4 ms·

Are you really going to try to argue that you are less likely to get scammed or hacked with Bitcoin than with a traditional bank?

sp332 6y ago
Not scammed, but maybe a regulator will take an interest in $1B being moved around.
- hendzen 6y ago
  Is the average person in our society better off in a world where anyone can move $1B anonymously? Why do you think regulators might want to take an interest in such transfers?
  - czbond 6y ago
    Bitcoin transactions are already being de-anonymized at least in the U.S. - and if not today, the permanent ledger record means that the 'data exhaust' (hidden data surrounding a transaction) can back into it.
  - toss1 6y ago
    No the average person is less well off in a world where $1 billion can be moved anonymously. The need to move such funds anonymously is usually due to illegal activities, money laundering, or at least tax evasion (evasion, not avoidance). This leaves every average person at the very least, on the hook to pay for those taxes evaded, or lacking the services they would have provided. If the need is due to criminality beyond tax evasion, every average person suffers the corrosive effect of that criminal activity (e.g., while I'm for most drug legalization, I can't begin to argue that organized criminal drug distribution is anything but a massive destructive tax on society - & in fact, a main point of legalization is to eliminate that corrosive costs of gangs). So, the average person is definitely worse off with the existence of an ability to move & billions anonymously. (edit: avoided/evaded)
    - hirako2000 6y ago
      I'm sorry plenty of people would disagree with our taxing system, 99% of them not being drug Lords. I think most people would be better off with the ability to move billion of dollars anonymously, as it would also give them the ability to move hundreds or thousand of dollars anonymously as well. I fall into that category. Most people I know, and they aren't rich tax avoiders would also fall into that category. Cryptocurrency liberates everyone in so many ways. And yes it liberates criminals as well. But hey are know how to dodge the system anyway.
      - toss1 6y ago
        Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm seeing you specify the use-case other than 'less-rich people can also move money anonymously'. Other than small-scale tax evasion or nefarious activities, what use cases are you advocating? I also used to be pretty excited about the potential for crypto currencies, still think it may have some, but the security overhead, value volatility, & scalability issues have pretty much rendered it less useful than cash or (ugh) ACH-based services like Venmo, Google Pay, etc., ir just credit cards. Also, you're not addressing losses of tax evasion - one tax evader failing to pay $1B in taxes means a million people need to pay an extra $1000 to make up for his crime. Not victimless.
  - sp332 6y ago
    I don't know, is it that different from being able to send an encrypted message, or lock something securely in a safe?
    - retrac 6y ago
      Is there a difference between expressing moral support for a terrorist organization and sending them $1 million? I was never very compelled with the "money = speech" argument when taken particularly literally.
      - sp332 6y ago
        I didn't mean specifically that money = speech. I mean there are some things we agree should be private even if that means making them less accountable.
kingo55 6y ago
No, his point seems to be that bitcoin can be transferred without the approval or moral judgement imposed by a third party (e.g. bank). Try sending $1B around the world to your Nigerian uncle and seeing what happens.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Various governments will be more than happy to apply their large resources to a $1B Bitcoin transaction if they can find a hint that it's in their jurisdiction.
  - kingo55 6y ago
    They most certainly will... But at least the money was sent. Nothing they can do to stop that.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >Try sending $1B around the world to your Nigerian uncle and seeing what happens. I'm sad that I have to inform you that the emails you've been getting aren't actually real
grubles 6y ago
The point is the entire point of Bitcoin itself is to minimize or hopefully remove completely the requirement of trust.
- throwlogon 6y ago
  You still have to trust the counterparty to deliver whatever the Bitcoin is being exchanged for.
  - vmception 6y ago
    not with a multi-signature address acting as escrow. 2013 called and wants its arguments back
    - throwlogon 6y ago
      In that case you still have to trust the escrow service.
      - vmception 6y ago
        yes. its an adaptation to that economy and allows for mitigating risks. not a panacea the escrow service would be one party of the multisignature transaction. no party can move the funds on their own. you are moving an arbiter to the point of transaction, instead of after a transaction doesn't go as planned.
      - grubles 6y ago
        Trust minimization instead of maximally trusting RBC with all of your money but also the counterparty to deliver.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

sp332 6y ago

Not scammed, but maybe a regulator will take an interest in $1B being moved around.

hendzen 6y ago
Is the average person in our society better off in a world where anyone can move $1B anonymously? Why do you think regulators might want to take an interest in such transfers?
- czbond 6y ago
  Bitcoin transactions are already being de-anonymized at least in the U.S. - and if not today, the permanent ledger record means that the 'data exhaust' (hidden data surrounding a transaction) can back into it.
- toss1 6y ago
  No the average person is less well off in a world where $1 billion can be moved anonymously. The need to move such funds anonymously is usually due to illegal activities, money laundering, or at least tax evasion (evasion, not avoidance). This leaves every average person at the very least, on the hook to pay for those taxes evaded, or lacking the services they would have provided. If the need is due to criminality beyond tax evasion, every average person suffers the corrosive effect of that criminal activity (e.g., while I'm for most drug legalization, I can't begin to argue that organized criminal drug distribution is anything but a massive destructive tax on society - & in fact, a main point of legalization is to eliminate that corrosive costs of gangs). So, the average person is definitely worse off with the existence of an ability to move & billions anonymously. (edit: avoided/evaded)
  - hirako2000 6y ago
    I'm sorry plenty of people would disagree with our taxing system, 99% of them not being drug Lords. I think most people would be better off with the ability to move billion of dollars anonymously, as it would also give them the ability to move hundreds or thousand of dollars anonymously as well. I fall into that category. Most people I know, and they aren't rich tax avoiders would also fall into that category. Cryptocurrency liberates everyone in so many ways. And yes it liberates criminals as well. But hey are know how to dodge the system anyway.
    - toss1 6y ago
      Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm seeing you specify the use-case other than 'less-rich people can also move money anonymously'. Other than small-scale tax evasion or nefarious activities, what use cases are you advocating? I also used to be pretty excited about the potential for crypto currencies, still think it may have some, but the security overhead, value volatility, & scalability issues have pretty much rendered it less useful than cash or (ugh) ACH-based services like Venmo, Google Pay, etc., ir just credit cards. Also, you're not addressing losses of tax evasion - one tax evader failing to pay $1B in taxes means a million people need to pay an extra $1000 to make up for his crime. Not victimless.
- sp332 6y ago
  I don't know, is it that different from being able to send an encrypted message, or lock something securely in a safe?
  - retrac 6y ago
    Is there a difference between expressing moral support for a terrorist organization and sending them $1 million? I was never very compelled with the "money = speech" argument when taken particularly literally.
    - sp332 6y ago
      I didn't mean specifically that money = speech. I mean there are some things we agree should be private even if that means making them less accountable.

kingo55 6y ago

No, his point seems to be that bitcoin can be transferred without the approval or moral judgement imposed by a third party (e.g. bank). Try sending $1B around the world to your Nigerian uncle and seeing what happens.

ceejayoz 6y ago
Various governments will be more than happy to apply their large resources to a $1B Bitcoin transaction if they can find a hint that it's in their jurisdiction.
- kingo55 6y ago
  They most certainly will... But at least the money was sent. Nothing they can do to stop that.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Try sending $1B around the world to your Nigerian uncle and seeing what happens. I'm sad that I have to inform you that the emails you've been getting aren't actually real

grubles 6y ago

The point is the entire point of Bitcoin itself is to minimize or hopefully remove completely the requirement of trust.

throwlogon 6y ago
You still have to trust the counterparty to deliver whatever the Bitcoin is being exchanged for.
- vmception 6y ago
  not with a multi-signature address acting as escrow. 2013 called and wants its arguments back
  - throwlogon 6y ago
    In that case you still have to trust the escrow service.
    - vmception 6y ago
      yes. its an adaptation to that economy and allows for mitigating risks. not a panacea the escrow service would be one party of the multisignature transaction. no party can move the funds on their own. you are moving an arbiter to the point of transaction, instead of after a transaction doesn't go as planned.
    - grubles 6y ago
      Trust minimization instead of maximally trusting RBC with all of your money but also the counterparty to deliver.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]