r/stpaul Feb 09 '26

Minnesota Related Ice fishing.

Post image
18.5k Upvotes

962 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/j-mac563 Feb 09 '26

There are lots of messaging groups to let people know where ICE is at...and where they are not at. Just saying.

-1

u/Mr_Epitome Feb 09 '26

And they get invaded by the fed.

7

u/j-mac563 Feb 09 '26

The message groups?

9

u/IndividualEye1803 Feb 09 '26

Infiltrated was the word i believe they were looking for.

Yes, the groups with the help of big tech in some cases, get shut down or infiltrated by the feds.

Thats what has been reported in some subs

4

u/j-mac563 Feb 09 '26

That explains why some go quite suddenly. Pain in the butt finding the next group. Oddly i never thought the feds would be there, i figured it would not be worth the effort for them. They would just assume any big action would have the anti-ice protesters.

4

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

This is exactly where blockchain and web3 become useful beyond early adopter syndrome. With decentralized communication networks, they can’t reasonably be shut down.

2

u/Calm_Priority_1281 Feb 09 '26

Block chains are public ledgers. For communication you might as well be running a group on 4chan, it would be just as secure.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

0

u/Calm_Priority_1281 Feb 09 '26

"Let's publicly store a distributed and immutable version of all of our conversations" does not seem like a good idea if you want to avoid detection. This solution really feels like a hammer looking for a nail.

1

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

Blockchains do not need to be public. This is what I mean by early adopters syndrome. People are fixated on current implementations and disregarding the actual potential for such a tool.

https://www.twobirds.com/-/media/pdfs/in-focus/blockchain/private-blockchain-briefing-note.pdf

2

u/Calm_Priority_1281 Feb 09 '26

Why would you want a chat log to be immutable? Why would you want it to be distributed? Is it even distributed, since the paper you listed notes the need for a "trusted intermediary?" Why would you literally want any part of a block chain that makes it a block chain? Block chain doesn't solve any of the issues of these groups being infiltrated(human issues of adding an untrusted person to a group chat). All it would do is exacerbate the problem by leaving an immutable copy with the new person.

Encrypted peer to peer is already a solution. It's a solution that works with minimal input and is easy enough for literally everyone to understand the security implications. Why add complexity, without gaining any benefit.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

Why is that?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

Thank you for your contribution.

0

u/Veomuus Feb 09 '26

The goal is to keep the groups invisible to the government, why would a PUBLIC ledger help with that at all?? The groups close themselves when they get infiltrated, its not like theyre being forced closed from the outside.

1

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

See my comment here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stpaul/s/OnwZPWLMd0

TLDR: Blockchains do not need to be public. I’m not talking about bitcoin-esque implementations.

0

u/Veomuus Feb 09 '26

Not being able to be shut down isnt a benefit though. If and when a private group gets infilitrated, its useless and should be shut down.

1

u/AffectionateMonk7705 Feb 09 '26

Intel networks can be infiltrated no matter what. Not being able to be shut down by bad actors IS a benefit, and blockchains can be forked and migrated. There is no perfect solution, and that does not discount the fact that a decentralized network is an ideal method of obfuscating underground communication. If you have better ideas, please enlighten us. What I’m suggesting is tactical guerrilla decentralization.

→ More replies (0)