4 ms·

Do you believe people have a right to privacy in their financial transactions? Even if you don't, many people do, and prior to cryptocurrencies there was no way

Do you believe people have a right to privacy in their financial transactions? Even if you don't, many people do, and prior to cryptocurrencies there was no way for people to conduct online transactions with privacy. By your logic, cash should be completely banned because some crimes wouldn't be possible if all transactions took place through police-monitored electronic systems. Encryption should be completely banned because without encryption it wouldn't be possible for criminals to communicate online.

TomGullen 5y ago
And by your logic, nothing should be banned. Collectors of nuclear weapons should be allowed to enjoy their hobby in peace. Obviously, the line is somewhere in the middle. I don't think banning Bitcoin is going to help at this stage as that Pandora's box is now open, but it's true Bitcoin is an insanely useful tool for extortion.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Making pervasive tracking illegal would do so much more for purchase privacy than cryptocurrencies. On average it's still 99% impossible to conduct online transactions with privacy. > By your logic Nah, your extrapolations aren't really based in what they said.
- tnzm 5y ago
  >Making pervasive tracking illegal would do so much more for purchase privacy than cryptocurrencies. Considering governments are not going to give up their panopticon-like powers without a fight, how about making pervasive tracking technically impossible?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    I'm not convinced that getting those privacy laws is harder than establishing a working cryptocurrency ecosystem that lets me buy normal things.
    - tnzm 5y ago
      As if following the path of least resistance is universally a good thing.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        No, not "as if" that, they both could accomplish this goal, and I'm talking specifically about this situation.
        tnzm 5y ago
        That's not how it works at all. Suppose those two options were equally likely to happen. Would they be then equally likely to actually accomplish this goal? In my mind, one option basically goes like this: get so many people outraged that they demand the goverment to do something. What happens next is lawmakers introduce some half-arsed legislation (like the self-defeating GDPR banners), companies budget for enforcement and keep violating user privacy. The other goes like this: get so many people invested that they incentivize more and more businesses to accept crypto that has privacy baked into the actual transaction mechanism. And then what happens next is uncertain but I'm willing to bet on the tech and not on the bureaucrats.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        So far most of businesses that are incentivized to accept crypto do it through a middleman and all the privacy is ruined. So even if they're equally likely, I think the legislative path would work better, in part because the average person doesn't have to understand and act on nearly as much nuance. Also I like a lot of the mechanisms that credit and debit cards have like dispute resolution. I would like to continue to get those benefits, even in a world with easy cryptocurrency support. So privacy legislation would protect me more universally. Especially if I'm buying something to send to my address, where all the cryptography in the world doesn't help. Or if a store tracks who I am even if I'm paying with cash.
        5y ago
user-the-name 5y ago
> Do you believe people have a right to privacy in their financial transactions? Not really, no. Private financial transactions are of extremely limited usefulness to regular people, and are massively, overwhelmingly useful to criminals, and allowing them causes real, societal harm. As, again, we can see right here.

TomGullen 5y ago

And by your logic, nothing should be banned. Collectors of nuclear weapons should be allowed to enjoy their hobby in peace. Obviously, the line is somewhere in the middle. I don't think banning Bitcoin is going to help at this stage as that Pandora's box is now open, but it's true Bitcoin is an insanely useful tool for extortion.

Dylan16807 5y ago

Making pervasive tracking illegal would do so much more for purchase privacy than cryptocurrencies. On average it's still 99% impossible to conduct online transactions with privacy. > By your logic Nah, your extrapolations aren't really based in what they said.

tnzm 5y ago
>Making pervasive tracking illegal would do so much more for purchase privacy than cryptocurrencies. Considering governments are not going to give up their panopticon-like powers without a fight, how about making pervasive tracking technically impossible?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  I'm not convinced that getting those privacy laws is harder than establishing a working cryptocurrency ecosystem that lets me buy normal things.
  - tnzm 5y ago
    As if following the path of least resistance is universally a good thing.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      No, not "as if" that, they both could accomplish this goal, and I'm talking specifically about this situation.
      - tnzm 5y ago
        That's not how it works at all. Suppose those two options were equally likely to happen. Would they be then equally likely to actually accomplish this goal? In my mind, one option basically goes like this: get so many people outraged that they demand the goverment to do something. What happens next is lawmakers introduce some half-arsed legislation (like the self-defeating GDPR banners), companies budget for enforcement and keep violating user privacy. The other goes like this: get so many people invested that they incentivize more and more businesses to accept crypto that has privacy baked into the actual transaction mechanism. And then what happens next is uncertain but I'm willing to bet on the tech and not on the bureaucrats.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        So far most of businesses that are incentivized to accept crypto do it through a middleman and all the privacy is ruined. So even if they're equally likely, I think the legislative path would work better, in part because the average person doesn't have to understand and act on nearly as much nuance. Also I like a lot of the mechanisms that credit and debit cards have like dispute resolution. I would like to continue to get those benefits, even in a world with easy cryptocurrency support. So privacy legislation would protect me more universally. Especially if I'm buying something to send to my address, where all the cryptography in the world doesn't help. Or if a store tracks who I am even if I'm paying with cash.
        5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago

> Do you believe people have a right to privacy in their financial transactions? Not really, no. Private financial transactions are of extremely limited usefulness to regular people, and are massively, overwhelmingly useful to criminals, and allowing them causes real, societal harm. As, again, we can see right here.