3 ms·

> There are lots of things driving for crypto besides speculation though. Like what? I mean aside from crime. E.g. the "Venezuela argument" has been debunked,

> There are lots of things driving for crypto besides speculation though. Like what? I mean aside from crime. E.g. the "Venezuela argument" has been debunked, from my reading. In my own life I've seen employees ask to be paid in bitcoin, because of the large fees involved in getting your salary and transferring it into Brazil. So… those "fees" are mainly taxes, and not paying them is illegal. To steal manned argument I guess is that some people actually do want to buy stuff online without a third party knowing who paid whom. First of all BTC is terrible for that. But second, most people don't care if a third party knows they bought pizza. Especially since the pizza place still knows, and they need to keep records anyway, because tax laws. Fourth, if they don't keep records then they can just say you didn't pay them. They can say "oh, that was not our wallet, you must have mistyped". Fifth, if the pizza has poop on it you can't even reverse the charge. Sixth, every pizza place will now be a money laundering scheme. This is not what we want as individuals, nor as a society. But yes, some people do want to buy a pizza online and not have a third party know. It's basically LARPing. Buying a house or a car anonymously? That was made illegal on purpose. Buying a big mansion anonymously? Well that's clearly at the very least tax fraud. Anyway, I truly want to hear about any legit use case for cryptocurrencies that is not just LARPing, because as far as I've seen nobody in the 12 years since bitcoin launched has come up with one that actually makes sense. > Suggesting cryptocurrency supporters are sociopaths is quite simplistic, Yeah, it is. It's like the old expression "it's very hard to make someone understand something when their livelihood depends on them not understanding it", or something like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU But the amount of rationalization from cryptocurrency proponents I do think is sociopathic. > and overlooks the majority who are not involved in anything like this article discusses When you're in the mob you're still one of the baddies, even if you're not actually the one murdering. I do blame every cryptocurrency supporter. They are complicit in making the world worse for their own profits. They have a moral obligation to recognize their supporting role in this, and to stop it.

pcthrowaway 6y ago
In 2015 I moved to a different country. I needed to arrange to pay my security deposit for my place before I had moved. Guess what? After talking about it for a bit, it turned out bitcoin was the easiest way to do it. There was nothing illegal about this, and it saved us a giant hassle. Cryptocurrency users aren't any more complicit in others using it for illicit activities than people who use cash. And you seem to be equating cryptocurrency with proof of work and bitcoin, which, again, are ignoring the majority of the real-world use cases.
- knorker 6y ago
  I'm not ignoring non-PoW or non-BTC. The topic is big, and the case and data against cryptocurrencies literally have filled books. But just to establish what you're saying, do you agree that PoW and BTC in particular is absolutely terrible for the world? Can we establish that? I just want to make sure you're not selecting the parts I have not addressed in these comments and from there you're dismissing the things I have said. If you can agree that PoW and BTC are awful, then there's no point in staying on that topic, but we can instead look at other parts. Otherwise it seems like a dishonest rhetorical device. I don't know what countries you moved between, but what you did could be illegal. Or if not, the law may have not caught up yet, because the laws tend to be on the financial institutions, not the payer and payee. But probably the intention of the law is that it should be illegal. Maybe. It depends how exactly the bitcoin was transferred. I'm not a lawyer, but have a look at this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-comply-with-eu-payments-regulation https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-comply-with-eu-payments-r... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-high-value-dealer-registration https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-hig... That's requirements on payment service providers, so (maybe?) not on you. With a decentralized payment service provider, a case could be made that you are the payment service provider of this transaction, but let's assume not, to not make it simple. Still, it is the intention of this EU law that somebody is, right? That's the world in which the law was written. If you agree with this, that the intention was that somebody has KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements on your transaction, then as I see it the only remaining argument is that you think KYC laws should not exist. I hope I've not misrepresented you so far. I honestly want to build a trail from your truly legit and moral transaction to what it means in the larger picture. If you're against KYC I don't quite know what your argument is (it could be a good one), but they were in fact put in place for a reason. Your honest transfer "under the radar" has the same technical means as the ISIS sympathizer's, and the money laundering mob boss's, or the tax dodging wall street CEO's. I'll assume that you're not an anarchist-libertarian who considers all government action to be theft, and "money laundering" to be a non-crime. So… the real question is how do we allow transactions like yours, but not make crime like this be trivial under the same technical means? So far it's by KYC. And KYC laws and enforcement are not perfect. But baby and bathwater. If your argument is that KYC is inherently bad, then I disagree, but don't make it a distraction while actually making a different point. And if cryptocurrency is "just like cash", that means that, just like with cash, you legally have to report international money transfers: https://www.mybanktracker.com/money-tips/money/travel-internationally-10000-cash-300806 https://www.mybanktracker.com/money-tips/money/travel-intern... Do you think anyone has ever done this with bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency? I assume not, because cryptocurrency people will pick and choose when it's "just like cash" and when it's not. Or they'll claim "it's not in a country, it's in cyberspace". But that's all clearly rationalizing to the point of trolling. To summarize my point: The reason we can't have nice things, the reason there are fees and taxes on international money transfers, is that this is exactly the place where an uncountable amount of fraud and crime happens. It's not "clever" to go around KYC, it's illegal. (or if not technically illegal, the intent clearly was that it would be) (I have more points against cryptocurrencies, but bringing up every topic at the same time will just be a big distracted mess. If we've agreed on PoW, and if you agree on KYC, then maybe we can do other arguments too)

pcthrowaway 6y ago

In 2015 I moved to a different country. I needed to arrange to pay my security deposit for my place before I had moved. Guess what? After talking about it for a bit, it turned out bitcoin was the easiest way to do it. There was nothing illegal about this, and it saved us a giant hassle. Cryptocurrency users aren't any more complicit in others using it for illicit activities than people who use cash. And you seem to be equating cryptocurrency with proof of work and bitcoin, which, again, are ignoring the majority of the real-world use cases.

knorker 6y ago
I'm not ignoring non-PoW or non-BTC. The topic is big, and the case and data against cryptocurrencies literally have filled books. But just to establish what you're saying, do you agree that PoW and BTC in particular is absolutely terrible for the world? Can we establish that? I just want to make sure you're not selecting the parts I have not addressed in these comments and from there you're dismissing the things I have said. If you can agree that PoW and BTC are awful, then there's no point in staying on that topic, but we can instead look at other parts. Otherwise it seems like a dishonest rhetorical device. I don't know what countries you moved between, but what you did could be illegal. Or if not, the law may have not caught up yet, because the laws tend to be on the financial institutions, not the payer and payee. But probably the intention of the law is that it should be illegal. Maybe. It depends how exactly the bitcoin was transferred. I'm not a lawyer, but have a look at this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-comply-with-eu-payments-regulation https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-comply-with-eu-payments-r... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-high-value-dealer-registration https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-hig... That's requirements on payment service providers, so (maybe?) not on you. With a decentralized payment service provider, a case could be made that you are the payment service provider of this transaction, but let's assume not, to not make it simple. Still, it is the intention of this EU law that somebody is, right? That's the world in which the law was written. If you agree with this, that the intention was that somebody has KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements on your transaction, then as I see it the only remaining argument is that you think KYC laws should not exist. I hope I've not misrepresented you so far. I honestly want to build a trail from your truly legit and moral transaction to what it means in the larger picture. If you're against KYC I don't quite know what your argument is (it could be a good one), but they were in fact put in place for a reason. Your honest transfer "under the radar" has the same technical means as the ISIS sympathizer's, and the money laundering mob boss's, or the tax dodging wall street CEO's. I'll assume that you're not an anarchist-libertarian who considers all government action to be theft, and "money laundering" to be a non-crime. So… the real question is how do we allow transactions like yours, but not make crime like this be trivial under the same technical means? So far it's by KYC. And KYC laws and enforcement are not perfect. But baby and bathwater. If your argument is that KYC is inherently bad, then I disagree, but don't make it a distraction while actually making a different point. And if cryptocurrency is "just like cash", that means that, just like with cash, you legally have to report international money transfers: https://www.mybanktracker.com/money-tips/money/travel-internationally-10000-cash-300806 https://www.mybanktracker.com/money-tips/money/travel-intern... Do you think anyone has ever done this with bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency? I assume not, because cryptocurrency people will pick and choose when it's "just like cash" and when it's not. Or they'll claim "it's not in a country, it's in cyberspace". But that's all clearly rationalizing to the point of trolling. To summarize my point: The reason we can't have nice things, the reason there are fees and taxes on international money transfers, is that this is exactly the place where an uncountable amount of fraud and crime happens. It's not "clever" to go around KYC, it's illegal. (or if not technically illegal, the intent clearly was that it would be) (I have more points against cryptocurrencies, but bringing up every topic at the same time will just be a big distracted mess. If we've agreed on PoW, and if you agree on KYC, then maybe we can do other arguments too)