5 ms·

In any scenario the state, meaning the group that hold a monopoly on the use of force, will remain very powerful, however with decentralized platforms the cost

In any scenario the state, meaning the group that hold a monopoly on the use of force, will remain very powerful, however with decentralized platforms the cost of enforcement for several classes of laws increases dramatically and the set of activities that can be done anonymously, which makes then much harder to restrict, becomes much larger.

jacques_chester 8y ago
I don't think this is true at all. Legal judgements can be entered against anonymous individuals and groups. That person or persons is now liable to comply and by not doing so, is in contempt of court (and possibly breaking other laws). All fine, you might argue, they are still an anonymous scofflaw. But the risk never goes away, especially since 100% perfect opsec is pretty close to impossible these days. It's a Sword of Damocles as well as a Sword of Justice. Besides: coordinating activities requires identity. Either you have true anonymity, in which case trust is nigh impossible even with smart contracts (you think there won't be bugs? won't be side channel attacks? won't be plain old conmen?), or you have pseudonymity with stable identities to allow reputations to form, meaning that once the identity is pierced all of that person's actions are traceable.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>I don't think this is true at all. It's not true that anonymity increases the difficulty of enforcing certain classes of laws? I never said enforcement becomes impossible or that the risk for those contravening the laws goes to 0%. >>Besides: coordinating activities requires identity. Either you have true anonymity, in which case trust is nigh impossible even with smart contracts With cryptography and immutable and persistent programs you can have trusted agreements without trusted parties. >>or you have pseudonymity with stable identities to allow reputations to form, meaning that once the identity is pierced all of that person's actions are traceable. It's possible that the pseudonym doesn't get linked to any real world identity, but yes pseudonymity is a much less effective defense against a tracker than anonymity.

jacques_chester 8y ago

I don't think this is true at all. Legal judgements can be entered against anonymous individuals and groups. That person or persons is now liable to comply and by not doing so, is in contempt of court (and possibly breaking other laws). All fine, you might argue, they are still an anonymous scofflaw. But the risk never goes away, especially since 100% perfect opsec is pretty close to impossible these days. It's a Sword of Damocles as well as a Sword of Justice. Besides: coordinating activities requires identity. Either you have true anonymity, in which case trust is nigh impossible even with smart contracts (you think there won't be bugs? won't be side channel attacks? won't be plain old conmen?), or you have pseudonymity with stable identities to allow reputations to form, meaning that once the identity is pierced all of that person's actions are traceable.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>I don't think this is true at all. It's not true that anonymity increases the difficulty of enforcing certain classes of laws? I never said enforcement becomes impossible or that the risk for those contravening the laws goes to 0%. >>Besides: coordinating activities requires identity. Either you have true anonymity, in which case trust is nigh impossible even with smart contracts With cryptography and immutable and persistent programs you can have trusted agreements without trusted parties. >>or you have pseudonymity with stable identities to allow reputations to form, meaning that once the identity is pierced all of that person's actions are traceable. It's possible that the pseudonym doesn't get linked to any real world identity, but yes pseudonymity is a much less effective defense against a tracker than anonymity.