2 ms·
> K, so it appears that you don't support tools that allow people to get around censorship. That's fine, but that is literally the point of Bitcoin. You just do
by KirinDave 9y ago
> K, so it appears that you don't support tools that allow people to get around censorship. That's fine, but that is literally the point of Bitcoin. You just don't like the use case.
You cannot try to shame me into saying a technology that's been proven to have a major security flaw doesn't have that flaw. It's precisely because I care about this more than you that I can accept that bitter pill and you cannot.
> My definition of "working" has nothing to with theoreticals
Then you are a sucker, and you deserve to lose what you put in. Still, I hope you'll be okay, mmkay?
> Or in other words, if it really doesn't work, as you claim, the how come it its working?
Well, aside from the fact that its not working very well at all... It's prototype-level technology escalated to national limelight because of initial interest from a lot of questionable and probably illegal people. Unlike previous things like the internet, the value exchange mechanism is very direct, making it much more attractive for money laundering.
> As defined by the fact that it is literally the best existing tool out there for this usecase. (IE, visa and mastercard will block your money, and yet bitcoin still works)
I'm fairly sure the cost of a dozen viable stolen identities to use as money movement channels is MUCH cheaper than the transaction fees on bitcoin, so it's not like the enterprising criminal doesn't have a classical, high performance, downmarket option.
Bitcoin in particular is libertarian chic and anarchist crypto-religion. Ethereum has MUCH more interesting properties, but still needs several years to bake.
> If you disagree, fine, go ahead and try to stop my money going to places that you don't want it to (ex, such as Wikileaks).
If you really wanna donate to a bunch of authoritarian-loving pro-rapist people with such bad opsec that a single twitter actor blew a core comms network wide open? Be my guest. Crypto-fash it up.
- stale2002 9y ago> I'm fairly sure the cost of a dozen viable stolen identities to use as money movement channels is MUCH cheaper than the transaction fees on bitcoin, so it's not like the enterprising criminal doesn't have a classical, high performance, downmarket option. Ok, and in 2010 did the average person have access to such a network? I personally didn't have access to those things. Thats sounds pretty difficult, actually. But what I DID have access to was bitcoin. And it worked! And it didn't get censored like visa or mastercard was doing. Thats the usecase. Me sending money to wikileaks. I cannot think of any other plausible way for me personally to send money to wikileaks back in 2010. Stolen identities sounds like it would get me sent to jail, and it seems hard. No thanks. Bitcoin was easier. (A dollar for a transaction fee is still cheaper than cross country money transfers, actually.)
- KirinDave 9y ago> Ok, and in 2010 did the average person have access to such a network? Yes. It was called IRC.