but does Snowden have any stake?
He didn't receive any money for the movie Snowden (it was donated to The Guardian instead) [1]. He didn't sell any of the NSA data. He doesn't have a track record of profiting, apart from working (like we all do) and receiving some donations.
So the claim that Snowden is a proponent of Zcash because he has invested in it has no merit. There is zero proof for such statement, and his track record doesn't suggest it either.
Maybe you're using hyperbole. The /suspicion/ at least, has plenty of merit. I agree that doing something like that would go against his track record, but believing a subjective statement on face value doesn't keep that track record intact (except in your own mind, maybe).
I trust Snowden's opinion as much as anyone here, but you can't ignore basic precautions simply because someone is popular for "the right reasons".
I very much think that Mr. Snowden would agree with my frame of mind on this. You may disagree.
Merit? I've seen no merit whatsoever. A vague conspiracy theory, that's what I've seen.
> I trust Snowden's opinion as much as anyone here, but you can't ignore basic precautions simply because someone is popular for "the right reasons".
What you propose doesn't fall under basic precautions; it is a conspiracy theory. And one consisting of very little theory, I'm afraid.
For the record your two quotes:
"I'm suspicious of this."
"For those of you who are down voting, perhaps you could explain why this case might be different from any other value hype. What happened to trust no one--verify?"
You're trying to shift the blame. The burden of proof lies at you.
Because he has credibility due to his track record. That's the basis of how networking works. The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility within their peers as well as the general public.
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Yes, credibility can be abused; as a matter of fact, he did abuse his credibility. Snowden broke his credibility to the NSA (and US government), but for a greater good of both the people of the USA as well as the international community. The price he paid? He lost his well paid job, he lost seeing his family and friends, he lost the luxury life in the USA, his house and any and all of his assets, and a substantial part of the USA hates him (tho a more vast, significant part in the world, is thankful). Ie. his credibility with the rest of the world has substantially increased.
Now, you may think he may abuse his credibility, and it'd be a great plot for a movie, but that doesn't make it realistic. And why? Isn't the same true for any programmer on Zcash, Bitcoin, Etherium, and anything else? If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Are you sure that's air you're breathing? Are you sure the color white is white? You'll end up with a full blown paranoid psychosis if you go with that line of reasoning (speaking from personal experience as well here). My point is that, at the very basic level, we need to trust and take some basics for granted (and, all of us do).
So what we need from you, is some kind of facts (not theory) as to why we cannot trust Snowden. The fact, as far as I can tell, contradict what you wrote: Snowden hasn't acted in the past based on financial gains. For example, he didn't sell NSA information to media or foreign agencies. Instead, his actions were solely based on moral grounds plus personal survival (hence he ended up in Russia).
I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. I have no indication Snowden is a psychopath; tho I'm not sure about those he worked for at the CIA and NSA.
All of which are open source == independently verifiable. TOR would not be recommended as highly as it is if it were a closed-source binary.
>If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself?
Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said.
>I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described.
For someone who claims to have had issues with mental stability, you seem very quick to use that label. /Anyone/ is capable of /anything/. The only variable is choice. There are many variables which can factor into people justifying immoral actions at any given time. Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with, but you would do well to understand that the reality is not as simple as 'us vs. them'. Every single actor on the world stage has their own reasons and motivations for what they do. Not all of them align with your personal wellbeing.
Sure, sure.
Independently verifiable. That's why we had the Debian OpenSSL PRNG fiasco [1]. Your reponse to deterministic builds? "Not needed, its open source after all, independently verifiable." Of course it is needed, just because its open source doesn't mean you can trust the provided binaries. Heck, there was a time where Debian didn't even sign .deb packages. Also, nevermind the spaghetti of OpenSSL and Heartbleed which lead to BoringSSL and LibreSSL.
Yet, its important to realize we don't assume malice here. We don't assume these people who did this were evil until we have substantial proof. Their track record and positions suggest such as well. We assume they're innocent (albeit, ignorant), and that is BTW also in the HN guidelines.
> Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said.
How so? You claim we should be suspicious of everyone.
At the same time, you provided no proof which suggests we should doubt Snowden's motives, generally or specifically. Only vague rhetoric.
> Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with
No, stop shifting the blame. YOU are the one who is demonizing someone else (Snowden) without anything to back up your claims. Instead of this theater, put your money where your mouth is and show us your proof.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...
Demonizing, no. Simply expressing a lack of faith in human nature.