Edward Snowden thoughts about Bitcoin (and SAFE)

Someone has to contact and tell him about SAFE!!! The network will need important persons showing validation to attract new users. Snowden is a perfect candidate. I’m sure he will love SAFE.

Edward: "So, the Bitcoin thing is – I mean this is – nobody really likes to talk about Bitcoin anymore. There are informed concepts there.
Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50
percent of the network and so on and so forth.

But when we think about the basic principles behind it, there are some very interesting things that particularly when we start to combine them with that idea like before of tokenization, of concepts like proof of work.

Are there other means through which people can basically pay for access other than direct transfers of currency that originated with an association to their true name?

The other ones are inaudible mixed in networks, for example, where we have multiple steps just like Tor where they got these mixed inaudible in the Bitcoin universe where they tumble the transactions of the Bitcoins that go in it to pay for your purchase aren’t the same Bitcoins
that go out.

But focusing too much on Bitcoin, I think, is a mistake. The real solution is again, how do we get to a point where you don’t have to have a direct link between your identity all of the time? You have personas. You have tokens that authenticate each person and when you want to be able to interact with people as your persona in your true name, you can do so. When you want to be able to switch to a persona - a common persona, an anonymous persona, a shared persona, you can do that. When you want to move to pseudonymous persona, you can do that.

A lot of these are difficult problems particularly when we talk about the metadata context, the signalling context. And there are actually some really bad proposals, I think, and this is in no offense to anybody who works on these particular problem spaces, but again, it gets back
to the middlebox space.

We’ve got proposals like SPUD, for example, where they wanna make UDP a new channel for leaking metadata about the user’s intention. They want to be able to –

applause

I get the feeling that there are a lot of people in the audience who are concerned about middleboxes. I didn’t know…

laughter.

All right. So the idea here is we can all understand the incentives of these vendors. They want to be able to provide mechanisms for tiered pricing. They want to be able to provide prioritised service or increased rates. They want to be able to say, “Whatever, we’ll kick you
down a tier and we’ll charge you less,” and these things are great, but again, those are their incentives, right? Those are not the internet’s problem sets. Those are the vendors’ problem sets.

And when we think about things like they talk about – all right – well, we want to be able to innovate in protocol space, so good - so does everybody, right? This isn’t a thing where the vendor is against the IETF or the vendor’s against the technical community, academic
community, whatever.

We’re all partners here, but we need to think about where the actual problems of this ossification originated from in the protocol space and it’s actually not from the IETF. It’s from internet access providers. It’s from network service providers. It’s from Level Three, Hurricane Electric. People in the middle, people running middleboxes, setting their firewall settings to a point where basically there’s no space for innovation because they don’t – “oh, well, we don’t recognise it. It
must be malicious”. They don’t update it. They don’t basically tend to the garden that we’re all collaborating on and so, the question comes, how do we try new mechanisms? How do we create new incentives for everybody to work together here?

And I think the first is to recognise that when it comes to the global security problems we have with internet communications today, we have to recognise that the new proposals being put forward, we have to go, “Does this create more problems than it solves?"

And if it’s creating more metadata that’s associated with user preference, they can be intercepted, they can be manipulated, they can be interjected as a stream, this is in general a very bad thing. We need to be able to reduce the amount of metadata that’s linked on a part
of a user’s communications invisible to them, not increasing.

And in general, I think we need to get to the point of intent. What is the user’s intent? As they interact with the internet, as they interact with their community, as they interact with the associations that they have with their friends, their connections, whatever.

And how do we ensure that our standards, our protocols, our technology, the systems that surround us everyday are working to support, to protect and to armour the user’s intent rather than to betray it or to monetise it or to take advantage of it in some way that might not be the end of the world, it might not be the worst thing in the universe, but it is not compliant with the user’s actual intention as they engage with that.

If you want to provide those mechanisms, that’s fine, but in general, they should be transparent, they should be opt-in. They shouldn’t be things that we’re baking into protocols particularly when there’s no clue to the problem that there’s not another mechanism like simply changing the firewall settings to the user."

1 Like

I was thinking the exact same thing tonight about the getting some tech celebrity’s validation and connected up to post but you have beaten me to it. My thoughts were on if we will be inviting people to test attack the network for their little shield of approval, not sure it should be the regular security firms but maybe people from the some of the big conferences like Blackhat etc…

But on the theme of Snowden did you see this one, he is on from 15:50, vfunny / vcringe

Cheers
Al

1 Like

@Frontrow_Al I can’t take time to watch an 1/2 hour video, is there a specific moment we should watch?

Concerning Mr. Edward Snowden, @atleticofa [great OP :smile: ]

I am not educated enough on Mr. Snowden to know his full story or perspective. But my thoughts originally:

Firstly, this Mr. Snowden did work for the NSA which people historically have seemed to dislike. Mr. Snowden has seemed to have no problem with his perspectives when he landed his job.

Secondly, Mr. Snowden claims to have accumulated millions of documents that discredit the NSA. How many of us have time to read millions of documents and are able to have the ability to remember details and are able to restate their facts?

Thirdly, why is there a [long] delay in releasing the facts? Why did a movie need to be made? Personally, if I had discrediting information that help the people, I would not wait and I would release the facts straight away (granted, fear for safety of my family is taken into account).

I personally have not seen the full movie but reviews seem to say it is very professionally done, very paranoiac, a bit over the top. If I was to act as he does (which family members have and consequently they have been locked up :frowning: ) IMO, it is too professional, which raises many questions.

And lastly, do we seriously believe that because he is Russia means he cannot be eliminated?

I am playing devil’s advocate here, I question everything I read/see. I don’t think that Mr. Snowden’s perspective fits in with everything that goes on in the decentralisation world. Granted, I should make more time to educate myself.

My initial response, he [Mr. Snowden] is mainstream. Is he honest? Is there more to the story? More research needs to be done.

The SAFE Network is not launched yet, testing needs to be done, participation on a user level needs to be accomplished. There is vision and testing but the SAFE Network is not yet achieved. I personally believe in SAFE but, there is a balance between excitement and proof of concept.

Myself personally, I do not believe that Mr. Edward Snowden is the persona that we want to present the SAFE Network to the World. There are still too many questions :smile:

@dirvine is MORE than enough, the World in general just doesn’t know Mr. David Irvine yet :smile:

3 Likes

If we ‘get there’ and this is still the case we win :wink: I won’t hide but I should be irrelevant.

5 Likes

That man can be so funny at times, even over such a serious matter as this.

Even though it is purposed to be humour it does show some important factors when considering how we present security/privacy/anonymity to the general public. As technically minded people we tend to espouse the benefits in semi technical terms which actually in my experience can turn people off (or watch their eyes roll). But as John Oliver showed if we espouse them in terms of “The government can see your dick”, then the response is massive compared to the government can record your communications. That was so funny and its great that somewhere in the media they “actually* see” the problems of the surveillance on the average person, rather than a headline making issue.

I am not considering using “dick pics” as the example Oliver used, but our discussions with others must be in terms they can relate too.

“*” Yes I realise he was making a show and may not give a rats arse about it, but at least it would have gotten the ear of the average americian.

Snowden still holds the opinion it seems that there are legitimate government secrets and further that the NSA and spy agencies are still somewhat functional and desireable.

For those that want to straight up get rid of every state on the planet, a sound intermediate step would be rendering them all totally transparent.

Snowden is not, and is very clear about not being, anti NSA or anti spying. He’s pro constitution, judicial process, accountability, informed debate etc. There’s no inconsistency in his position or actions IMO, though people have tried to discredit him in various ways. Some of what you have said reflects those attacks rather than the facts (the claims you attributed to him for example - he made no such claims, the method of release another example - he is not in charge of this, he no longer had the documents on leaving HK).

I highly recommend the film if you have not followed this story from the start, because many of these misrepresentations and misconceptions are laid to rest.

I’m not advocating he be a figure head here, but want to counter misconceptions and misrepresentations about Snowden. I followed this closely from the start, and was also following Glenn Greenwald before Snowden brought him to prominence.

6 Likes

@happybeing Thanks for your informative response. I will make time to research this matter more and will keep an open mind when I watch the film :slight_smile:

1 Like

I don’t think we should tell Snowden about SAFE, I’m pretty sure that guy is swamped all the time and SAFE’s mechanics take a lot of time getting into, even for highly intelligent IT professionals. When SAFE takes off he’ll surely notice it by himself more quickly than most.

I do find it pretty amazing that his vision of what the internet should be like is very much alike to Irvine’s/MaidSafe’s vision. To me it is once again confirmation that we’re on the right path here. Pervasive encryption, absolute control over identities, no weaknesses in data transit, etc.

4 Likes

He had this to say recently…

“Focusing too much on bitcoin, I think is a mistake. The real solution is again, how do we get to a point where you don’t have to have a direct link between your identity all of the time? You have personas. You have tokens that authenticate each person and when you want to be able to interact with people as your persona in your true name, you can do so.”


3 Likes

Yep, that’s SAFE. Have you read the part about DNS? That’s also SAFE.

3 Likes

For those that want to straight up get rid of every state on the planet,
a sound intermediate step would be rendering them all totally
transparent.

Bringing transparency to states/corporations would be well served by a blockchain ledger, as David puts it here (3:23)

You could imagine that bitcoin and protocols like that are a public ledger. They’re very good for public ledger[s]. We need a public ledger. My opinion is that governments and corporations should be on that public ledger. People shouldn’t.

So that may be a more permanent implementation rather than an intermediate step.

Snowden still holds the opinion it seems that there are legitimate
government secrets and further that the NSA and spy agencies are still
somewhat functional and desireable.

Yes, but for due process, targeted surveillence. Dragnet is right out!

3 Likes