Recent death Alexei Navalny – the causes of which are still unknown today – has aroused its share of emotions across Russia but also across the world.
We like to believe that the practice of censorship, abusive incarceration and the muzzling of dissidents are practices specific to governments that we consider authoritarian or dictatorships. Certainly, this is true to a certain extent but from a broader angle, it is no less true that so-called "democratic" regimes also make use of them. This is in any case what the WikiLeaks organization and its founder "prove" to us. Julian Assange, which in many ways can recall the fight led by Alexeï Navalny…
In a blog dedicated to bitcoin, you might wonder what the hell cryptocurrency is doing in this story?
Well, let me tell you how Julian Assange was able to find a new form of freedom and protection through Bitcoin. This article explores the fascinating history of the relationship between Bitcoin and Wikileaks to better highlight how Bitcoin can play a crucial role in free speech.
The creation of WikiLeaks and the shockwave it caused
WikiLeaks was founded by Julian Assange in 2006, and the first major release of confidential documents took place in 2010. That year, the disclosure of a series of classified and secret US diplomatic information triggered a global political storm. The most notable revelation at the time was that of the " Afghan War Logs » (Afghan War Logs), published in July 2010. These documents included detailed military reports on the war in Afghanistan, covering the period from 2004 to 2010. The Afghan War Logs exposed disturbing information about events such as military operations, the deaths of civilians killed in error, allegations of torture of the Afghan population, and other aspects of the war that had been kept secret from the US administration.
This caused a real shock wave in the American and international media which quickly relayed the information disclosed. The change in perception was also remarkable among the American population who then discovered another reality of this war, very far from the image conveyed by the traditional media.
The American people's perception of this war, which had been "sold" as a necessary war where the United States had the right role, was then largely changed by the Wikilleaks revelations. The foundation had indirectly revealed the techniques of lies and manipulation that the American government could use to justify its positions, as so sadly described in the " Powell Doctrine"It is a doctrine that takes its name from former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the false accusations he made to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Years later, after numerous investigations and an admission by him, the Powell Doctrine evokes the idea that politicians can deliberately lie to justify military (or other) action.
The financial blockade, the censorship of Julian Assange and the Bitcoin proposal
The revelation of these files (and others that followed) quickly sparked a global debate about the need for transparency of information to citizens. It also reawakened the awareness of the media and journalists about the need to disclose "state secrets", despite government bans on doing so.
Following the Wikileaks revelations, the US administration urged various financial institutions, including Visa, MasterCard and PayPal, to impose a financial blockade on WikiLeaks. This was a radical way to stifle Wikileaks and prevent further information from being revealed. In fact, WikiLeaks, which essentially lived off donor funds, was deprived of more than 95% of its income.
Faced with this financial blockade of unprecedented magnitude, alternatives were proposed but none had as many advantages as the use of bitcoin. Remember that at that time, it was 2010, and the Bitcoin network was in its infancy. Very few people knew about Bitcoin apart from a few cypherpunks who were the first to be informed of this invention by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Remember that cypherpunks represent a heterogeneous group of people who seek to defend privacy, anonymity and freedom of information by primarily using cryptographic tools.
In fact, bitcoin, presented as a decentralized cryptographic currency escaping any control from financial or state authorities, seemed to be the ideal solution (if not unique?) to continue to financially support Wikileaks.
Satoshi Nakamoto’s dilemma…
A posteriori, Using Bitcoin to support WikiLeaks seems to us to be a great idea and perfectly in line with the "principles" of Bitcoin. However, the idea of using Bitcoin to help WikiLeaks has sparked a heated controversy on the forums dividing the community between those who were for the use of Bitcoin and those who formally rejected it.
Even more so, the inventor of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto explicitly advised against not using Bitcoin because it was still in its infancy and could not handle such negative attention. This position may seem contradictory with the idea of Bitcoin (which is precisely not to exercise the slightest censorship) but remains pragmatic in this very particular context.
Satoshi Nakamoto's position can be explained (in all likelihood) by the fact that he feared that the American government would become aware of Bitcoin and decide to suspend it. In 2010, the network did not have thousands of servers and miners around the world as it does today and was therefore vulnerable to possible attacks from the US government.
The decision to accept bitcoin donations from WikiLeaks
After reviewing the situation, the WikiLeaks team decided to follow Nakamoto's advice and not accept Bitcoin donations at this early stage. However, Bitcoin gained visibility among some developers, which allowed Bitcoin to mature and consolidate as an alternative payment method.
Finally, in June 2011, WikiLeaks began accepting Bitcoin donations. This marked the beginning of a successful and iconic (in many ways) relationship between WikiLeaks and Bitcoin.
Financial support in Bitcoin allowed the organization to survive despite the financial blockade imposed by the US government. Furthermore, by accepting donations in Bitcoin, WikiLeaks was also able to maintain a certain form of anonymity for their donors, thus reinforcing the security and confidentiality of transactions.
As we can still see today, the foundation still accepts bitcoin payments.
Final word
The story of Julian Assange and Bitcoin is a striking example of how technology can help causes that one might not suspect at first. Bitcoin not only helped WikiLeaks survive a financial blockade, but it also paved the way for new forms of transparency.
It is important to remember that activists of all opinions who fight for all information to flow freely need technology like Bitcoin.
Of course, one can still doubt the ethics of Julian Assange's activities or the legitimacy of WikiLeaks itself, what is certain is that freedom is at the heart of their actions. And unless we want to live under the tyranny of an all-powerful "Big Brother", this is a fight that concerns us all.
So, of course, Bitcoin can, of course, be considered and criticized as a speculative financial asset but this is only seeing one facet of an object which has several. Bitcoin, as a peer-to-peer payment system, operating without an intermediary, gives us the possibility of being able to exchange information (or value) without risking censorship.
In this sense, Bitcoin is above all an impregnable tool to defend the freedom (that which remains) of men. And, even if this tool is imperfect, isn't it worth finally taking it seriously?
