Cryptocurrency: Snowden Whines Crypto Privacy, But What Is Being DONE About It

[grarpamp]

Yet the question stands... exactly what is the supposed
global crypto community DOING to roll out privacy-capable coins,
goods and services markets, exchanges, DEX, De-Fi, etc.
Where are all the Free Speakers and conferences and dev
teams and adopters devoted to and unafraid to cover the need
for, create, push, and adopt cryptoprivacy.
Else all you have is yet another worthless datamined censored
digital GovCorp Fiat checking account... even less privacy and
utility than a cryptodigital form of cash or gold's privacy feature set.

Stop whining cryptoprivacy... go create it, adopt it,
anon privacy DEX into it, and abandon all others.



Snowden Discusses Bitcoin's Lack Of Privacy

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/snowden-discusses-bitcoin-privacy
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/ukraine-russia-resistance-needs-bitcoin-privacy
https://decrypt.co/videos/interviews/BW49Ik6c/edward-snowden-talks-governments-and-crypto-cbdcs-and-ethereum-vs-bitcoin-at-camp-ethereal

    “Bitcoin is not an anonymous ledger,” said Edward Snowden.

    “You get chain analysis people and whatnot who are doing fairly
devious things with it,” he added, discussing companies focused on
on-chain analysis.

    Speaking on the privacy of Bitcoin, Snowden stated that “it’s
really just private to the public, but it’s public to the prominent,
shall we say.”

Edward Snowden, whistle-blower and president of the Freedom of the
Press Foundation – a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to
protecting journalists – recently took an interview to discuss
Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, privacy, and nation-state influence.

“Bitcoin is not an anonymous ledger, it is a truly public ledger, and
those things are always out there,” Snowden explained as he recounted
his experience with Wikileaks, in which there was a seemingly
insurmountable amount of pressure from the U.S government to shut the
organization and his story down.

Bitcoin allowed “time and distance,” as Snowden said, which ultimately
allowed him to communicate with and meet the necessary journalists
that would eventually lead to his escape to Russia, as well as the
release of his leak.

Time and distance is an important distinction that is separate from
the idea of safety. Possessing safety would assume Bitcoin was capable
of hiding identity and traceability perpetually, however, Snowden knew
this was not the case, nor was he taking extensive steps to be
anonymous, as he explains in the interview.

The mark against anonymity is not necessarily a critique, but rather a
statement of fact when proper steps toward anonymity are not taken.
Companies have an entire business model built on tracking Bitcoin and
other cryptocurrency transactions, through which Bitcoin Magazine has
reported stories on the traceability of transactions for donation
causes.

Snowden explored chain analysis companies saying, “You get chain
analysis people and whatnot who are doing fairly devious things with
it,” including objectives like “trying to get a financial edge out of
the on-chain analysis.”

Snowden addressed the idea of privacy as it relates to one’s capacity
to discern or obtain information when compared to public capability of
discerning or obtaining that exact same information.

    “When you think about Bitcoin having a public ledger, well, once a
dollar enters the banking system, there is a private ledger that is
available to the people who are performing financial surveillance,” he
explains.

    “So it’s really just private to the public, but it’s public to the
prominent, shall we say.”

When asked why cryptocurrency and financial privacy are important for
whistle-blowers, Snowden responded that “there’s this question we all
have to ask ourselves: What is the role of the government in a free
and open society?”

Snowden went on to explain that it is important to examine the roles
nation-states actually play in our lives, as it relates to the
philosophical question of what role they should be playing. Snowden
then brings to bear the consideration that an open and free society,
or one that wishes to be so, must also do everything in its power to
achieve its idyllic state.