Personal Thoughts on Privacy

Off Topic Lounge
1

As someone with religious beliefs, I don’t really think of privacy in the usual sense. From my perspective, the Creator has root access to creation and can observe it at all times. Because of that, privacy isn’t really about choice or secrecy to me.

What privacy means to me is the right to be treated with respect and consideration by others. When people feel that others are not showing them enough respect or consideration, that’s when the need for privacy becomes more apparent.

Because of that, I’m not automatically opposed to sharing some personal information with governments or companies. If that information is genuinely needed to provide public services, manage resources, or distribute them more effectively, I’m willing to accept that.

The real issue is that many governments and companies collect far more information than they actually need. That’s where privacy concerns begin for me—not with necessary data collection, but with unnecessary data collection.

The reason I like ZEC is not because I see it as a perfect solution to the privacy problem. Rather, I think the blockchain world as a whole has become an extremely transparent and exposed environment.

Whenever a system moves strongly in one direction, people eventually begin to recognize the value of ideas and technologies that move in the opposite direction. In that sense, it’s not surprising that privacy-focused technologies continue to attract interest.

To put it a little differently, I do not mean that ZEC maintains a high price simply because people within the ZEC community believe privacy is important. Ultimately, the price is determined by what I would call the mirroring effect of blockchain society. By mirroring effect, I mean the tendency of a system to generate demand for what it lacks. Just as women sit in front of a mirror, objectively examine themselves, and apply makeup to compensate for what they perceive as shortcomings. And the woman who once sat in front of the mirror goes on to buy cosmetics for the rest of her life as if they were essential. For humanity that will eventually find itself confined within blockchain systems, that would be the ecosystem of ZEC

That’s largely why I chose ZEC.

Not because I believe it is perfect,

but because I think it serves an important role within a broader ecosystem.

At the end of the day, my faith is in God, not in any technology created by human beings. Technologies are tools. Some may be useful, some may be flawed, but none of them should be treated as something beyond that.

10 Likes
2

As someone without any religious beliefs, I found your point of view very profound and interesting. Thanks for sharing!

3 Likes
3

Well said, this had me in deep thought for probably 30mins how much spot on with this point of view on privacy.

1 Like
4

Thanks to Jenkins and Lowo88 for taking the time to read my personal thoughts on a topic that doesn’t really have a right or wrong answer, and for sharing your encouragement and understanding

3 Likes
5

A most excellent op. Please note that I respect your beliefs, and that this reply is in no way a criticism or indictment of them.

To be blunt, Thomas Payne drove me away from organized religion early. His arguments against those institutions were simply too strong. As for the notion of a Creator capable of orchestrating the launch of something as vast and complex as our reality and its material appendage, a thing so grand as that is beyond my ability to even somewhat comprehend. It isn’t something I wrestle with, because it feels like wrestling with a ghost.

For someone like me, privacy is a remarkably practical thing; I want us to be free from antiquated systems that serve only those privileged enough to manage and benefit from them, not to mention being free from the influence of the privileged themselves. This is not to say that I have not enjoyed privilege in my own life. I have access to education, capital, healthcare and other advantages that the staggering number of de-banked and disenfranchised human beings currently living on this planet are categorically denied. However, I am also keenly aware that the old ways have produced a world in which my privilege continues to come at the direct cost of many other people’s economic, personal and religious freedom. Fiat is part of this equation. Unblended with digital assets, it is only private if you have enough of it to purchase privacy. If not, your business is their business. Forever.

Digital currencies, particularly ZEC, provide a framework for real, universal access to unencumbered remittances, to commercial opportunities, to financial assistance and investment, free from systems controlled entirely by monolithic entities that are beholden to laws and mechanisms which cap human development for the sake of safeguarding established wealth.

As a minarchist, I’m entirely fine with my government having certain information about me. It serves many practical purposes. As do some taxes. What I am not fine with is how easily information about us has become a commodity traded between commercial enterprises; a commodity that acts as a catalyst for ubiquitous and unavoidable advertising, the establishment of sweeping monopolies, and algorithmic brainwashing.

To quote Philip J. Fry, “that dog won’t hunt, monseigneur”.

6

Your message begins with respect for my beliefs. That is exactly the essence of privacy as I understand it. When I talk with people like you, I feel comfortable sharing personal thoughts and experiences. In that kind of environment, I do not feel uncomfortable even if some of my privacy is exposed. This is why I say that the true meaning of privacy is respect and consideration.

However, technical privacy is very useful in a public blockchain environment. People do not really have conversations on a blockchain. Communication there happens through code. In many ways, it belongs more to AI and machines than to human social interaction. Human beings generally seem to prefer having conversations on the web.

Regarding the subject of a Creator, I have no intention of preaching. I used a few religious terms because the prism through which I view the world is God’s purpose. Since my understanding of privacy is different from the mainstream understanding of privacy here, I included those religious terms simply to explain the perspective from which I am speaking.

However, if there are any religious ideas, especially teachings from the Bible, that you find unreasonable or difficult to accept, you are welcome to send me a message. I understand and relate to most of the points you made.

There is, however, one thing I find difficult to agree with: the phrase “digital currencies.” If this were an XMR community, I would probably agree with that description. But ZEC has reached certain compromises with regulators. In addition, the United States has chosen to classify blockchain-based coins not as currencies, but as assets or commodities.

I respect and follow the decisions of governments and institutions. Even when I believe they may be wrong, I still choose to do so. I do this because I try to follow the biblical principle of being subject to relative authorities.

1 Like
7

With regard to the term “digital currencies”, I use specifically it because it comprehensively describes the monetary peer-to-peer foundation upon which all of these interactions are supposed to occur. Bitcoin has, in my view, ceded much of its argument to the institutionally-driven and tightly-controlled world of value storage. As have other projects that are becoming more strictly regulated.

Economic freedom doesn’t occur within frameworks that governments put in place, because economic freedom is not something they want for their citizens. They want dependency on avenues of commerce, fiat currencies and value storage systems that they control the size of and access to.

While I respect the fact that your faith compels you to adhere to established laws, I myself feel compelled to note that such laws are crafted by human beings with a very specific agenda, which is to both reinforce and exploit the status quo for the benefit of some and to the detriment of many others. If I can’t justify it intellectually, mathematically or morally, then the fact that it is government policy is largely irrelevant to me.

1 Like
8

There is a difference between something being capable of functioning as a medium of exchange and people being genuinely comfortable using it as one.

As for my view that ZEC is not currently a currency, and does not appear to be moving in the direction of becoming one, I believe I have already explained the reasoning behind that position.

From my perspective, there are several conditions that must be met for something to be comfortably used as a currency.

First, the value of the smallest practical unit must be low. One U.S. dollar is worth roughly 1,500 Korean won. Although the U.S. dollar is widely regarded as the strongest currency in the world, the value of a single dollar is actually quite low. From a government’s perspective, currency is ultimately just infrastructure for managing human society. Infrastructure should not be expensive. But ZEC is expensive.

Second, it must have a high degree of trust. The largest component of that trust comes from price stability. Of course, coins can be divided into smaller units and traded that way. However, we should not overlook the fact that the price of one whole coin becomes the basic unit that people recognize and perceive. Human cognition does not fundamentally change simply because an asset can be divided into smaller pieces. When the price of a single coin is high, fluctuations in that price can make people feel uneasy and even trigger a sense of anxiety. In the end, that reflects a lower level of trust.

Third, when I look at currency not as a tool but as a function, I believe there must be a centralized institution willing to guarantee credit. For ordinary people living within a nation-state, the most powerful entity in their lives is the government. In one form or another, they can only truly trust a currency that is backed by the government. Human beings are social creatures, and this is a necessary part of that reality. Credit does not originate from price, utility, functionality, or even technological superiority. Fundamental and powerful credit comes from hegemony. Gold and Bitcoin inspire a great deal of human desire. However, that should not be mistaken for credit. They are not necessarily highly creditworthy simply because people strongly desire them. In that sense, cash (currency) is more creditworthy than gold

That is how I would conclude my thoughts on currency.

As for governments, they are not moral institutions, nor can we reasonably expect them to be. Based on my understanding of history and traditional common sense, governments are predators and rulers. In fact, I consider government to be an authority that exists outside the law. That is simply the nature of power.

For governments, the ability to maintain control comes first. Everything else can be worked out if society reaches a consensus.

When dealing with human governments, I do not dream of utopia. For that utopia, I turn to the Creator in prayer. People often perceive religious individuals as people who dream of an ideal world. However, I am a strict realist. Therefore, when I look at thousands of years of history, I have no great expectations or hopes for human governments, which have all failed in the past and will continue to fail in the future. Human beings do not have the ability to ultimately benefit other human beings. Because I have a strongly realistic outlook, I rely on Jehovah, who I believe will answer my faith.

9

Three statements struck me…

I studied physics of complex systems (and briefly worked in academia), nothing to do with gods and religions, and these sentences express some key concepts of modern science.

Fluctuations are incredibly important for a system to explore its phase space and don’t get trapped in local minimums. Some times fluctuations can bring a system to a totally new state during a phase transition, opening unthinkable possibilities.

Panopticon want to harness and stifle fluctuations, trapping humanity in a state of static equilibrium.

Zcash is the movement in the opposite direction, it can be one of the main fluctuations that will move society to new dynamic equilibrium points.

Again, thanks for inspiring these thoughts

2 Likes
10

Jenkin’s kind comment makes me smile. I graduated from a technical high school, and I am currently an ordinary service engineer managing apartment buildings. I also have a deep admiration for people who are well-versed in physics, because I often feel that their way of thinking is structured in a very beautiful way.

2 Likes
11

This discussion has drifted a bit from privacy as a core topic, but I do feel the need to address the notion that authorities, their systems and their “guarantees” are somehow reliable safeguards that deserve to be maintained and reinforced.

If we examine, for example, the past 100 years of economic activity worldwide, we observe a stunning lack of stability. Currencies are quite prone to collapse. Entire economies and national currencies vanish or evolve to suit new forms of contracts. Those with personal experience that is limited to temporarily stable economic frameworks belonging to a handful of modern, developed economies often mistake their exception for the rule.

I have never trusted central institutions or their guarantees, because they have utterly failed to provide clear evidence that thier systems are actually serving humanity in anything other than the most predatory and ephemeral ways.

2 Likes
12

I generally agree with your perspective. History has constantly reminded us that governments aren’t always trustworthy—whether we’re talking about monetary systems or political institutions.

What I meant earlier was simply that, within the specific timeframe of using a currency, one can have functional trust in its immediate purchasing power, based on the conditions I mentioned. If I woke up one morning and had to feel anxious about the value of my money every single time I bought a sandwich, or grabbed an ice cream or a cup of coffee at lunch, I simply wouldn’t consider that to be a functional currency. And I would feel the exact same way even if I were using ZEC as a currency. Of course, there are many other ways to define currency. As you know, countries like Turkey, Venezuela, or Argentina have established governments, yet their currencies fail to meet those basic conditions. As a result, they live in an economic environment heavily dependent on things like USDT. This is exactly what happens when a fiat currency loses its trust, isn’t it?

Regarding your last two sentences, here is my take: a state’s primary focus is control, not serving humanity. I was merely pointing out a few conditions that make a currency practical for everyday use, rather than arguing for its long-term credit or its guarantees as a store of wealth.

Currently, governments control the issuance and circulation of money. It feels to me like you might be holding onto a hope that blockchain, represented by Bitcoin, could eventually take over that role. If that’s the case, I’d gently encourage you to look a bit closer at the nature of power. Currency is ultimately a tool for those in power to maintain the system. Once you delve into the true essence and dynamics of governments and states, it might offer you a different perspective.

By the way, as a Korean who isn’t entirely used to this style of debate, I think our conversation drifted away from privacy because of my own shortcomings in handling discussions. You’ve shown me what a great conversational attitude looks like. Thank you so much for that.

1 Like
13

Your grounded perspective on technology really resonated with me—seeing it not as an object of worship, but as an imperfect yet ‘essential tool’ that keeps the ecosystem in balance.

1 Like
14

Really well said and as a fellow believer I especially relate to the point that privacy is a function of trust. With God He knows all is uniquely worthy of such knowledge because after all He made all things and is the One responsible for calling balls and strikes in the End. On a human level we choose what we share with those we love and the degree that we share depends on the level of trust we have. You’re a beautiful writer and I appreciate your thoughts!

Mr. Sane

1 Like
15

It feels to me like you might be holding onto a hope that blockchain, represented by Bitcoin, could eventually take over that role. If that’s the case, I’d gently encourage you to look a bit closer at the nature of power. Currency is ultimately a tool for those in power to maintain the system. Once you delve into the true essence and dynamics of governments and states, it might offer you a different perspective.

I understand why you may have interpreted some of what I have said as a case for fiat and related modern financial systems to be replaced somehow, and I should probably clarify that this is not the case. I never argue against traditional finance. I argue for increasingly blended and diverse financial systems that allow greater and greater financial privacy and economic freedom to a larger number of human beings through their steadily branching experiments.

Interestingly enough, it was specifically because I delved into the dynamics of governments and states that I ended up with a mountain of credible evidence suggesting that the nature of traditional power itself is transient, entirely self-serving and painfully inefficient. The power structures built upon it are rightly susceptible to being diminished by the creativity of educated, motivated people who actively expand and refine less corrupt and corruptible alternatives to them.

2 Likes
16

What WEB3NERD said makes perfect sense. There is no need for us to blindly follow or worship technology. Technology is merely a tool. I believe that when we look at it this way, the developers of ZEC will stay grounded and remain more deeply focused on their core mission, without becoming complacent.

17

It’s such a pleasure to meet a fellow believer, Mr. Sane. From a human standpoint, if someone wishes to share their data only with the people they choose—and only as much as necessary—that choice deserves to be respected. In that sense, the ZEC network plays a truly significant role within the blockchain ecosystem by delving deeply into privacy technology.

2 Likes
18

I see now that I might have misunderstood your intentions, Supercut. I made that assumption earlier because I thought you wanted ZEC to function strictly as a traditional currency. Even though our perspectives differ in some areas, I feel that we ultimately agree on one thing: ZEC holds a very important place across the entire blockchain industry and is a truly valuable, irreplaceable asset.

For me, analyzing the crypto space through the lens of power and governments makes it much easier to understand what is happening right now and where things are headed. Of course, public choices and preferences also influence their thinking. Since I am just one of many ordinary people, trying to read the board from the perspective of those in power helps me maintain a more balanced and clearer view. Perhaps I am speaking to you based on the premise that if I were the one holding power or hegemony, I would probably end up making similar choices.

At the end of the day, I might just be the kind of person who simply wants to know the direction, follow the trend while staying law-abiding, and avoid making huge losses. To put it more simply, while I don’t support or participate in the injustices widespread in this world, I try to adapt to the demands and positions of those with established authority. That being said, I fully understand, empathize with, and respect your awareness of what is wrong and your desire to resist it.