The main problem for any socio-political movement opposing state power is the threat of repression against its participants. This applies first and foremost to libertarians, as from the authorities’ point of view, we are nothing other than the most “non-systemic” opposition (i.e., those who refuse to adjust their positions according to the state’s directives). The risk of repression severely limits movement participants in conducting effective actions, and this is quite explainable: if one can receive a heavy fine just for distributing leaflets, then engaging in more serious activism is fraught with the risk of “sitting on a bottle.” There are very few passionate libertarians ready to create new ideas and promote them to the masses; therefore, the arrest of even one of them can significantly weaken the entire movement. Understanding the situation, they are forced to severely restrain themselves in their words, avoid participating in actions, and generally live in constant fear.
It is entirely realistic to get rid of this problem — all real-world activity must be outsourced, while remaining 100% online, beyond the reach of the stationary bandit (“the state”). Libertarian activists should ideally not show their faces in the real world at all and perhaps not even disclose their views, but upon opening a virtual machine with a VPN, they should not hesitate in anything, for the FSB is absolutely powerless in the fight against the virtual! You can boldly post any calls on social networks, publish the personal data of convinced etatists, and organize the most radical actions — from distributing leaflets and hanging banners on houses and bridges, to the open harassment of active etatists (for example, writing “A maniac lives here” on an etatist’s front door and posting flyers in their residential area with a photo and information about their tendency toward aggressive violence).
All real-world actions must be carried out by people who are in no way connected to libertarianism. We receive donations from anonymous sponsors in cryptocurrency and pay “Vasya-types” from the darknet in bitcoins—people who normally place drug stashes and paint asphalt and house walls with advertisements for “pharmacies.” They are skilled at hiding from the police and know what to do in case of arrest. That is why they take their money for this risk, which, to be honest, isn’t even that much. Even if one of the executors is caught by the cops, he will only give up an anonymous online contact, where the FSB will be met with a VPN service’s refusal to provide a real IP address (or TOR, if you are a complete paranoid). Thus, the true passionaries, whose arrest could weaken the movement, become absolutely invulnerable to repression, while the arrest of depoliticized executors in the real world does no harm to the movement — in place of one arrested graffiti artist, ten new ones wishing to make some extra money will appear.
Skeptics will probably say now that online anonymity is a myth and the FSB will deanonymize you in a minute. I have already written why this is not the case and will never be: since the very emergence of states, according to the theory of the stationary bandit, every state is in constant confrontation with others. Of course, there are temporary alliances, but in the long run, one state is always a competitor and enemy to another! The authorities of any given state are usually always interested in helping the opposition weaken their competitor; therefore, they will not only refrain from disclosing the personal data of oppositionists but will even help in the development of anonymization tools (for example, the TOR network was created with the support of the US federal government). Do you think it is accidental that the laws of most countries in the world contain clauses prohibiting the disclosure of personal data and the extradition of people accused in their homeland for political reasons?! It is not accidental at all, and this must be utilized; as Mikhail Svetov says — maneuver between different states to carve out your own freedom. Given the current geopolitical layout, by living in Russia and using a VPN in Switzerland, the USA, Great Britain, Sweden, and Norway, you are completely safe. Provided, of course, that you do not personally carry out any actions in the real world.
Everyone has already heard of such a thing as cryptocurrencies, and specifically about Bitcoin. However, many wonder why cryptocurrencies are so expensive and what their purpose is in general. Often, cryptocurrencies are mistaken for assets created and owned by some group of scammers who decided to profit from another racket and financial pyramid, while the high cost is explained by market manipulations and the inflating of a bubble that is about to burst. Consequently, for the average person, crypto can theoretically offer no benefit at all.
Let us debunk such misconceptions and convince ourselves that cryptocurrencies are not a fraudulent scheme and are even extremely necessary for us. If you already know how cryptocurrencies work, or if at some point you tire of reading the technical part but manage to understand why crypto is a reliable medium, you can skip directly to the section of the article titled “What is the Benefit of Cryptocurrencies.”
Decentralization of Management
Let’s start by explaining why cryptocurrencies are not a financial pyramid. To do this, although in a rather crude form, we will describe their structure to demonstrate the general concept. The essence is that a significant portion of cryptocurrencies has no central governing body. Their network is completely decentralized; every person, including you, can run a Bitcoin node on their own computer.
You might say that Bitcoin has specific developers who implement their updates, which indicates that they have power over the crypto network. Yes, there are developers, but they are not the owners of the network. Any changes and updates they propose are implemented only with the permission of the number of miners working on the network who possess more than 50% of the network’s computing power. In effect, we have democratic management (but it should not be compared with state democracy, which is nonetheless imposed by force; in this democracy, no one forces you to participate), and this democracy is quite direct, since although it has representatives in the form of developers, no decision can pass without the explicit consent of more than half of the network.
A question may arise: why create and maintain cryptocurrencies at all, if one cannot earn from them without having power over them? However, this is not the case; crypto developers usually perform a so-called “pre-mine,” meaning that before the public release, they create a certain number of coins for themselves, calculating that in the future their crypto will become popular and these coins will increase significantly in value. Additionally, crypto developers can earn money through donations from wealthy users who find further development beneficial.
New cryptocurrencies, which currently have a small network, are often subject to the risk of concentration of more than half of the power in one set of hands, which allows for network manipulation. However, the larger the network becomes, the more rapidly this possibility diminishes. Bitcoin, for instance, has involved such gigantic computing power worldwide that perhaps even large corporations and governments would not find the means (at least without causing significant harm to their own economy) to unilaterally subordinate it and disrupt the network’s operation.
Furthermore, the largest crypto miners are usually mining pools, which are also decentralized organizations. Mining pools are created so that people and organizations with insignificant computing power individually can unite and thus mine coins collectively. The mined coins are then typically divided among participants depending on their contribution to the total computing power. There have been times (for example, in the case of Bitcoin) when some mining pools approached the 50% threshold in power at different periods. However, thousands and millions of pool participants, naturally, cannot agree among themselves simply because of their number; in such a situation, they preferred to leave that pool and join others to prevent the centralization of the network and the loss of value of the coins they had already mined and could mine in the future.
Strict System Operation and Stable Emission
The algorithms by which the networks of many cryptocurrencies operate are fixed and based on unsolvable mathematical problems. The mining process—the creation of new coins—is usually based on finding a hash of appropriate complexity to add a new block of transactions to the network. Hashing, especially in the case of the SHA-256 algorithm used in Bitcoin, is an irreversible function; the only way to obtain a hash that fits a certain condition is to sequentially iterate through a special block parameter. The condition itself, i.e., the mining difficulty, becomes stricter over time; additionally, the mining reward regularly decreases. All of this is also strictly programmed with the calculation that more computing power will connect to the network as needed to maintain a stable currency emission.
Regarding the emission itself, the number of Bitcoins is limited to 21 million coins (currently about 18.5 million coins have been mined). It is simply impossible to just print new Bitcoins; inflation based on the standard paper currency model is simply impossible in the case of cryptocurrencies.
It is also impossible to interfere with the operation of cryptocurrencies via hacking (although there were hacks of Bitcoin, these occurred in the early stages of its development when its software code was not sufficiently perfect). Suppose a hacker wants to submit a false transaction with fake coins into the Bitcoin network. However, every block of transactions in the network contains the hash of the previous block. Other nodes will simply not accept a node that attempts to introduce an invalid chain of blocks into the network. It is also impossible to pick the right block parameters to produce the exact same hash as the original block. Hashing, again, is an irreversible function; it can only be broken by brute force. The SHA-256 hashing algorithm can produce 2^256 unique hash variants—finding a parameter that gives a specific hash would take more than the lifetime of the Universe, even with all the computing power on the planet. Mathematics of large numbers stands guard over the stability and inviolability of cryptocurrency operations!
What is the Benefit of Cryptocurrencies
Fine, cryptocurrencies truly lack centralized management and are absolutely reliable. But why do we need them in practice? After all, ordinary currencies are more popular and easier to use. What is the benefit of your Bitcoin, especially considering that supporting its network and mining new coins consumes an unbelievable amount of computing power and electricity?
The entire benefit of cryptocurrencies lies in the fact that they prevent anyone, including governments, from artificially devaluing your savings through inflation, unhindered taking of your cash funds, and restricting your economic freedom. Let’s start with a simple example. In a survey about Bitcoin usage in Nigeria, about a third of respondents stated that they use it or once used it. This is because the Nigerian government set a tax that is too high on transferring funds across borders. Cryptocurrency became the only option for Nigerians working abroad to send money to their families with minimal losses, bypassing idiotic government laws.
Many such examples can be thought of, as the stationary bandit (the state) tries to rob its citizens in every way. And cryptocurrency comes to people’s aid. You don’t want the stationary bandit to levy giant taxes on your transactions and demand an explanation regarding the origin of funds every time? Pay with cryptocurrency! You don’t want the state to be able to sue you at any moment for non-payment of alimony or take half of your assets in favor of a cheating ex-spouse? Keep them in cryptocurrency! Authorities have limited or banned some type of economic activity and control your income? Accept payment in cryptocurrency!
Cryptocurrency will save your savings, income, and economic freedom in these and many other situations. Cryptocurrency coins cannot simply be taken from you (unless you yourself give away the password to your wallet or your device, where the password is stored in unencrypted form, is taken—always keep this point in mind). Your savings in cryptocurrency will not lose their value over time because someone is regularly printing billions of new banknotes. You can use cryptocurrencies completely anonymously. Although, of course, Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, as all transactions in the network are visible to everyone; however, this problem is solved by using Bitcoin mixers (intermediary services that mix coins with the coins of other mixer users before sending them to the recipient, thereby making the transaction untraceable), including wallet clients with a built-in mixer (for example, Wasabi Wallet). There are also cryptocurrencies where coins are mixed automatically within their own network (for example, Monero, Dash, ZCash). Additionally, try as much as possible not to link your wallet to your real identity. If it is necessary, use a separate Bitcoin address for each transaction; this will make systematic tracking of your transactions impossible.
We can now confidently conclude that cryptocurrency is an excellent economic tool for avoiding regulations, bans, and the theft of funds by the stationary bandit. Cryptocurrency provides maximum economic freedom. This is precisely what forms its value.
So what, governments will just go ahead and ban cryptocurrencies
The thing is, it is impossible to ban the use of cryptocurrencies. As we remember, they are decentralized; there is no single server that manages everything. Millions of servers worldwide are involved in cryptocurrency networks; any person can run a cryptocurrency node even on their home computer. You cannot simply block a specific IP address, as is usually done with online services, and thereby achieve a ban on using the service. Cryptocurrency can only be blocked through a total shutdown of the internet, which certainly will not happen, as everything now works via the internet; such a step would result in gigantic losses for the governments themselves.
It will also be impossible to ban specific types of transactions using cryptocurrency, such as buying goods with cryptocurrency on gray and black markets, or exchanging cryptocurrency for fiat currency. In the case of exchange, the P2P exchange model comes to our aid. For example, you want to exchange Bitcoins for rubles, but services engaged in such exchanges have been shut down by the force of the stationary bandit. You simply use a P2P exchange to find another person like yourself who wants to exchange rubles for Bitcoins and carry out the exchange. The state will not find out that your deal was related to cryptocurrency, because if anonymity measures are observed, it cannot track cryptocurrency transactions. A ban on cryptocurrency is simply a useless and unrealizable measure.
Cryptocurrency is still useless because it is not popular as a means of payment
Now this is an outdated claim. Current trends regarding the adoption of cryptocurrency say the exact opposite. For example, Tesla recently announced its plans to start accepting payment in cryptocurrency. The Apple Pay payment service has already added the ability to link cryptocurrency accounts to wallets and use them within the USA. Google Pay and Samsung Pay have announced similar plans. At this rate, considering that these services are actively used for making payments for purchases worldwide, including in the CIS (admit that you have seen the icons of these services on store signs regarding the possibility of cashless payment, or even used them yourself), cryptocurrencies could become a popular means of payment. Of course, since these services operate by government permission, using cryptocurrency in this case may only add anonymity to the origin of the funds, but it is not a way to evade tracking of their expenditure and taxation by the stationary bandit. However, this should be enough for the general public to accept cryptocurrencies as a means of payment and begin treating them more tolerantly. People for whom cryptocurrencies are commonplace will gradually begin to actively conduct transactions using them directly, without intermediary services. This will allow all of us to achieve significant economic freedom, regardless of the orders imposed by the stationary bandit.
Cryptocurrency will not become a popular means of payment due to slow transactions and high commissions
This is also an outdated claim at the moment. Of course, pure Bitcoin itself is indeed quite slow (on average, transaction confirmation takes 10 minutes, and sometimes it can stretch to several hours) and expensive (the average Bitcoin network commission per transaction at the time of writing this material is about 24 dollars), so it is only profitable to make large transactions that do not require instant execution. However, solutions already exist for small transactions, such as buying a cup of coffee. One of these is the Lightning Network—a payment protocol that allows instant transactions between participating nodes and is proposed as a solution to Bitcoin’s scalability problem. This problem has also been solved in many alternative cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin.
Mikhail Svetov has released the long-announced video on methods for disappearing from radars and setting up anonymous and pseudonymous identities. The disclaimer states that tech-savvy people are unlikely to learn much new from it. I am not a techie; I learned something.
My pseudonymous identity was created with many vulnerabilities, so I do not expect it to withstand any close scrutiny, and I view my activity more as an intellectual game. If I suddenly need to create a new pseudonymous identity from scratch, I will use Mikhail’s advice. To the extent that I already apply the methods he proposed, I have no complaints: it really works. Therefore, one can cautiously assume that there will be no serious holes in the parts I haven’t tried.
I am glad that Svetov has reconsidered his position regarding the extent to which anonymous sources can be trusted. It is a pity that he had to make many mistakes and lose a lot of money to reach this conclusion, but what can you do—that is the price for excessive snobbery and the desire to keep one’s cloak white for as long as possible.
P.S. Viewers noted that in his tutorial, Svetov did not finish typing the command to update packages in the terminal, and as a result, only updated their list. The correct command looks like this:
A post from the Telegram channel “IT criminal cases SORM rossiyushka” is actively spreading across the network about how important it is for everyone to set the correct privacy settings in Telegram, after first updating it to the latest version. The update was made following the outrage of protesters in Hong Kong, who discovered they were being deanonymized by adding all possible phone numbers to the contact list, after which Telegram’s friendly interface immediately gave up the activists’ accounts by phone number. The hole has now been patched, but the old settings are still there by default; they must be changed manually.
Not long ago, I also mentioned a post from the Cryptoagora channel about how to obtain fake bank cards and SIM cards without intermediaries (spoiler: realistic silicone masks are used).
And very recently, Bitarch spoke out regarding the fact that automatic facial recognition systems are inevitably doomed to false positives, meaning that one can not only cover their tracks this way, but also try to feed the opponent members of their own gang: other security forces, odious officials, and so on.
In light of the fact that the Russian authorities are actively purchasing cameras for facial recognition at mass protests, the opportunity arises to provide the press with headlines like: “Zhirinovsky threw feces at a Rosgvardiya officer,” or “Three Putin doubles urinated on a cop.” But—no.
The complication of the protest and the tightening of the screws by the regime currently dictate a clear maintenance of the boundary between legal and illegal actions. During a legal protest, whether agreed upon with the city administration or not, a person limits their toolkit and also expects other protest participants to do the same. Any other behavior will logically be perceived by them as a provocation. At the same time, at other times when the streets are not flooded with security forces, nothing prevents anonymous individuals from carrying out well-prepared actions that discredit the regime, appearing on camera in the images of, for example, Petrunko or Kusyuk.
It is also worth considering in advance which role in the protest suits you best and not striving for versatility. You can sit anonymously on the internet and write articles of a quasi-extremist nature, or you can speak from a podium—but it will be very difficult to combine both functions, as attention to a known activist increases the probability of deanonymizing their persona. You can attend agreed rallies, appearing on surveillance cameras and in cell operator logs, but it will be difficult to combine this with posting flyers or smashing police windows, deanonymized using Russian Elephant. Finally, you can donate to projects you like, although earning money for this may not leave you, for example, with opportunities for serious offline activism.
There will be no post tomorrow; in my offline incarnation, I am going to observe the elections. But if the whim of running for office myself had entered my head, I would have had to hand the channel over to someone else. There is no helping it; every choice entails costs. So let’s drink to the hope that tomorrow we will not regret the choice we made today!
