pull down to refresh

The real world versus the digital world: two realities that, at first glance, differ, but which today present few distinctions. Both spheres intertwine in practically every aspect of our lives, leaving the imprint of our identity and humanity in both the tangible and the virtual.
The 21st century has not only brought unprecedented innovation but also massive access to new technologies by people who are unaware of their true functioning. The cryptographic world, conceived by thousands of anonymous individuals, was born to defend basic principles that humanity must firmly preserve if it wishes to maintain its freedom in an increasingly technological present and future. Even today, there are examples demonstrating the possibility of exercising control over great nations without the need to resort to technological tools. This suggests that, by incorporating such tools, we could find ourselves under constant surveillance in all areas of life.
In this context, it is our duty to safeguard our own privacy.
We must unite and create systems that enable decentralization and anonymity on the network, while also educating those who are just beginning in this world. The adoption or incorporation of new members is positive; however, today almost everything is managed through a third party, placing us in a position of vulnerability. At some point, we may interact with people who use the same systems but who do not take the necessary precautions regarding anonymity and privacy. If that third party came to know our identity, we would be in check, since under the demands of any law, prohibition, or government mandate, it could be forced to reveal this information. This would mean exposing our identity; and if we refuse, the favorite weapon of any government—force—could be imposed, forcing us to act against our will.
In light of this panorama, I propose the following steps:

Fundamental Principles

Sovereignty over one's own information: No entity—governments, corporations, or intermediaries—should have the power to monitor or control personal and financial information without the explicit consent of the one who generates it.
Privacy as an inalienable right: Privacy is not a luxury but a basic human right. In the crypto world, this implies dissociating physical-world identities from digital addresses, maintaining confidentiality in transactions.
Anonymity and decentralization: We advocate for the use of protocols, tools, and strategies that strengthen anonymity and decentralization, reducing dependence on centralized exchanges and building an ecosystem resistant to censorship and surveillance.
Security above all: Security is the first line of defense. Using secure wallets, strong authentication, robust encryption, and good practices in managing private keys is essential to avoid falling into the hands of attackers, spies, or other malicious entities.
If this first line of defense is compromised, we propose establishing a Silence Movement, in which all involved commit to the following:
Do not comment, do not reveal, do not identify: Let your transactions and addresses speak for themselves, without associating them with your name, your face, or your reputation.
Do not contribute to surveillance: Avoid platforms, exchanges, and services that require unnecessary personal data. Prefer decentralized alternatives, resistant to censorship, and focused on privacy.

Do not say anything about yourself or others: Keep silent about your movements, avoid the exchange of sensitive information in public spaces, and respect the anonymity of others. The best defense is the absence of useful data for those who seek to control us.

Faced with a hostile environment that aims to subdue individual autonomy, the response is silent resistance. By safeguarding our information, protecting our assets, and honoring the initial spirit of the crypto world, we reinforce the freedom and dignity of each participant. May the cryptospace remain firm, sovereign, and voiceless to intruders; silence will, paradoxically, be our loudest cry.
Let's unite in a tacit pact of discretion, prioritizing privacy, anonymity, and security. Let's spread this manifesto, make it our own, and apply it in our daily conduct in the digital world. May silence and reserve be our weapons against surveillance and coercion.
I guess preserving privacy works the same way as self-censorship, doesn’t it? If you are forced into silence, THEY have won, haven’t THEY? THEIR whole objective is to get quit, obedient slaves and cull weed out the rest. THEIR methods of culling weeding out the population can either be quite brutal or with the soft glove covering the iron hand. I guess of the alternatives silent resistance is about the best we can apply, but the trouble with it is that there are so many NPCs and bots out there that won’t do it, so, can only the awakened rectify the problems we are having? We will need a lot more awakened to make a dent in the surveilence.
reply
If it were the physical world it would be self-censorship and you would be right but being the world divided in 2 between the digital and the physical 1 single person can have more than one nick and do several things such as the work of awakening more people. But it is true that every day that dividing line of this world is getting smaller and smaller, therefore those who do this work at higher levels of risk have to take precautions.
I like to see this ''self-censorship'' as privacy more than anything else (which is totally different from anonymity ), to make known the benefits of bitcoin only to people you decide you trust and obviously not tell big brother that you use this technology 😉.
reply
being the world divided in 2 between the digital and the physical 1 single person can have more than one nick and do several things such as the work of awakening more people.
With all of the surveillance surrounding us in the physical world there is not much divide between the physical and the digital realms, think ULEZ and license plate cameras, let alone geofencing. Not much privacy anywhere you go. Maybe just standing up and saying, “OK, I don’t give a damn about what you are going to do to me!” Do you think that would do better, to just outright deny the illegitimates.
reply
Uff this good question is one of those questions that you don't know exactly how to answer unless you're imprisoned for confession. Well, the only way governments have to govern us is through the use of force.
I would start by analyzing what is illegitimate, what is right or wrong.
Clearly everything unlawful is everything that is forbidden by the law of a government, but what if I tell you that in Singapore, it is forbidden to chew gum? Mmm... that law is questionable... In most countries, if not almost all, what is not forbidden - I understand this law is to keep the city clean among other things - but is this the right way to determine if something is legal or not?
Obviously I don't hate the law, it's something necessary because there must be order; for example, killing, stealing and all things that are coherently bad should be punished.
As I write this, I realize that perhaps the answer is simple... and well, it also depends on each person's situation, but assuming a generic scenario where you're being pursued for having bought BTC P2P without KYC, and your goal is to provide for your family, I think more than one person would consider your statement "OK, I don't give a damn what you're going to do to me," but on the other hand, it could also happen that you sell out all your acquaintances, losing your fortune along the way because you want to be free from the law, because you want to be with your family, which is also a more than valid option.
"Do you think it would be better to flatly refuse the illegitimate ones?" Well... I think nobody should do it, and I include governments, because all illegitimate actions existed and will exist before or after BTC or CBD, and of course, they have their ways of making them legal. That's why I don't like the term of whether something is legal or not. I think there should be more freedom but always with responsibility and human coherence.
So, answering the question simply, it's likely that I don't have that answer unless I'm locked up, and we all know that for our loved ones, we would endure hell to see them happy or would sell out the entire world just to be with them.
reply
There is a place for red lines in life. THEY can try and tell you all sorts of things, however, you are the one that has to accept or deny the requests orders and the consequences of either. It is your discernment and judgement that guides your decisions, nobody else’s, so you also have to consider consequences. Some people are more able to take the consequences than others and they will be the ones to tell THEM to go to hell. Your decision, your responsibility and your consequences are all there to consider. It is always easier to kneel with the crowd than stand alone, isn’t it?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Khunsa OP 9h
You're absolutely right... The majority will kneel, nobody wants to be alone, but it's likely that those who are maximalists and faithful to their ideals of freedom will remain and perhaps become martyrs and the light and voice of the resistance.
Personally, I hope the world doesn't reach such an extremist point between one side or the other, although if the situation continues like this in all the major countries, it's probable that this future will come true in the medium term.
/
If it continues like this, which side would you take?
Kneel or fight for your own freedom or that of others?
/ Personally, my answer is that I won't say anything to anyone until they catch you red-handed with evidence, and then decide whether to do one thing or another. But that answer will be influenced by my loved ones and my ideals of freedom are 40/60, with 60 being the ideals of freedom, but we all have our Achilles' heels.