China’s cybersecurity law of 2017

The new cybersecurity law in China is amazing. Not because it was made for china, but because it doesn’t contradicts the law from other countries. That means, in US and Europe nearly the same law is out there, but it is not so clear formulated because of historical reasons. For example, the cyberlaw in the US goes back to 1970’s and was updated since then many times, the chinese law has the advantage, that it was written from scratch and makes very clear what is allowed and what not.

The perhaps most important topic in the chinese cybersecurity law is encryption. To make the point clear, encryption is not allowed in china, and if a commercial company want’s to provide encrypted e-mails, or online games which are sending encrypted status-updates between the players a backdoor has to be installed for the government. If such a backdoor is technically available everything is fine, and the company can provide encrypted e-mail, otherwise not.

Why is the law so strict, why it is not allowed to encrypt messages? This has to do with the fight against terrorism. The position of the government is, that encryption is equal to hide something from the public and that is equal to terrorism. The compensation between different parts of society like private households, government and commercial companies is to restrict encryption, that means to reduce the strength to a level that business activities like password logins and modern payment is possible but let the government at the same time the opportunity to control what is going on.

Somebody who identifies themself as a crypto-anarchist may argue, that encryption is a fundamental right for every citizen, but that opinion is useless, because in the 1980s the same people have argued that illegal copying of software is also a fundamental right. No it is not, there are copyright laws which prevents that one PC user is copying the Monkey Island II game for another PC user, and there are also cybersecurity laws, which are preventing that company A and company B a forming an invisible anti-government conspiracy.

The problem with strong encryption like PGP is, that it is technically not breakable. If somebody is technical experienced, he can encrypt messages in a way, that only the user with the correct key can read it. That means, there is no technical option to prevent it. It is the same problem, that in the 1980’s technically it was not possible to prevent the illegal copying of software. The only thing what helps is a legal law which puts the people under criminal investigation. That means, the new chinese cyberlaw is not a research project for building a quantum computer which can eventually break AES-128 encryption, it is only a sheet of paper which give the law enforcement agency the option to freeze-in the bank-accounts and bring the people into jail if they are not cooperate.


Hacking is a crime

So called Crypto-anarchist are propagating the use of strong e-mail encryption. The idea is to use PGP as default technology to encrypt every message. They are trying to convince and educate people, and especially non-experts. Why Crypto-anarchist are explaining PGP especially to non-experts has to do, that their behavior is wrong and e-mail encryption makes no sense. Let us go into the details.

On the first hand, PGP is useful, because the e-mail is encrypted and the information is protected. So it is a good idea to use it in the e-mail program, isn’t it? But let us go a step further. What else is from a technology standpoint possible to increase the security? Apart from PGP it would make sense to use an anonymous tool like TOR, a distributed filesystem like Bittorrent and a crypto currency like Bitcoin. That means the perfect protection of the user would be a combination of everything which is known as “Darknet technology”.

But how useful it is if a beginner is installing these technologies on his computer to encrypt his e-mails? If he want’s to make only legal things not very much. And this is the critique: PGP is from a technical point of view, a well working military grade encryption technology. But it can’t be used for serious business. I know, the company symantec has a product which include PGP in a security suite and in Fedora Linux, PGP is preinstalled, but around bitcoin there are also companies who are earning money with it. I think, it is to short to describe e-mail encryption only on a technical level.

Let us explain, why 99% of all e-mails are not encrypted. Are the users not able to install the gpg software? It is to complicated to create a private key? That is not the real reason. In reality, the user are not using encrypted e-mail because they want, that their e-mail provider, their boss and the government are able to read the e-mails. It is not stupid or not inexperienced, it is a wise decision.

Let us investigate how E-Mail is used in the normal case. Alice has an account at gmail. He logs in with his password and sends the e-mail to Bob. Google can read the e-mail, and the government perhaps too. The e-mail is not encrypted because Alice and Bob have nothing important to say. They want, that a higher instance can read their messages.

I do not think, that it is necessary to change the situation and to explain Alice and Bob how to use strong encryption. Because encryption results into a different social situation. For example, if Alice encrypts his e-mail, he no longer trust Google and the government. Alice stays outside the system, he is a crypto-anarchist and is arguing that the government has no right to spy on her. What is the purpose of this political statement? Alice encrypts her E-Mail because she thinks she is superior to the government. That she has the right to encrypt her E-Mail. That is not true. Nobody except the government and the military have the right to encrypt messages. That is the reason, why pgp is export restricted, and that is the reason why PGP is used in the darkweb.

Can darkweb-technology used for legal reasons? No, it is not possible to use bittorrent, PGP, bitcoin and tor in serious business. From a technology standpoint all of the software is highly advanced, it is superior to mainstream technology like unencrypted e-mail, ftp fileserver or normal bank-accounts. But it is part of the social game to separate between them. Old, outdated technology is used by the mainstream, and new advanced technology is used by the criminals. Alice has to decide on which side she want’s to stay. Not using PGP makes clear, that Alice has nothing to hide and accepts the right of the government to monitor all the e-mail traffic.

The question is not if Alice has enough computer knowledge to encrypt her e-mails, to hide their traces in the server log and to be independent from mainstream bank-accounts, the question is more on which side Alice want’s to act. Does she respects the right of the government to read her E-Mails or not. Sending out only PGP encrypted mails is a social sign of civil disobedience, it rejects the current order and is trying to make the exception as a rule. Only crypto-anarchists are arguing in such a way, they are not respecting the current system and trying to convince other people to follow them. PGP and other protocols are not a technology innovation, but a political resistance. Not attending the resistance is the best choice.

Colliding interests

Let us explain in detail on which point encrypted e-mails are a problem. If the IT department of a company is monitoring the internal traffic for detecting security issues it is important, that they are able to read the traffic in plaintext. If some of the employees is using PGP it is no longer possible to read the information. The same is true, if a commercial e-mail provider like Gmail is monitoring the e-mail traffic to search for malware and to earn money with advertisement. If the customer is encrypting the messages, Gmail is no longer able to read what it is inside the e-mails.

Are these conflicts a problem? Yes, because they are adjusting the relationship. The idea behind the relationship of a citizen to the government is, that the government is superior, and the same is true for the relationship between the customer and a company. Strong E-mail encryption with PGP establish a bypass and that is equal to re-negotiate the social relationship. From a technical point it is possible that a citizen no longer respects the govnerment, that is called in the literature pre-crime-thinking, because the citizen questions if the government has the right to control the citizen and to read the plain-text e-mails. The reason why 99% of the citizen are sending their e-mail in plaintext over the line is equal to isolate the other individuals who are encrypting their e-mails. If somebody want’s to help the government to hunt the criminals it is a good idea to send the e-mails as plaintext. So the government needs only to monitor pgp encrypted e-mails and this makes it easier to fight against cybercrime. So idea is to increase the number of plain-text e-mails from today 99% to 99.5% and this will isolate the criminals. If the remaining traffic is isolated, it can be monitored, traced back and connected to real persons.

Sure, every citizen can decide for it’s own if he wants to encrypt his messages or not. Using PGP is not illegal. But using PGP is a social signal which is against the law.

PGP in a company

Let us describe a more simpler setting. Suppose, the it-department of a company is trying to monitor the internal traffic. How can they decrypt PGP messages and bittorrent content? There is no way, both are advanced technology which can bypass existing security parameters. To get control over the technology, that best way is to stop the traffic at all. That means, if some pgp encrypted and bittorrent related traffic is there the company has a problem, and the answer to is trace back the origin and stop it.

Sure, a pgp encrypted e-mail is not a sign of world war III, it can be normal hello world e-mail for test purposes. It must not be a sign, that the employer is stealing information and will send it away. As far as I know there is no way, to decrypt the messages, so the IT-manager doesn’t know what is inside. Should he trust the packets, should he trust his employees? No, because the job of the IT-department is to get control over technology and be able to detect security incidents. So it is the right decision to take the situation serious and see all PGP related content as evil, which equal to a potential attack from inside or outside. If the other side is trying to sell pgp encrypted e-mails as normal and the right choice for daily usage, it will make things complicated. The correct answer is, to see pro PGP speech as wrong and forbids it too.

The problem with E-mail encryption is not, that it is complicated to use. In reality it is very easy to write a bash script which sends out e-mails messages which are pgp encrypted. The problem is the opposite: how to prevent such a behavior? I think, what we need is a culture in which PGP is recognized as something which is illegal.

PGP and Tor

In a recent example it was described what the next logical step after using PGP is. The article is about a new e-mail provider, called Protonmail which has strong PGP encryption as default. Protonmail is the only provider which supports this format right now. Now, they have decided to go the next step. After encrypting the message, the customer has the choice to use a peer-to-peer network for hide his traces. From a technical point of view such idea makes sense, PGP and Tor are working together. But, can Protonmail recommended to normal users or companies? No, because what is offered goes into the direction of full encryption and anti-censorship. That means, the technology protonmail has to over will result into conflicts with government and information restriction.

It remains the question open: why is advanced technology like PGP, tor, bittorrent and bitcoin are not used in daily life by the mainstream? That is indeed an interesting question. It can’t be answered with technology itself. Encryption is at foremost an algorithm, but it can’t be ignored what the social implications are.

The most PGP users are not aware that they are doing something wrong, if they encrypt messages. The are attending a crypto-party, signing each other the keys and believing that this good and normal. The situation is equal to the early days in homecomputer in which the term piracy was unknown and the awareness was established that it could be illegal to copy software. What is needed is some kind of education to explain the PGP users that their behavior is wrong. There is no excuse for encrypting e-mails, it remains anarchy.

From a technical point of view, it makes sense to encrypt a message and to make a backup of a game. And from a technical point of view it makes also sense to give the copy to a friend and to send the e-mail to somebody on the list. But the overall picture is different. What the users have done is computer piracy and hacking is a crime.

How to lose your SSH key

One way of loosing the own private SSH key, is entering the path to the ~/.ssh folder in Google Chrome and browse through the files. The public ssh key is stored together with the more interesting private key. If someone has the private key he can get access to important information. I’m not sure, if this works in 4os (iTV Forth operating system) too ;-)

The “red book” and other bibles for hacker

In the movie Hackers (1995) was a famous scene, in which the computernerds are talking about books. They have given them special names like the “White book”, “Red book” and so on. A comprehensive list is available at From a library point of view, it is simply a bibliography of computerrelated printed books. The list is not very long, not more than 27 books are on the list, which can be subdivided in the following categories:

• programming languages: Lisp, Smalltalk, Perl, Smalltalk history, Smalltalk-88, Pascal, C, C new, C++
• misc: Hacker dictionary, AI
• graphic: OpenGL, OpenGL Programming,
• Postscript: Postscript, Postscript Language, Reference, Adobe Type1
• computer science: Automata theory, compiler, compiler-design, computerprograms
• Unix: UNIX books, UNIX interface, POSIX, Unix environment
• operating systems: IBM PC, trusted computer system

The similar featuure of all the books is, that they are containing knowledge about the computerhistory of the 1970-1990s. That means, knowledge about creating a free operating system from scratch. It starts with automata-theory and what a compiler is. The next step a concrete programming languages like Lisp and Smalltalk, then a bit Unix implementation and on top some computerpractice with Postscript, OpenGL and security. Overall it is a nice list, which contains carefully selected books from all major disciplines. Some of the books, for example about the Pascal programming language are outdated today, others for example about Postscript or Unix are very relevant.

The perhaps most important book on the list is not the purple book or the green book, it is a book which has no direct color and is referenced as “other bibles”. The name is “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Russell and Norvig”. It is a special book, because it doesn’t fit into the above categories. AI is not a programming language, not an operating system and has nothing to do with compilers. To be onest, the Russel/Norvig book doesn’t really fit on the book list, instead it can be seen as an open question.

The hackers of the 1970s-1990s have made their homework in a sense, that they have read all the other book and programmed working software. All the books can be summarized to the Linux operating system. It is Unix compatible, it is opensource, contains compilers for all major languages, and it has even a postscript viewer integrated. What the old-school hackers and programmers didn’t have realized must do the next generation. That is Artificial Intelligence. It is a category, which the old hackers were aware of it. In the hackers dictionary the term is explained, and most programmer know what it is. But in general, AI is unexplored land. And even the Russel/Norvig book brings not really a deeper understanding of AI into the world, it is only an introdution, but not a reference manual.

The reason why AI is different from the classical hacker discplines like programming and Unix has to do with the number of literature which is needed for describing the subject. Classical Unix programming can be explained with a small amount of books. In the above list, around 20 books are mentioned, and in reality, 100 books are enough for explaining everything about programming in a high-level-language, make a compiler from scratch and write a Unix clone. But for AI, 100 books would be enough. That means, AI is more complex.

The way to AI

Let us investigate, which books from the list are useful for programming AI and robotics application. The first surprise is, that the Lisp book “Common Lisp: The Language by Guy Steele” is not very helpful in programming such things. Lisp was invented as an AI language, but the manual is focused on compiler development. That means, Lisp is a good language for meta-compiling and operating system development. The famous Emacs editor was written in it. But the Lisp book has no iinformation about AI. Other books are way more helpful, for example the smalltalk bible which explain what objectoriented programming is, and the book about opengl, because with opengl it is possible to draw robots on the screen for developing an interactive testbed for AI development. The most important is not surprising the book “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach” which gives a first introduction to the subject. The bad news is, that the book failed. It is not a reference manual, it is more a bibliography to find other information from a special subject. That means, if somebody is interested in neural network, he finds at the end of the book with a bit luck additional material which explains the topic. The book itself can’t do it. Because it has only 1200 pages, which is equal to 600 DIN A4 pages, which is equal to 60 shorts papers which were uploaded to Arxiv.

And here is the answer, what the real bible for AI researcher is. It is not a special book, but a preprint server which hosts million of papers. It has nothing to do hacking or systemprogramming, instead reading a complete preprint server is similar to studying a subject in depth.

Hacking AI

In computer history, the term “Hacking” means to become familiar with the hacking books. That means to get an expert in compilers, UNIX, computer security and Postscript. The term hacking can be transferred to the subject AI. But what is the baseline there? What is the company or the book which has to be hacked? At first, AI can be recognized as information which is written down in academic papers about AI. I would guess, that around 10 million AI-related papers were written today. And 100% of them are published by publishing companies like Elsevier, Springer and so forth. AI Hacking means, to read the papers, understand it and perhaps become an publisher for its own.

The hero in AI hacking is Google Scholar, there is no doubt, because they have build a search engine for retrieving information already out there. I would call AI a topic from computer science, because programming and compiler-design is only a small part of it. At first, AI is a section in a library, which means it is a science written down in papers. Writing papers, and reading papers is primary task of AI researchers and AI hackers. AI can be compared with classical hacking, only with more information. The classical UNIX systemprogrammer needs not more than 100 books. This was enough to become an expert in C++ and Unix. The classical AI hacker needs million of papers, otherwise he is not familiar with important subject in the field.

Let us investigate the intersection between UNIX hacking and AI hacking in detail. If the Unix hacker was successful, he has programmed an operating system for himself, or at least some parts of it. Eric S. Raymond, Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup and Linus Torvalds are typical examples. If they have made their homework, a normal PC boots a Linux system until the GUI, and all user programs like the compiler, texteditor and graphics programs are ready. A Unix system programmer was successful, if the operating system is hardened against malware, has no major bugs, and gives the user what he needs. If the Unix operating system works, the systemprogrammer is out of the loop. It is up to the user, to do something interesting with it. The systemprogrammer only provides the compiler, the programming language, the GUI and the Postscript definition.

A working operating system can be seen as the intersection between Unix hackers and AI hackers. A bugfree OS is the result of what Unix hackers have done, and the startpoint for AI programmers. Now, let us observe the situation from AI programmers point of view. He powers up the computer, and gets a working environment. It has a highlevel texteditor which can output LaTeX, it contains of a objectoriented programming language which is compiled to fast machine code, and the software which is created runs under every POSIX operating system. And now, it is up to the AI hacker, to make something useful of it.

Today, this is unexplored land. It is unclear how to use C++ for programming a robot, or how to use a texteditor for writing an impressive paper about AI. There is a need for new generation of hackers, which are focussed entirely on the AI. That means, the classical problems like programming a compiler, inventing a programming language or program a multitasking operating system are done by the above mentioned heroes of the past. The wheel can’t be invented twice. New hackers must play on a different court.

Book count

Suppose, that one printed book is equal to 10 written papers. From the area of AI and robotics, around 10 million papers are available at Google Scholar. Printing them out would result into 1 million books. In comparison, the hackers dictionary is referencing to 25 important books about programming and Unix, while a AI hacker must have read around 1 million books.

Hardware vs Software vs. AI

Software developers see themself as independent from hardware developer. That means, they are not interested in how a CPU works, or what graphicscard a PC has. Instead the idea is to use the current hardware for doing something with it. The next step is to separate between software development, which has to do with operating systems, system administration, compilers and programminglanguages and on the other hand we have Artificial Intelligence. That means, an AI Engineer is not interested in a specific programming langauge or operating system. He is focussed on the algorithm itself and the paper which described him.

Even AI engineers are software developers too, both groups have not much in common. The normal software developer are interested in programming a computer. That means, they want to try out what a machine can do. For example, they want to print a character on the screen, or they want to write a mouse driver. From AI perspective this activities are not very interesting. Because apart from programming a computer, the focus is in developing autonomous systems.

Is Windows dead?

It may be a bit surprising to speculate about the question, if Windows is dead, because the market share on the desktop is around 95%, while Linux only has a marketshare of 1%. That means, MS-Windows is installed on billion of PCs worldwide. But from a technological perspective Windows is dead. We should compare the Windows operating system with the Playstation gaming console. The playstation 4 was sold more than 100 million times, the same is true for the playstation 3, and the customer has loved the system. The problem with playstation is, that it is like Windows a proprietary and closed system which means it is not possible to write software for it, or even run a playstation emulator in Linux. And the same problem has Windows too. It is impossible to boot the system in qemu and it is also impossible to write software for the target platform. In theory, Microsoft is providing some tools for doing so, for example the Visual Studio IDE, but in reality only certified programmer have access to it. It is the same procedure like in the Nintendo world, in which not everybody can write a program for the system.

Let us compare Windows with another non-linux system, for example with Minix. Minix is not the best system if somebody wants to run a program. But in contrast tot MS-Windows it runs very well in an emulator, and it is possible to write software for it. So from a technical point of view, Minix is superior to MS-Windows. This statement may be surprising because Minix is sometimes called dead and the users worldwide is very limited. But the ecosystem behind Minix is stable, while the ecosystem behind Windows is not.

Some hackers have fun with porting software to closed operating system. For example, they are able to run a program on WIndows or on the Playstation console even without beeing a certified programmer. But this is always illegal, that means it is not recommanded to use this technique everyday for professional software development. So the question is: is it possible to port legal software to MS-Windows? It is not possible. Because, the user isn’t allowed to booting Windows in qemu. The same is true if he wants to compile a hello world program for the platform, because for doing so he must first reverse engineering the GUI-api, otherwise his software will not run.

If we take software development serious, it is from technical and legal reasons not possible to program software for the WIndows operating system. So, this a sign, that the ecosystem is dead like the Playstation 4. Dead means not, the number of users is small or that the number of sales is low, dead means that MS-Windows is a legacy system which is not relevant for programmers.

Let us take a look at the original Gameboy from Nintendo. The device itself was nice. Many cool games were programmed for it. But from todays perspective the system is legacy hardware. That means, it is not supported by Nintendo and it is not possible to write software for it. The gameboy can be compared with a Windows 10 PC. It is a nice platform, but it was not designed that anybody can write software for it. Oh yes, in theory it is possible to create a super-game for Windows which has 3d graphics and lots of enemies. This game would perhaps run smoothly and some customers will buy it. But what comes after the game? Right, the platform itself was designed as blackbox, that means the game will get no further support, and it is not possible to find anybody who want’s to improve the game.

I wouldn’t call MS-Windows an operating system, it is more a gaming-console for running licensed cartridges. The main problem is, that this design-issue can’t be overcome with a new version. In the next iteration of Windows 11, 12, 13 the problem will be the same. So every new Windows version will look like the MS-Windows 3.11 plattform which has many users in the past, but it is a dead end. It is too difficult to crosscompiling software for it.

In the past, some efforts were undertaken for example Java and C# to make software more cross-compiler friendly. But the problem is not the programming language. C++ is a very good language, which runs on every system. The problem is the target platform itself. That means it is possible to build with C++ a minix application, but it is impossible to port this app to MS-Windows or the Gameboy.

Even Minix, which has no graphical user interface, is better suited for developing software or running apps than Windows. This has nothing to do with the number of users a system has or how powerful the operating system is. for example Minix is not able to speak with large harddrives. Instead it is a question how open the technology is. In a sense, that other people can improve it.

From all Opensource system, Linux is currently the most developed system. But for a Windows-PC it would be big improvement if the user is replacing it with a barebone Minix system. Because this results into a target platform which is more suited to run external programs.

SymbOS — ein Verriss

Ausnahmsweise nicht Heise Online sondern diesmal das Portal Golem hat die aktuelle Vintage Computer Festival Ausstellung besucht in der Beschreibung unter dem 2 Minuten Clip wurde auf ein bemerkenswertes Projekt verwiesen: SymbOS. Es handelt sich dabei um ein Betriebssystem für den MSX Heimcomputer was ähnlich wie MenuetOS komplett in Assembler geschrieben wurde. Auf der Projektseite kann man im Bereich “System library” einen Blick in den Assembly-Sourcecode werfen. Ebenfalls gibt es dort eine umfangreiche Doku. Vielleicht mögen jetzt Einsteiger sagen: Das ist aber mal ein cooles Projekt, doch ich betrachte das ganze etwas kritischer. Es gibt relativ viele solcher Hobbyprojekte wo Programmierer mit zuviel Zeit auf die Idee kommen, doch endlich mal Software für Computer-Oldies zu entwickeln. Mit Symbos gibt es jedoch mehrere Probleme. Zum einen fehlt es an einem C Compiler. Das heißt, will man für dieses System eigene Programme schreiben muss man wie das Betriebssystem selber alles in Assembler schreiben. Und zweitens ist die Hardware (MSX) inzwischen nur noch auf Flohmärkten oder als Emulator erhältlich. Das treibt die Projektkosten in astronomischen Höhen. Rein technisch kann man unter SymbOS vermutlich Texte schreiben, im Internet surfen und vielleicht programmiert noch jemand eine ERP-Software wie SAP R/3 für das System. Rein praktisch jedoch wird genau das nicht passieren. Weil wie gesagt, technisch ist das System extrem hochentwickeln, aber die Projektkosten … Hilfe. Es hat schon seine guten Gründen warum die Homecomputer aus den 1980’er heute in Musueen stehen und nicht mehr in Firmen verwendet werden. Rein funktional sind es natürlich vollausgestatte turing-mächtige Supercomputer, auf denen sich mit geschickter Programmierung jedes Problem lösen lässt. Insbesondere Probleme der Robotik und Künstlichen Intelligenz. Ich wage mal die These dass man sogar ROS auf 1 MB RAM bequem laufen lassen könnte, wenn man es vorher nach Assembly portiert und auf das nötigste reduziert. Das Problem ist ein anderes: Software wird von Menschen programmiert, und die sind teuer und arbeiten langsam. SymbOS ist vermutlich das teuerste Betriebssystem was jemals entwickelt wurde. Das heißt, der Aufwand und der Nutzen gehen massiv auseinander. Insofern ist es auch nicht minimalistisch wie man angesichts eines MSX Computer vielleicht denken mag, sondern ich wage mal die These dass SymbOS selbst für einen Großkonzern wie Microsoft den Kostenrahmen sprengen würde. Indem Sinne dass wenn man Microsoft sich entschließt auf diese Plattform zu wechseln, es binnen 12 Monate pleite wäre.

Das ganze ist kein Betriebssystem sondern es ist ein Kostengrab. Es wird lediglich von Systemen getoppt die noch aufwendiger sind. Immerhin ist Assembly Languge für den Z80 noch halbwegs weit verbreitet, Wer es noch aufwendiger mag der ist dem Hive Projekt gut bedient, Diesmal wird die Hardware komplett selbst entwickelt und als Programmiersprache läuft ontop dann ein Forth System. Wie man vielleicht schon ahnt, erhöht das die Kosten weiter, weil man auf einer Stackmachine garantiert keinen C-Compiler laufen lassen kann. Anders gesagt, ich würde mal grob schätzen dass selbst ein Apple MacPro mit 12 Terabyte RAM billiger kommt, als wenn man den obigen Hive Computer baut.

Richard Stallman hat keine Ahnung von Bitcoins

In dem obigen Video erläutert Richard Stallman die Vorteile von Bitcoin, so führt er an, dass man damit Geld überweisen könnte und man sich unabhängig machen könnte von großen Konzernen. Diese Pro-Bitcoin Attitüde lässt darauf schließen, dass Stallman das Prinzip noch nicht wirklich verstanden hat, und nur das nachplappert was auf seinem Teleprompter steht. Die Wahrheit ist, dass Bitcoin keine Vorteile hat. Es handelt sich um Teufelswerk, was erfunden wurde, um die Menschen zu versklaven. Man kann damit auch kein Geld überweisen, sondern man kann lediglich Betrügern auf den Leim gehen, die sowas in Aussicht stellen. Bitcoin ist darüberhinaus verantwortlich für schwere Wirtschaftskrisen wie sie derzeit in Venezuela passieren. Dort hat Bitcoin dafür gesorgt, dass die Inflationsrate des Landes extrem gestiegen ist und es zu Arbeitslosigkeit und Massenarmut gekommen ist. Bitcoin ist ein Krisenphänomen das immer dort Fuß fassen kann, wo die Menschen kein Vertrauen mehr haben und wo ein Krieg unmittelbar bevorsteht. Bitcoin zu loben ist so ähnlich als würde man die Pest loben.

Hier findet sich ein sehr viel sachlicher Bericht über Bitcoin. Darin wird das P2P-Geld als das gefährlichste Projekt seit langem bezeichnet, was dazu führt, dass komplette Staaten ruiniert werden. Die beste Methode wie man mit Bitcoin umgehen kann ist es, die Teilnehmer zu kriminalisieren und jeder der auch nur einen Satoshi über die Blockchain sendet für Jahre in den Knast zu stecken. Auch Pro-Bitcoin Propaganda sollte man als Hate-Speech werten. Wichtig ist vor allem, dass man Unternehmen fertigmacht die Bitcoin heute schon einsetzen. Der Lebensmittelhändler REWE bietet beispielsweise Bitcoin als Zahlungsmittel an. Das wäre ein guter Grund wenn man da mal die Steuerprüfung vorbeischickt.

Generell gilt es zu unterscheiden zwischen nützlicher Technologie wie Paypall, was seriöse Online-Händler nutzen um den Zahlungsverkehr abzuwickeln und illegalem Geld wie Bitcoin, was ausschließlich von Kriminellen verwendet wird um Geld zu waschen. Bei Paypall wie auch beim Online-Banking was immer mehr Banken ihren Kunden anbieten handelt es sich um eine sichere Technologie die aus rechtlicher Sicht ohne Beanstandung ist und für den Verbraucher Vorteile bringt. Auch für Unternehmen bieten Paypall und SEPA Überweisungen einen bedeutenden Effizienzgewinn weil das Geld erstens sehr schnell übertragen wird und zweitens das Abtippen von Einzahlungsbelegen entfällt. Bitcoin jedoch ist kein weiterentwickeltes Paypal oder eine neue Art zu bezahlen sondern Bitcoin ist illegal. Dass es heute im Darknet eingesetzt wird, ist schlimm genug, im normalen Geschäftsverkehr hat es nichts verloren. Wenn in einer Stadt wie Wien ein Bitcoin Automat aufgestellt wird, so handelt es sich nicht etwa um die moderne Form des Geldverkehrs sondern es handelt sich um Staatsversagen. Die Wiener Polizei ist entweder schlecht ausgebildet, hat zuwenig Personal oder hat die Gefahr nicht erkannt, die von Kriminellen ausgeht.

Die neueste Entwicklung in Sachen seriöses aber innovatives Zahlungsmittel ist Paypall Cash. Es handelt sich um eine Smartphone App mit der man im Supermarkt bezahlen kann. Dort wird ein QR Code verwendet um die Transaktion auszuführen. Sowohl für Unternehmen als auch für Verbraucher ist das eine nützliche Technologie, die man benkenlos empfehlen kann. Es ist eine weitere Zahlungsmöglichkeit unter vielen.

Was jedoch ein No-go ist, dass sind Bitcoin Apps die auf einem Smartphone installiert werden um ebenfalls via QR Code zu bezahlen. Auf den ersten Blick ist der vorgang derselbe, doch Bitcoin ist eben kein Geld sondern es ist illegal. Jedes Unternehmen das sowas anbietet sollte man ins Gefängnis stecken und Verbraucher sollte man aufklären, über die Nachteile.

Auch bei Paypall tummeln sich schwarze Schafe. Beispielsweise wenn ein Händler bei ebay eine bereits geöffnete Verpackung versendet oder überhaupt nicht verschickt, das Geld aber einbehält. Das sind dann Fälle für das Beschwerdemanagement. Grundsätzlich ist Paypal jedoch der richtige Weg. Bei Bitcoin hingegen ist jede Transaktion ein Fail. Das heißt, Bitcoin an sich ist falsch, mit Bitcoin kann man keine seriösen Geschäfte ausführen.