This is another heavy week in our collective fight for freedom, and the hits seem to keep on coming. Western nation-states brought out their guns and are locking people in cages for refusing to censor speech.
Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested (FR and EN) in France for complicity in activities conducted by users of the social media platform and for the use of cryptography. Let’s talk about the “complicity” and then we’ll come back to cryptography in a few.
This is an attack on free speech. Lex Fridman summarized the concern well.
This isn’t new and happens in totalitarian countries around the world, which I guess now includes the UK, who have been locking up people for saying mean things bureaucrats don’t like on social media. Today, it’s social media, but how long will it be before they come looking through our hard drives and diaries? Maybe I’ll put that up on a prediction market. Oh, hold on a sec…
It might be an opportune time to dust off your copy of 1984 ‘cause it feels like we’re here.
Look, there is plenty of speech that I abhor, and that offends me, and some I just don’t like. It doesn’t matter. For any speech to be protected, all speech must be protected. The answer to speech we don’t like is more speech.
This brings us to surveillance, encryption, and Zcash. It all intersects. I posted the following tweet after the Durov news dropped:
As mentioned above, the French government charged Durov with more than just complicity; they charged him with using cryptography for privacy without permission. Here are the charges:
Dear lord!
See the connections between speech and money? If we can’t protect free speech, what are the odds that we will be able to protect uncensorable, private, digital cash? The Crypto Wars are still here.
Andy Greenberg published an interview with Signal CEO Meredith Whitaker this week. In the piece, she notes that Signal has a $40M annual budget and said, “We don’t have to do everything. Signal has a lane, and we do it really, really well.”
With our current $4M annual budget at ECC, we’re not focused on everything. We can’t be, which is why we are committed to delivering usable, digital cash so that people can be free to transact with one another. We are committed to that lane, and to doing it really, really well.
I posted about the state of Zcash adoption a little over a year ago. I didn’t rerun all the numbers today, but I’m guessing they aren’t too different. Are we, as a community, laser focused the right things to drive growth?
Following Parato’s law, it’s likely that 20% of our efforts across the community will yield 80% of the impact we’ll see. I wonder, how can the community narrow its focus and efforts to deliver more, faster? What are the things that will drive the adoption we need to see Zcash truly become the uncensorable, freedom-preserving digital cash the world needs? What should we stop doing because it’s a drag on our mission?
We cannot take for granted the freedoms we have available to us today. Our window may be very small and shrinking quickly. Arrests and overreach are piling, week by week. We must move with clarity and focus. How much longer will we have the freedom to speak? Tick Tock.
This is how we’ve spoken this week:
Zashi
Design
Reorganized Figma file to help navigate feature design flows and document design process
Finalized new Design System in Figma
Proposed small changes for improving Transaction History UX
Finalized designs of Address Book
Finalizing designs for the redesign of the Receive screen and Request ZEC (Zashi Me) flow
Redesigned all Settings flows + started working on a new Integrations screen
Continued working on Transaction History and Account screen redesign
Prepared initial designs for Raise Gift Card integration after testing the Raise app
iOS
Unique Installs: 2.92k
Rating: 4.9 ★
Extensive testing of ZIP 320 and transparent history changes
Prepared SDK releases and app releases - 1.1.5 released last week (ZIP 320, transparent history changes, Currency Conversion)
Rebased Dynamic Server Switch code
Updated Settings and Advanced Settings UI
Prepared a new release 1.2 (Dynamic Server Switch, Coinbase Onramp, Shielding UI update and the Settings UI update) - the build was approved by AppStore but is currently blocked by a bug on Coinbase side)
Updated and tested shielding UI and confirmation updates and reported issues to the Core Team
Made some progress on the Flexa integration but reported further blocking issues to the Flexa team
Started looking into the Raise Gift Card API documentation and set up their Playground environment
Worked on adopting the new color Design System from Figma
Android
Total Install Base: 1.84k
Rating: 4.654 ★
Team partially OOO
Working on SDK release and app release - 1.1.6 (ZIP 320, transparent history changes, Currency Conversion)
Extensive testing of ZIP 320 and transparent history changes and debugging with Core Team (the release is currently blocked until we verify that we can reliably support lower Android APIs)
Working on shielding UI update and testing
Made some progress on the Flexa integration and reported issues to the Flexa team
Zcash Core
Team partially OOO
Released zcash-swift-wallet-sdk version 2.2.0 & bugfix 2.2.1
TEX address support
Full recovery of transparent wallet history
Exchange rate fetching over TOR
zcash-android-wallet-sdk still in progress due to SQLite issues (resolved 8/30)
Debugging Zashi sync problems that appear to be related to chain reorg handling
Other
We met with Raise on gift card integration with Zashi. Once implemented, users can purchase gift cards up to $2k with a max of $10k daily. We are reviewing the agreement with our corporate and regulatory legal counsels.
Bi-weekly synch calls with Jonathan at Qedit and @aquietinvestor at Shielded Labs for updates and coordination.
@daira received a physical Keystone hardware wallet and began exploring.
Thanks for raising your voice @joshs. I was really troubled by some posts written by privacy advocates and colleagues focusing on the “telegram is not a real privacy app” argument. It scared me. I felt I was living inside the “First They Came” poem.
My sympathies to all our zcash friends from Brasil. I couldn’t believe the news yesterday. I thought it was a journalist technical misrepresentation.
We live in complicated times of restrictions, censorship and loss of rights.
I saw many in the crypto ecosystem attacking Telegram, and I think that even if we do not agree with one app or another, if we are crypto enthusiasts, it is because we believe in freedom, so we must close ranks against censorship, wherever it comes from and whoever it is against.
The problem with adoption is we still don’t have a ui that is easy to use and understand for the 35+ crowd. Those people didn’t grow up with tech. Some don’t know how to use tik tok without help from their kids but they hold most of the wealth.
They need to be able to turn their money into zcash and have a tool to easily spend.
Zashi is a good start but I think the missing link there is being able to use current currency and buy zcash from the app itself.
I don’t know if there is regulatory issues with it or not. Or its just easily traceable once you do that and defeats the purpose.
Most 35+ crowd are not going to go to coinbaseor binance buy zcash then move it to zashi to use unless there is a real incentive to do it.
“not your keys not your coins” is not enough becaus they don’t get it.
The second and most important part is why would i go through all that trouble to do everyday stuff like buy my groceries.
Again we keep thinking so big but forget that adoption comes from getting people to shift their day to day activities from using cash to zcash on an app.
Why would anyone go through all the steps of going into zashi exchanging their zcash to a gift card to buy groceries when they can just go to an atm and do it the way they have always done.
There is a joint force and a higher order that is coming from somewhere that is proliferating in the most fragile countries like those in LATAM. The only way to shield ourselves against the current four types (State, Corporate, Social, and Algorithmic censorship) is to use open crypto with censorship resistance and codes, training more people to grow within this ecosystem.
Zcash is so important and most people don’t realize it yet by love, but they will when it hurts.
Because they care about privacy when using digital cash?
Cash is leaving, so they better start learning!
Disagree. The UI is just as good as most wallets already out there. The problem is almost everyone doesn’t actually use the wallets for payments… Zashi and Ywallet work and anyone who has problems using them probably isn’t your age bracket unless they are over 55+.
Have you actually tried? Almost everyone I talk to who is negative doesn’t actually use what they complain about.
“Governments should not engage in censorship. This is blatant and deeply troubling overreach of power.” (citing part of your quote of Lex Fridman above)
I forgot where @zooko (I believe and I would be paraphrasing here) said the eloquence of people does not imply smartness, but I really loved it.
Those words are as strong as they are meaningless. Each country has different set of rules. If censorship is legal then by definition it is not overreach of power. Just some tiktok level outrage clickbait. boring. Regarding Pavel, there may be more than we know, so I don’t feel as outraged as with the tornado cash case personally, and I want to wait and see a bit before I judge further.
May have been true but no longer, clearly, as we’ve seen on Twitter and other social medias. Bots/AI can submerge facts with falsehoods. Sybil attacks are ever cheaper. This forum can eventually fall to such attack and there will nothing we can do as a community, particularly as we have no tools to fall back on the pillar that ZEC holders can be and that is by definition Sybil resistant.
Right, ticktock. So, should we talk about starting to hire pseudonymous developers? I’m pretty sure the only way to safely pull this is if ZEC holders are in command of the dev fund.
I respect this position. I think that taking a strong position on the defence of freedom of speech is absolutely valid and necessary.
But concerning abhorrent speech, I must disagree with “It doesn’t matter.” (I know I’m being slightly unfair about your wording there, Josh.) So I wanted to reply here in order to point out that agreeing with Josh’s conclusions on the arrest of Pavel Durov and the more general fight for public and private freedom of expression, is also entirely consistent with other positions on this specific question about whether “all speech must be protected”.
The reason why I am not a free speech absolutist is essentially an application of the “paradox of tolerance”. If you’re not familiar with this argument (or if you are but didn’t know the source), here is the original statement of it by Karl Popper:
(Popper is, I think, rather too confident about the effectiveness of law in practice. Note that, on “utterance of intolerant philosophies”, he only says that he does not mean to imply we should always suppress such utterance, which is really a non-statement. I mean to refer to his general point, which prior to recent culture wars had become relatively uncontroversial as political philosophy goes; not on how it is stated.)
The fact is, there are rather a lot of people who would like to entirely shut down my and other trans’ people’s access to free speech, for example, simply because we’re trans. A lot of them will publically deny wanting to do that, but that’s a surface denial for reasons of political positioning.
Consider a platform policy that theoretically gives both trans people and transphobes “equal” unfettered access to free speech. The transphobes will end up making that platform unusable for trans people. Every single time. The same applies, eventually, to any marginalized group and the people who hate them and/or want to retain a position of power over them: racists, ableists, misogynists, etc.
The reason for this, is that it takes significant effort and time to make useful and original speech, or any other kind of expression — whereas degrading others’ speech with your own bullshit is easy and requires literally zero creative thought.
You can’t automate self-expression. (The kind of weak AI we will have for the foreseeable future fundamentally cannot come close to changing that.) You can automate hate speech. And people do, on a vast scale. If they’re not literally running bots, they’re doing it by acting like automata themselves (one of the points of the Matrix series and especially Matrix Resurrections, if you want to see that simile explored cinematically).
In other words, the practical effect of “unfettered free speech” policies on a platform is to degrade marginalized people’s access to that platform. I’m privileged enough in other ways to be able to work around it, sometimes at considerable cost in all senses, but I can never just ignore it. That’s a source of minority stress that impacts people like me every time we speak. Communications privacy within minority and marginalized communities is one of the ways for us to fight back.
Like many (all?) paradoxes, both mathematical and political, the apparent contradiction in the “paradox of tolerance” can be at least partly resolved by reframing it. In the context of free speech, we can reframe it by asking: what actually inhibits people from speaking?
Looked at from that perspective, it should be obvious that it is not only platform moderation policies or laws that can inhibit people from speaking. It is the entire political and societal context, which is very much dependent on what other people will be allowed and incited to say about the potential speaker.
That is a plausible abstract argument, but sometimes you need to see a concrete and very personal example to really get it.
Recently I recorded a video at the Z|ECC summit. It was and is a sincere and heartfelt attempt to express why I personally care about privacy. Chris Tomeo and Richard Renno edited the interview down to a shorter clip; I approved the clip and it retains arguably the most important parts of my position.
I’m using this example here both because of the content of my speech and the response to it. Warning for transphobic hate in the latter, below.
The original tweet is here, but you might not want to go to Twitter (and Musk broke embedding of videos from tweets, either by intent or by firing everyone who knew how that worked), so I’ll also link my copy of the video. Transcript for accessibility:
It’s a nice dress, one of my favourites actually. It has pockets.
None of the replies even attempted to address the argument about privacy. (I don’t think they spotted the more controversial one about it sometimes being okay and good to help people to break the law, lol!) I’m pretty sure none of these repliers would be capable of refuting it. I’m not saying there are no potential counterarguments, but the repliers didn’t even try. They were focussed on my appearance; most were making playground insults. Most people grow out of insulting others in this way (if they ever do so) by the age of 8 or so. But there was a degree of malice I never saw in playground bullies.
Not all of the replies were abusive, but it barely matters when the constructive ones are drowned out.
To his immense credit, @joshs met with me and apologized for mishandling how the video was posted (it shouldn’t have been posted on Twitter with open replies), then asked me what I wanted to do. Did I want to delete it or leave it up?
This is in my opinion exactly how, as a company, you should respond to someone who works for you being attacked online.
I chose to leave it up partly because — fuck the haters — and partly because, ironically, the overall response only reinforces some of the points I’m trying to make. (The post was changed after the fact to only allow accounts followed by the @zcash account to reply, but that doesn’t affect existing replies.)
Anyway, that is Twitter now, from trans people’s perspective. This is what intentionally destroying Twitter’s moderation infrastructure (among other destructive acts), leaving only a hollowed-out husk for appearances’ sake, looks like.
Consider: what is this policy doing to degrade the quality of my free speech? Whose speech is being prioritized by this platform?
To temper the memory of that unpleasantness with one of those “beautiful, radiant things” Emma was talking about, let me perform a Swihart-esque pivot to a musical interlude.
There’s a YouTuber I’ve been watching recently who is a classical musician well versed in music theory. Her thing on YouTube is that she had very little exposure to pop music when growing up, and so has never heard many culturally significant pieces of popular music that her audience is almost certain to have heard at some point. So she does videos where she is listening to a well-known piece for the first time, and then later she will do another video going into great detail about it from the perspectives of musical theory, the use of instruments and voice, metaphors, mood, meaning, and so on.
One of the fantastic things about this is that it often brings out aspects of a piece you’ve heard a thousand times but have never really heard. Here’s her first listen to The Sound of Silence, by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel. (YouTube doesn’t do a great job on this video on some devices; maybe reduce the playback resolution unless you’ve got a good Internet connection to avoid buffering.)
[Alt text for video preview: A woman in a white filigree lace top with black above-the-shoulder-length hair wearing headphones and sitting with a piano and a drum behind her. There is a full-size harp to her right, which is taller than her while she is seated, and other instruments (guitar, large cymbal, small harp, and flute) on the back wall. She has her eyes closed listening to the music with her head tilted back, and her hands lifted up expressively with outstretched fingers. There is large superimposed text saying “Simon & Garfunkel” in red and “The Sound of Silence” in white, with a sound waveform below it.]
This happened to be the first time I’ve really considered what the poetry of those lyrics is trying to say. The song is all about suppressed speech and inhibited expression. It’s a lament for the tragedy of self-censorship and of not feeling able to express what you believe out of fear of repression, or ridicule, or social ostracism.
In short, it’s about the sound of silencing.
By the way, I know this video is long but the more of it you watch, the more you will see of why I chose to include it here.
I want to change tack again to talk a bit about political context.
In the UK recently, there have been a series of riots instigated by fascists, on the pretext of a violent incident in which children were murdered in a Southport school having supposedly been committed by a Muslim (it was not). The pretext does not even matter; the fascists would have used anything. They exploited it to incite a huge increase in racist and Islamophobic violence, including setting fire to (in one case) and attempting to set fire to (in another) multiple hotels in which immigrants were housed.
It was a genuinely affecting and effective political protest, and it did restore some of my faith in humanity that had taken quite a battering from the extent of casual ableism displayed by so many people in the pandemic.
Do I think this means the tweet can be taken at apparent face value as opposing specifically fascist speech? No. I think @joshs’ take on it is basically right, and that the government (speaking through the CPS) are exploiting the current political context in the UK to say something that could otherwise be considered downright dystopian (also, not wanting to appear oblivious to a strength of anti-racist public sentiment that the government and media had been caught flat-footed by).
Their real interest lies not in suppressing the speech of fascists, but in suppressing the speech of climate protestors, protestors against the genocide in Palestine, anti-racists, anti-capitalists, animal rights activists, people who would like not to freeze to death in winter, GRT people whose entire way of life is threatened, and “uppity” trans and disabled people who just want adequate healthcare and fair access to society – because those are the kind of people and causes that their political outlook considers it most important to silence.
This is not a theoretical concern about the future; it has been amply demonstrated by those already being the groups to which the most heavy-handed suppression of speech is applied in the UK, and will continue to be applied regardless of the recent change of governing party. And by the way, the UK government and in particular the Home Office (responsible for border control and police) is complicit in fostering and adopting policies that structurally support this same rise of racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.
In Brazil, they had a military dictatorship for 21 years. That experience influenced the constitutional laws that are being used against Twitter/X. And Twitter has displayed absolute contempt for the Brazilian legal system and legal decisions, trying to act as though local law did not apply to it. I haven’t studied those laws and (as you may have gathered ) I have a strong bias against Twitter that is likely to be affecting my viewpoint, but we should certainly be skeptical about the attempt by Twitter/X to portray its legal noncompliance in Brazil as an uncomplicated defence of free speech.
All that said, I come to precisely the same conclusions as @joshs about encryption and communication privacy in general, and the arrest of Pavel Durov in particular.
In particular, it is vital for us to fight against the blocking of communication or privacy technologies, which is always a blunt instrument. (Yes, much as I think present-day Twitter is a toxic mess, I have to reluctantly admit on principle that this does include Twitter.) And we should never allow backdoors in these technologies, or anything remotely in a grey area adjacent to being a backdoor, because that makes them fundamentally untrustworthy and unfit for purpose.
The importance of context includes, for example, that even exactly the same words can be hateful in one context, and an expression of resistance to that hate in another. I can and occasionally do refer to myself among friends and other activists using words that should be considered slurs more generally. And that is fine because the same words mean different things in those different contexts. That to me is one of the issues that highlights the critical importance of private communication: privacy can help to avoid harmful context collapse and misinterpretation of speech for which the context is an essential part of its meaning (which is all speech and all expression). It’s part of what I was talking about in my video above.
Our communication and privacy tech has to be able to handle a wide range of scopes of expression, from 1:1 chats, to the private chat of a family or of activists before/during/after a protest, to a medical practice’s communication with its patients, to a Discord-like server of friends with shared politics or oppressions, to the global public sphere — often as part of the same platform.
I’m a cryptographer and I’ll repeat what basically all cryptographers are saying about this (with only slightly less mincing of words): Telegram is crap at this, and is not in any useful sense an encrypted messenger. In fact its UI could almost have been designed to mislead users into thinking they’re getting encryption in situations where they’re not: it will silently fail unless both parties in a 1:1 chat activate a hard-to-discover menu option while they’re both online. For private messaging, just use Signal.
(I’m sure there are a contingent of spooks who are privately annoyed at the French authorities for going after Telegram, because every user who thinks Telegram is a usable private messenger is a user they can collect more high-value plaintext from — plaintext from chats that the user might have thought were private.)
In terms of the material support we need to give to Telegram devs and the opposition to this attack against encryption and privacy tech in general, though, that doesn’t matter. It’s obvious what the authoritarians’ game plan is. Like a wolf preying on a flock of sheep, they are picking off the weakest projects first — the ones that they know won’t get unequivocal support.
Whether this choice of target was clever strategy or lucky accident from the authoritarians’ point of view, as security engineers we just can’t resist dunking on Telegram’s cringeworthy usage of obsolete crypto, or its awful silently failing security UX design. You’ll notice that I didn’t in fact resist that dunking (seriously, switch to Signal).
But if that were all we said, then we’d be playing into the authoritarian game plan. The legal precedents that they obtain won’t depend on security or otherwise of the actual crypto. If they’re able to establish the precedent that developers are responsible for uses of the systems they build, or even something short of that but close enough in practice, then they’ll eventually be able to use that against the developers of Signal and Zcash and every other privacy-enhancing technology. And I’d rather stay out of jail (especially since that would probably be a men’s jail the way things are going in the UK, which is frankly terrifying).
So if you would fight for the freedom of me and Str4d and Kris and Sean and everyone else working on Zcash if it came to it, then fight for Pavel Durov’s freedom. Fight for the freedom of the Tornado Cash devs: Roman Storm, Roman Semenov, and Alexey Pertsev (who has already been sentenced to almost five and a half years). Don’t let any mistakes that some of these developers may have made stop you from seeing the wood for the trees. I make mistakes too, and they will likely be used against me.
Please note: I’ve seen people trying to imply that the charges against Durov are about Telegram’s lack of content moderation. That is not true, or at least not the main point. First, as @joshs pointed out, some of the charges against him are directly about “the unlicensed provision [or importation] of cryptology services aimed at ensuring confidentiality”. Second, he is essentially being held liable for illegal activity by others that used Telegram — not participating in any of those activities himself, but just providing a communication network on which they happened. Prosecuting a developer for that is a huge overreach with chilling consequences on the development of communication tech in general.
I don’t claim that tech is value-neutral, btw. I endorse the views expressed in Phil Rogaway’s “The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work?” about the responsibilities of scientists to consider societal consequences of their work (or of their inaction!). I care deeply about those consequences, including attempting to mitigate adverse ones through careful design. But I claim that that’s all it can be: attempting. We must have privacy. We must, in order to live our lives.
I’ll tell yous something I hadn’t really planned to say when I started writing this reply. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, I stopped working on mix-net research. In way of partial explanation, let’s just say that there was a lot that I didn’t understand about the world and myself in 2001.
It was a huge mistake. I should have redoubled my efforts toward making private and untraceable communications – technology that denies governments the traffic analysis information they would later admit that they use to “kill people with metadata” – available to everyone. Mix-net research carried on of course; one person is one person. But I will not make that mistake again, even if it costs me.
Thanks @daira for laying all these ideas out so clearly. There are so many angles and layers at play.
There’s a saying about mainstream Media that sort of translates like this: “they attack as corporations but they defend themselves as journalists”.
This quote refers to how media corporations pursue their corporate goals against anyone who would stand up against them and once every a thousand times when they get a blow back they defend themselves as “indie journalists”
X’s positions about free speech are just a bunch of lies. While they refused to comply with Brasilian law, they did not have any problems censoring political opposition in India at the government request even if it meant shutting down the BBC (not a local small newspaper)
I believe that shutting down a social media is counter productive in terms of giving Elon’s troll armies an opportunity to play the victim. Also it sets horrible precedent for the future in Brasil where we won’t know who will use it and against who. The justice system in Latin America is crossed by corporate interests of all sorts. It’s really complicated to know who’s calling the shots. The judge ordering this and called “friend of Lula” actually sent Lula to jail in 2018 with faux charges and was put in the Supreme Court by vice president Temer after Dilma Rouseff was impeached with also faux corruption charges that could never be proved.
When all we have is muddy waters, I guess we can only play by first principles. Just 2 weeks ago the same Brazilian politicians were criticizing Maduro for doing what their Supreme Court just did. This will do more harm than anything else because democracy, freedom, justice are values that can’t be built on top of having two set of rules depending on who does what.
Also anyone wanting to raise their voices against hate speech in x from Brasil can’t do it anymore which is, at least, inconvenient.
Controlling free speech and keeping hate speech at bay is a so surgical task. Most of the times it will end falling into the “Eating the cannibal” paradox. To me is something that should be worked out differently to avoid it completely.
The mobile UI of the forums hanged had to cut my post in two.
I wanted add that I want to express my solidarity, sympathies and complete support to @daira against all the hate that Ze has to put up with just for being who ze is and how ze feels. From my point of view, transphobia is yet another form of fascism and therefore those who dump their trans-hate speech shall not be treated any different to other fascists.
Right the UI is fine for someone in love with crypto who loves tech. That is not most people
Most people don’t even think about privacy they think about eating, paying their mortgage, paying their kids college education.
Those people are not online fiddling with different wallets. I know a ton of professionals doctors, lawyers, corporate types making six figures that wont touch the stuff because its too hard or dont trust it.
Talk to them not another 20 something that is all on crypto.
Yes it’s perplexing. I’ve been observing and thinking about what works and what doesn’t in the design and user interface of cryptographic systems (and computer systems in general) since the 90’s. I have family and friends who have a wide range of levels of experience with tech. In areas where the usability of Zashi or Zcash falls short, it’s not really because we don’t know what to build or because we’re out-of-touch. It’s because it’s incredibly hard and time-consuming!
Please, to the armchair detractors: you try doing this on a public blockchain that has had to run continuously since 2016 using proof tech that was impractical before 2013 and a consensus layer built on Bitcoin Core. You try doing all that on a project that has at various times had complicated internal politics and conflict between engineering and management (this has got a lot better, and I think we’re really closely aligned now within ECC). Or one that is trying to do something opposed by a massive and powerful surveillance establishment organised across multiple countries. (Although honestly, the fact that Bitcoin Core was written in C++ has ended up having a lot greater practical negative impact on Zcash than any spook or regulator. But the latter issue is certainly a source of stress.)
We keep getting derailed, as individuals and as a project, by a whole bunch of deeply frustrating issues that we can’t avoid, but that take time away from actually building what we have always wanted to build. More empathy for that would be nice (thankyou @Pacu and other colleagues). But I firmly believe that Zcash is still the world’s best chance for a truly usable and private electronic cash system.
It is really awesome to read many of the people of this community. Today it is @daira in particular because of what you have written that very much resonates with me. But I am sure that I would enjoy a very human tea n’ biscuit session with most people in this forum! Yes, even though I have to fight most of you on the dev fund governance question!
I can only imagine how distracting and annoying that must be. Realistically, I may be seen by quite a few as part of the annoyance. But tell me what do you want me to do @daira, I want to help you. If you tell me that I shouldn’t keep fighting tooth and nails so the dev funds gets fully controlled by ZEC holders, then I will stop, at least for a year. Maybe you see something I and @hanh don’t.
To me, a dev fund controlled by ZEC holders is how we can protect Zcash; protocol and ecosystem participants, from the regulatory storm that is happening and getting more intense every day. It will take time to develop, secure, and stabilize decentralized governance tools, even simple ones. If we wait too long though, which I believe we are doing now, we may not be able to escape / survive a catastrophic event. The protocol will remain, but we won’t reach the escape velocity necessary for making the impact most of us want Zcash to make in the world.
Let’s keep protecting @daira and other oppressed people, they are often the best ones humanity has.
This is very misleading. It’s a complicated situation but basically Twitter was banned for not complying with Brazilian law. They can be unbanned any time they want if they comply with the laws, same thing they do for many other countries.
(ZIP 320, transparent history changes, Currency Conversion)
) I have a strong bias against Twitter that is likely to be affecting my viewpoint, but we should certainly be skeptical about the attempt by Twitter/X to portray its legal noncompliance in Brazil as an uncomplicated defence of free speech.
had to cut my post in two.