4 ms·

Except that it's much harder to transfer large sums of cash across borders. This is the drug business hardest problem, getting the drugs into the country is ea

Except that it's much harder to transfer large sums of cash across borders. This is the drug business hardest problem, getting the drugs into the country is easier than getting earnings out.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wslack 8y ago
Cash is also harder to collect and manage. It has a scaling problem that cryptocurrencies do not.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  Also cash is issued by the government at will. And nobody else can create cash. It's diametrically opposite to bitcoin's decentralized approach.
  - lagadu 8y ago
    I hope I don't come off as too glib but: "Also bitcoin is issued by the consensus algorithm at will. And nobody else can create bitcoin."
    - andrewflnr 8y ago
      The superficial syntactic similarity of those statements is all they have in common. The mechanisms are, as one might expect, almost completely opposite.
  - pintxo 8y ago
    Oh, everyon can create their own cash. The problem is not printing some form of currency. The problem is getting other people to believe in the value of your money.
leoc 8y ago
That's why the €500 note was taken out of circulation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/business/international/ecb-to-remove-500-bill-the-bin-laden-bank-note-criminals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/business/international/ec... .
bitcoinisqueen 8y ago
Do you mean the "contraband" or "illegal drug" business biggest problem? Because last time I checked the alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, psychoactive, and pain killer industry is measured in the 100's of billions and many Trillions per year.... and they do not seem to worry too much of the challenges of paying dividends/disbursements? If it's illegal drugs, then it's literally not a big deal compared to several orders of magnitude greater money transfers and societal harm relative to "legal drugs".
3pt14159 8y ago
What I don't understand is how little this argument has changed over the past seven years. Once policy makers understand crypto-contracts and cryptocurrencies for what they are they'll either regulate them to the point of where libertarians rue the day they were invented or they'll ban possession with jail-time as a punishment for knowingly holding them. This isn't a novel insight. It's what I've said for the past seven years. It didn't stop me from buying Bitcoin in 2011 because I could see the medium term upside, but if anyone seriously thinks that these will become the backbone of our economy in their present form is delusional. Governments are not going to allow such a shift in power.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Governments are anwerable to the people. There are many actions that would allow governments to better enforce a whole suit of laws, including banning public use of strong cryptography and banning cash, but they don't do because we don't live in a tyranny where governments have a free hand to impose any restrictions they want to increase their relative power. I've never understood this deification of governments, as if people are their subjects. Governments are created by the people to further their interests. Government power is not a public end on to itself, and the polity is suspicious of and to a large extant restrains government power.
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    Depends on the country, but the west uses the financial system to enforce law internationally. I do not think that then end of law enforcement is a good thing. It's not the deification of the state; merely pointing out that it will not suffer the loss of this power and, in my view, we shouldn't hope that it does.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      So it's about what you think we in the West should hope for, not about what you think the government will tolerate. You support the current gateeeping of the financial system, and think the West would be harmed by the circumvention/disarming of laws that make it possible. I don't agree that ending the financial surveillance state means the end of law enforcement. The surveillance state is a relatively new phenomenon, and I believe it has only one destination: extreme concentration of power, erosion of private property rights, and enablement of tyranny. There are many more means of gathering evidence of crimes besides warrantless surveillance.

Except that it's much harder to transfer large sums of cash across borders. This is the drug business hardest problem, getting the drugs into the country is easier than getting earnings out.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wslack 8y ago

Cash is also harder to collect and manage. It has a scaling problem that cryptocurrencies do not.

dingo_bat 8y ago
Also cash is issued by the government at will. And nobody else can create cash. It's diametrically opposite to bitcoin's decentralized approach.
- lagadu 8y ago
  I hope I don't come off as too glib but: "Also bitcoin is issued by the consensus algorithm at will. And nobody else can create bitcoin."
  - andrewflnr 8y ago
    The superficial syntactic similarity of those statements is all they have in common. The mechanisms are, as one might expect, almost completely opposite.
- pintxo 8y ago
  Oh, everyon can create their own cash. The problem is not printing some form of currency. The problem is getting other people to believe in the value of your money.

leoc 8y ago

That's why the €500 note was taken out of circulation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/business/international/ecb-to-remove-500-bill-the-bin-laden-bank-note-criminals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/business/international/ec... .

bitcoinisqueen 8y ago

Do you mean the "contraband" or "illegal drug" business biggest problem? Because last time I checked the alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, psychoactive, and pain killer industry is measured in the 100's of billions and many Trillions per year.... and they do not seem to worry too much of the challenges of paying dividends/disbursements? If it's illegal drugs, then it's literally not a big deal compared to several orders of magnitude greater money transfers and societal harm relative to "legal drugs".

3pt14159 8y ago

What I don't understand is how little this argument has changed over the past seven years. Once policy makers understand crypto-contracts and cryptocurrencies for what they are they'll either regulate them to the point of where libertarians rue the day they were invented or they'll ban possession with jail-time as a punishment for knowingly holding them. This isn't a novel insight. It's what I've said for the past seven years. It didn't stop me from buying Bitcoin in 2011 because I could see the medium term upside, but if anyone seriously thinks that these will become the backbone of our economy in their present form is delusional. Governments are not going to allow such a shift in power.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
Governments are anwerable to the people. There are many actions that would allow governments to better enforce a whole suit of laws, including banning public use of strong cryptography and banning cash, but they don't do because we don't live in a tyranny where governments have a free hand to impose any restrictions they want to increase their relative power. I've never understood this deification of governments, as if people are their subjects. Governments are created by the people to further their interests. Government power is not a public end on to itself, and the polity is suspicious of and to a large extant restrains government power.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Depends on the country, but the west uses the financial system to enforce law internationally. I do not think that then end of law enforcement is a good thing. It's not the deification of the state; merely pointing out that it will not suffer the loss of this power and, in my view, we shouldn't hope that it does.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    So it's about what you think we in the West should hope for, not about what you think the government will tolerate. You support the current gateeeping of the financial system, and think the West would be harmed by the circumvention/disarming of laws that make it possible. I don't agree that ending the financial surveillance state means the end of law enforcement. The surveillance state is a relatively new phenomenon, and I believe it has only one destination: extreme concentration of power, erosion of private property rights, and enablement of tyranny. There are many more means of gathering evidence of crimes besides warrantless surveillance.