6 ms·

More like yet another example of Bitcoin inflicting massive damage with techies being completely blind to its gigantic role. Edit: Judging from the responses,

More like yet another example of Bitcoin inflicting massive damage with techies being completely blind to its gigantic role. Edit: Judging from the responses, "blind to" may have been overly charitable.

calmworm 6y ago
Why not both?
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  My point wasn't really to make an either-or argument, but if you really want me to: consider that if you agree cryptocurrencies are enabling these events, then removing cryptocurrencies would remove these events as bases for any other arguments you might wish to make.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
It definitely played a role, but so what? The ability to transfer money outside the control of the state is a good thing, and the fact that some people abuse that doesn't make it bad. Same as gun ownership.
- lumberjack 6y ago
  Bad guys will always exist and will always take advantage of whatever vulnerablities we create.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Is "the harms are visibly outweighing the benefits" too difficult to fathom as a possibility?
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Is "the idea that people don't lose liberty because others abuse it" too difficult to fathom as a possibility?
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      > Is "the idea that people don't lose liberty because others abuse it" too difficult to fathom as a possibility? Considering the billions(?) of dollars of damage that it has inflicted so far and the sheer number of lives it has ruined in the process... and the fact that probably >99.99% of people in the world would not attribute their "liberty" to anything related to Bitcoin... and that neither the regulation of money nor "liberty" were invented in 2009... yeah, it very much is...
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        I guess you're coming at this from a fundamentally different perspective; you seem to believe that enough of a problem justifies state intervention. You're arguing that it harms too many people, but I really don't care; it could have harmed ten thousand times the number of people and that wouldn't matter. Bitcoin absolutely has legitimate uses, as I'm sure you know, but that's not really pertinent to the issue that the government doesn't get to tell free men what they may or may not do because someone else committed a crime. "Freedom creates opportunities for bad guys" is not an argument against freedom.
        mehrdadn 6y ago
        > the government doesn't get to tell free men what they may or may not do because someone else committed a crime What world you live in?! In the one I know, the government absolutely does tell and has told people what they may or may not do with all sorts of things, including with financial instruments. > You're arguing that it harms too many people, but I really don't care; it could have harmed ten thousand times the number of people and that wouldn't matter. Wow! Generally people at least pretend to care about other people and get a little concerned when it looks like their ideologies might burn the world to the ground, but I suppose it's quite... admirable(?) that you're absolutely brutally honest that you don't care about others...
        georgesC 6y ago
        Governments are important to protect freedom. I'm in favor of national currencies, but when it comes to the world wide web, and computers in general, I'm more comfortable with having a neutral currency not influenced by some people taking political decisions and deciding whether or not my savings can exist or not, or adding arbitrary technical limitations because of political reasons. Projects like bitcoin are not a negative thing for regular citizens, the benefits outweighs the cons. You proposed earlier to make it illegal however, which means you're not okay with some persons having the option to control their currency in the digital space. Such opinions are the reason why bitcoin appeared in the first place, and why cryptography will probably be for a long time a beneficial tool to protect people, along with governments.
NeutronStar 6y ago
More like yet another example of people seeking money inflicting massive damage with normies being completely blind to its gigantic role.
imgabe 6y ago
Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world. I suppose you're also against NPT? Or do nukes gain sentience in your world?
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      > Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. > Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis. Governments "forcibly forbid" their citizens from developing nuclear weapons. Similarly so for things far less dangerous than nukes because, you know, "less dangerous than a nuke" isn't exactly synonymous with "safe". I can't top your "top-notch analysis" though, so this will be my last reply.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        Right, if we forbid one technology that's dangerous, we must also forbid any technology that could in any way be used in a negative manner, right? Cars can be used to run people over, better forbid those. A hammer can cave someone's head in, better forbid that. People can drown in water, better forbid that too. After all, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent. It's not like we would ever consider using any kind of judgement and conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks for some things. That's just silly.
specialist 6y ago
I'm still unclear how bitcoin (et al) can be used to exfiltrate assets anonymously. Doesn't the ledger (blockchain) keep track?
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Yeah. It doesn't.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Illuminating. Thank you. For more serious observers: Bitcoin is "pseudoanonymous", right? Am I wrong in assuming that state level actors would have the juice to deanon transactions? Like we suspect NSA and others have hacked tor? Naive me guesses bad guys launder bitcoin thru banks beyond the reach of interpol and other agencies. That seems like a thin, easily pierced veil by any sufficiently motivated state level player. I've watched some videos about money laundering for noob audiences like me. Based on some of the strategies explained, another notion occurs to me: use a herd of smurfs to launder the bitcoin into physical assets.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      I was 100% serious. Your understanding is already correct. I'm not sure what else you're hoping to read; there's nothing for me to add. What you're saying is exactly the case. You can find lots of stories if you Google, e.g. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-hide-behind-bitcoin https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-h...
      - specialist 6y ago
        Ok. Thank you. Will read. Peace.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  No one said "anonymous" before you did.
ashleyn 6y ago
Banning bitcoin won't fix anything, they'll just go back to Panamanian mailboxes and moneypak.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  The problem was nowhere nearly as widespread with those technologies.
unishark 6y ago
You're complaining about criminals having anonymity in a discussion about privacy. The technology enabling bitcoin is cryptography itself. There's no putting it back in the bottle, and we'd still want it anyway. We simply need data to be as well protected as the criminals can protect their financial transactions.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > There's no putting it back in the bottle Sure there is, make Bitcoin illegal. (Edit: Okay, I obviously meant cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin...) > and we'd still want it anyway. "We" might not span as many people as you'd hope.
  - unishark 6y ago
    I'm referring to cryptography as the technology you can't put back in the bottle. By the way there's dozens of other cryptocurrencies now. EDIT: just did a check, apparently there's thousands...
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Ah yes, just make it illegal! Because obviously nothing illegal ever happens on the Internet.

calmworm 6y ago

Why not both?

mehrdadn 6y ago
My point wasn't really to make an either-or argument, but if you really want me to: consider that if you agree cryptocurrencies are enabling these events, then removing cryptocurrencies would remove these events as bases for any other arguments you might wish to make.

mmm_grayons 6y ago

It definitely played a role, but so what? The ability to transfer money outside the control of the state is a good thing, and the fact that some people abuse that doesn't make it bad. Same as gun ownership.

lumberjack 6y ago
Bad guys will always exist and will always take advantage of whatever vulnerablities we create.
mehrdadn 6y ago
Is "the harms are visibly outweighing the benefits" too difficult to fathom as a possibility?
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  Is "the idea that people don't lose liberty because others abuse it" too difficult to fathom as a possibility?
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > Is "the idea that people don't lose liberty because others abuse it" too difficult to fathom as a possibility? Considering the billions(?) of dollars of damage that it has inflicted so far and the sheer number of lives it has ruined in the process... and the fact that probably >99.99% of people in the world would not attribute their "liberty" to anything related to Bitcoin... and that neither the regulation of money nor "liberty" were invented in 2009... yeah, it very much is...
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      I guess you're coming at this from a fundamentally different perspective; you seem to believe that enough of a problem justifies state intervention. You're arguing that it harms too many people, but I really don't care; it could have harmed ten thousand times the number of people and that wouldn't matter. Bitcoin absolutely has legitimate uses, as I'm sure you know, but that's not really pertinent to the issue that the government doesn't get to tell free men what they may or may not do because someone else committed a crime. "Freedom creates opportunities for bad guys" is not an argument against freedom.
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        > the government doesn't get to tell free men what they may or may not do because someone else committed a crime What world you live in?! In the one I know, the government absolutely does tell and has told people what they may or may not do with all sorts of things, including with financial instruments. > You're arguing that it harms too many people, but I really don't care; it could have harmed ten thousand times the number of people and that wouldn't matter. Wow! Generally people at least pretend to care about other people and get a little concerned when it looks like their ideologies might burn the world to the ground, but I suppose it's quite... admirable(?) that you're absolutely brutally honest that you don't care about others...
        georgesC 6y ago
        Governments are important to protect freedom. I'm in favor of national currencies, but when it comes to the world wide web, and computers in general, I'm more comfortable with having a neutral currency not influenced by some people taking political decisions and deciding whether or not my savings can exist or not, or adding arbitrary technical limitations because of political reasons. Projects like bitcoin are not a negative thing for regular citizens, the benefits outweighs the cons. You proposed earlier to make it illegal however, which means you're not okay with some persons having the option to control their currency in the digital space. Such opinions are the reason why bitcoin appeared in the first place, and why cryptography will probably be for a long time a beneficial tool to protect people, along with governments.

NeutronStar 6y ago

More like yet another example of people seeking money inflicting massive damage with normies being completely blind to its gigantic role.

imgabe 6y ago

Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world.

mehrdadn 6y ago
> Ah yes, the notorious bitcoin that stole this data and extorted people. Curse this troublesome software that has gained sentience wreaks havoc on the world. I suppose you're also against NPT? Or do nukes gain sentience in your world?
- imgabe 6y ago
  Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > Sure, nuclear weapons and crypto currency are the exact same thing and pose identical risks to the world. > Governments voluntarily agreeing to reduce their weapons is also the same as forcibly forbidding people from using a useful technology. Top notch analysis. Governments "forcibly forbid" their citizens from developing nuclear weapons. Similarly so for things far less dangerous than nukes because, you know, "less dangerous than a nuke" isn't exactly synonymous with "safe". I can't top your "top-notch analysis" though, so this will be my last reply.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      Right, if we forbid one technology that's dangerous, we must also forbid any technology that could in any way be used in a negative manner, right? Cars can be used to run people over, better forbid those. A hammer can cave someone's head in, better forbid that. People can drown in water, better forbid that too. After all, we wouldn't want to be inconsistent. It's not like we would ever consider using any kind of judgement and conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks for some things. That's just silly.

specialist 6y ago

I'm still unclear how bitcoin (et al) can be used to exfiltrate assets anonymously. Doesn't the ledger (blockchain) keep track?

mehrdadn 6y ago
Yeah. It doesn't.
- specialist 6y ago
  Illuminating. Thank you. For more serious observers: Bitcoin is "pseudoanonymous", right? Am I wrong in assuming that state level actors would have the juice to deanon transactions? Like we suspect NSA and others have hacked tor? Naive me guesses bad guys launder bitcoin thru banks beyond the reach of interpol and other agencies. That seems like a thin, easily pierced veil by any sufficiently motivated state level player. I've watched some videos about money laundering for noob audiences like me. Based on some of the strategies explained, another notion occurs to me: use a herd of smurfs to launder the bitcoin into physical assets.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    I was 100% serious. Your understanding is already correct. I'm not sure what else you're hoping to read; there's nothing for me to add. What you're saying is exactly the case. You can find lots of stories if you Google, e.g. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-hide-behind-bitcoin https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/why-criminals-cant-h...
    - specialist 6y ago
      Ok. Thank you. Will read. Peace.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
No one said "anonymous" before you did.

ashleyn 6y ago

Banning bitcoin won't fix anything, they'll just go back to Panamanian mailboxes and moneypak.

mehrdadn 6y ago
The problem was nowhere nearly as widespread with those technologies.

unishark 6y ago

You're complaining about criminals having anonymity in a discussion about privacy. The technology enabling bitcoin is cryptography itself. There's no putting it back in the bottle, and we'd still want it anyway. We simply need data to be as well protected as the criminals can protect their financial transactions.

mehrdadn 6y ago
> There's no putting it back in the bottle Sure there is, make Bitcoin illegal. (Edit: Okay, I obviously meant cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin...) > and we'd still want it anyway. "We" might not span as many people as you'd hope.
- unishark 6y ago
  I'm referring to cryptography as the technology you can't put back in the bottle. By the way there's dozens of other cryptocurrencies now. EDIT: just did a check, apparently there's thousands...
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Ah yes, just make it illegal! Because obviously nothing illegal ever happens on the Internet.