could have been a voluntary decision.  Also, it could be possible that the secret upper-level anarchist did not intend for Manning to be blamed...but then once Manning got arrested, he realized it would be better if he kept quiet, so that only one person is in jail.
Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries.   Free Speech always has legal limits.
Yes -- the leaker can be considered a traitor.



One that note, I smell a rat.  I've worked for the beast, and there is no way whatever that a private is going to have access 1) to top-secret communications 2) unmonitored 3) on a secure computer 4) with a cd-rom drive 5) that has access to secrets not in his own section.

There is no way this kid did this.

I'm glad that you have left the dark side, creighto.


Perhaps you assume too much.

Quote

  You make an interesting point that a private could not have gotten access to all this (but then again, some of these gubbamint bureacracies are extremely inefficient).


Inefficient yes, but ineffective?  Paranoia is what the government is good at.  No way this kid did this, not even a small part of it.  He is either a gov'ment patsy, or a martyr for some other group.

The government is no less likely to form internal factions over ideology or self-interest than any other collective agency.  This smells like an inside job, and from what I've seen so far, it seems to make the Bush admin seem less stupid|evil, even if only by comparison.
Seems that the main politician this embarrassed was Hillary Clinton.

Either the pentagon or the cia leaked these papers.

*Points finger at Robert Gates . Cheesy



Seems that the main politician this embarrassed was Hillary Clinton.

Either the pentagon or the cia leaked these papers.

*Points finger at Robert Gates . Cheesy

I'm sorry...I'm not totally following you...could you elaborate?  Why would Robert Gates want to release videos of US Troops murdering Iraqi civilians?
With paypal down I'm increasing my pressure upon their board of directors to get a bitcoin address up.
With paypal down I'm increasing my pressure upon their board of directors to get a bitcoin address up.

So you decide to ignore the long discussion and just do it?

Listen to people's argument, make a decision, give a reasoned case for what you're going to do, and then do it.

Also, it would be nice if you explain what kind of "pressure" you're doing. You represent the rest of the bitcoiners here, so it's nice to know how bob182 is acting on our behalf.
With paypal down I'm increasing my pressure upon their board of directors to get a bitcoin address up.

So you decide to ignore the long discussion and just do it?

Listen to reasons, and then decide if you're going to keep doing what you do.

Kiba makes some good points here...let's not be too hasty in communicating with WikiLeaks.  Patience is key.  There is no need to repeatedly pressure WikiLeaks in producing a bitcon donate address.  Since you have already communicated with them once, they may either he considering it or more likely have decided that it does nor suit their needs currently.  Don't get me wrong...I am all for wikileaks to use bitcoin, but let's not push this too hard.
Its seems all you want is your business to not be taxed that we will be free if we have competition and all that.
This is not an issue of rightwing vs leftwing.
Its an issue of freedom of press and the fact they need a anonymous network of donations.
I bet you don't ever see the oppression around society and decide to go out and do some direct action. Like in the case of the ashvi11e eleven or oscar grant. Instead you want to have more money and create the perfect economy. For revolution we need social change before economic. Wikileaks can be the first step to achieving this against the government. That's why I'm deciding to contact and explain to them the benefits of bitcoin.

em3rgent order
I'm just checking up getting the userbase on board with the idea. Trying to see if anyone else thinks its a possible good way to get donations on there site without having things shut down, same as the bitDNS project if we code it and wikileaks uses it will we all pussy out as they are deemed a terrorist organization?
Also, it would be nice if you explain what kind of "pressure" you're doing. You represent the rest of the bitcoiners here, so it's nice to know how bob182 is acting on our behalf.

bob182 is certainly not acting on my behalf, nor several others, as these threads seem to indicate.

And for Pete's sake, bob182, please don't misrepresent yourself as some sort of official Bitcoin representative.

Wikileaks is the enemy of major world powers right now, with many influential elites feeling that Assange committed an act of war against the United States, or, at a minimum, irrevocably disrupted world affairs.  This is not some mailing list discussion or theoretical exercise; there are very real, very powerful organizations actively targetting wikileaks' network infrastructure, organizational infrastructure, and most importantly, financial infrastructure.

It is extraordinarily unwise to make bitcoin such a highly visible target, at such an early stage in this project.  There could be a lot of "collateral damage" in the bitcoin community while you make your principled stand.
Its seems all you want is your business to not be taxed that we will be free if we have competition and all that.
This is not an issue of rightwing vs leftwing.
Its an issue of freedom of press and the fact they need a anonymous network of donations.
I bet you don't ever see the oppression around society and decide to go out and do some direct action. Like in the case of the ashvi11e eleven or oscar grant. Instead you want to have more money and create the perfect economy. For revolution we need social change before economic. Wikileaks can be the first step to achieving this against the government. That's why I'm deciding to contact and explain to them the benefits of bitcoin.

This is god awful reasoning that didn't address any of my concerns, or jgarzik, or any others.

We also have no ideas what the heck you're saying to these people.
Also, it would be nice if you explain what kind of "pressure" you're doing. You represent the rest of the bitcoiners here, so it's nice to know how bob182 is acting on our behalf.

bob182 is certainly not acting on my behalf, nor several others, as these threads seem to indicate.

And for Pete's sake, bob182, please don't misrepresent yourself as some sort of official Bitcoin representative.
bober182 doesn't need to have anybody's permission to do anything. Even if he were to present himself as being 'official', the Wikileaks people are probably smarter than the average visitor of this forum, so they would be able to figure that out in less than a minute.

Does anyone have an idea of how large the Wikileaks group is? I know one guy who is in it, but two guys don't make a group Wink I suppose the actual members are a secret, but is the number too?
Or, to put in military terms, we know that wikileaks' entire financial infrastructure is being actively targeted, and The Powers That Be have successfully destroyed one target in the past 24 hours.

Only cannon fodder would stand up and wave a red flag that says "shoot me" at such a point in time  Smiley
bober182 doesn't need to have anybody's permission to do anything.

This isn't about a permission issue.

I just want bober182 to be a responsible member of the community. He's going in there, contacting the organization, when it is clear that members of the community don't think it is the best idea. He didn't address any of our concerns. He didn't give us any details what he is planning to do, except putting additional "pressure" which could mean anything from "being pushy" or selling "snake oil".

This is akin to somebody just go in there, with no plans and guns blazing, costing half of his squads and then costing us a war in the long run.
The wikileaks board of directors has 10 members + JA, then there are about 150~200 staff, and under that are 1400 volunteers.
Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.
No, don't "bring it on".

The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.

I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy.  You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.