Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 23, 2023, 05:12:28 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 23, 2023, 12:31:07 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on February 23, 2023, 04:25:35 AM

Well, it's a war and maybe those who don't have the stomach for it shouldn't participate.

Bitcoin's very existence where it gives the option to the average Joe to stop using the corrupt banking system is a threat to the corrupted entities. Everyone should know that they won't just stand around and watch. Sometimes it is just propaganda and FUD, sometimes it is legal battle, and sometimes it is outright banning. On top of that we also have the abusers, trolls, criminals, scammers, etc. who would stop at nothing to do damage.

That doesn't mean we should stay silent either or discourage others from joining in the battles. Sometimes people forget the Bitcoin ethos and need to be reminded of them. They need to be reminded that bitcoin isn't just something you buy to make profit...

It's a choice, and it doesn't have to be a war that has to be doxxed to be fought. Cryptography-based, censorship-resistant and privacy-enhancing tools were invented to empower anyone, and to leverage anonymity to make the war more on equal ground. Developers don't have the arms nor the armies to protect themselves, just their anonymity and privacy. It's those tools/technologies that could bring forth the path to real social change, and to weaken political strongholds.

I have my doubts regarding if you are really even attempting to grapple with the issue that is presented Wind_FURY.. in terms of the extent to which any one person might end up standing up and become a target of controversy and therefore sometimes situations devolved into real battles with real world consequences in terms of livelihood, employability, de-platforming and/or various ways that someone might consider himself/herself to be doing normal work that is actually within the realm of controversy and consequences, and there are all kinds of areas in life in which anyone can end up becoming a threat to the status quo or a threat to a side that has resources sufficient enough to cause difficulties for the one who spoke up or who got involved in certain kinds of work that are "deemed to be threats" to the status quo or even threats to some other project or world view.

Choices are made along the way, and sometimes a person can find himself/herself in a position/situation in which s/he becomes a target... For sure, there are folks who might never stand up and never become controversial and perhaps even continuously choose mentors who are in "powerful" positions, and if the mentor becomes a subject of controversy, some of these folks will just find new mentors, and surely there are choices in life, and sometimes folks do not necessarily realize that they are making choices that are to "take the easy way" and perhaps never really having as much conflict in their lives, because they avoid conflict. I would not even suggest necessarily that such choices to always avoid conflict are bad ones because they are somewhat in the discretion of individuals regarding how much conflict are they ready, willing or able to tolerate, and do they actually believe in anything besides just getting along.. and likely there can be principle in those kinds of choices of non-choices too, and even questions regarding the extent to whch some folks who might have purposefully lived a sheltered life might have a bit of difficulties if they are put into another environment or they might have difficulties understanding or relating to other perspectives in which someone might end up being a target because s/he spoke up too much... if you are always agreeing with the boss, maybe the boss likes that, or maybe the boss might end up firing folks who are too agreeable.. Where is the balance? How much can we tolerate someone who rocks the boat? And is that "rocking" necessary?

The point is no one is forcing anyone to do something if they don't have the stomach, or the heart, for it. The other point is if someone decides to do it, be a developer for privacy-enhancing technology or a censorship-resistance apps that utilizes public key cryptography, then they do not need to be doxxed if they are fearful for their own lives, and the loved ones' lives. Anonymity doesn't follow fraudulent behavior. Satoshi was judged for is work on Bitcoin, yet he remained anonymous. Doxxed shitcoin developers stole from their own communties, yet they had their identity public.

Plus if you truly believe I'm wrong, and that everyone should be fearful of the State Attackers, then who will take over to be the rightful stewards of Bitcoin Core, to continue its legacy, and to keep maintaining/upgrading it to be a multi-generational protocol?