Financial Blacklisting of WikiLeaks Backfires Stupendously

By Kitty Testa

On October 14, 2010, the British internet payment company, Moneybookers, suspended the account of WikiLeaks. Less than two months later, PayPal also suspended WikiLeaks’ donation account, citing a violation of acceptable use. Visa Europe suspended payments to WikiLeaks the same day, after Mastercard had already done so. WikiLeaks was very quickly cut off from donations to fund its whistle-blowing activities.

Although neither Moneybookers nor PayPal divulged that the suspension was related to pressure from the US government, WikiLeaks was already under fire from the United States for publishing documents leaked by Bradley Manning.

Ultimately Manning was charged with aiding the enemy, and could have received a death sentence.

Seven years later, Manning has received a pardon from Barack Obama, while WikiLeaks was able to survive and grow by accepting donations in Bitcoin.

On October 14, 2017, Julian Assange, the director and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks tweeted a surprise thank you note to those who blacklisted the organization in the first place.

My deepest thanks to the US government, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for pushing Visa, MasterCard, Payal, AmEx, Mooneybookers, et al, into erecting an illegal banking blockade against @WikiLeaks starting in 2010. It caused us to invest in Bitcoin — with > 50000% return.


So how much Bitcoin does WikiLeaks have? No one knows for certain, but the folks over at Fortune estimate that WikiLeaks could be sitting on as much as $472 million worth of Bitcoin due to its rapid rise in value in 2017.

It’s a rather delicious irony.



Latest Stories

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


    October 21, 2017, 10:36 am

    Government policies always end up having the complete opposite effect!

  • See Hell...Van Horn(e)
    October 22, 2017, 10:09 pm

    Wikileaks!! Harrah!! You see when God Is For you,…whom can be against???

  • 3seas
    October 23, 2017, 3:34 am

    Unfortunately, I have determined the blockchain technology can be beaten/manipulated by brute force computing power the likes of which the NSA, IBM & google and more contactable by the NSA, have. And with such brute force, computing power endpoints can be mimicked and processing mirrored thus getting around the need to break encryption. For those who doubt this, all the information is publically available regarding the brute force computing power and the vault 7 tools are enough to know such mimicking and mirroring is not only possible but has been done (thank you Snowden) and that better tools likely exist today. Blockchain tech is neither anonymous nor secure from such brute force computing power. There are articles even now suggesting this regarding taxes on such earning. Who really thinks jewish controlled banks, whom cause wars with countries refusing their banking are so easily gotten around with by the use of cryptocurrency?.To the contrary, the flood of cryptocurrency ads in social media such as Facebook and some censoring of the expose of this are in collective being done by….. guess who! If there is any safety for Wikileaks, it is only because who they are and what would happen if their account was drained, but that won’t stop the tracking of transactions. And that is something for Wikileaks to think about in their use of cryptocurrency. I wish this wasn’t so.

  • RedOrBluePill@3seas
    October 23, 2017, 5:09 am

    Buy IOTA. Problem solved.

  • WarDamn20@3seas
    November 5, 2017, 5:36 pm

    I would argue that the NSA or other organization would not use their own computers to do a DDOS attack. It could be directly tracked back to the NSA. It would most likely come from a huge botnet. Bitcoin is only anonymous because your personal ID is not required to obtain a wallet. The NSA or other organization are more likely to analyze the transactions than shutdown Bitcoin. I don’t think it would even be worth the time to break the chain encryption. The only thing you can do with a compromised wallet is drain it. I’m unsure about the vulnerability of the protocol itself but its one of the most heavy scrutinized peaces of coded out there. My point being, its not worth these organizations time to take down the network. There time is probably better spent trying to verify the ID of the wallet holders.