4 ms·

I guess I’d like to see either a) a genuine engagement with the actual arguments made or b) alternative proposals that make his proposed solution moot. It seem

• meowface 5y ago
  I definitely wouldn't call myself a cryptocurrency booster. I similarly wouldn't call myself a Tor booster. But if I saw someone advocating that governments should ban Tor ("what's the point except facilitating illegal activity and harassment/ban evasion/spam/malware/DDoSing/hacking"), I'd definitely want to counter that. If I ever make my own blog or something, I could write a thorough response to all of his own blog posts, including this one, but I think it's too much to ask for in an HN comment. (I also don't have nearly enough expertise to warrant making a blog or writing a blog post just for something like that.) I already wrote some responses with regards to ransomware in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137, where I argue the root of the problem is the Russian government's policy of not in any way inhibiting cybercriminals as long as the criminals don't target Russian/Russia-allied citizens. I don't think banning cryptocurrency would help decrease ransomware that much. Ransomware was still prevalent before Bitcoin existed; it was just a much more immature space, with much less sophisticated and damaging malware. The top ransomware operators are either going to find alternatives, or, more likely, just circumvent the bans through various means. Regarding the other externalities associated with cryptocurrencies, I think many of his points are valid. There's absolutely no mention of the positive outcomes, though. I don't know if those positive outcomes outweigh those harms now or if they will in the future; it depends how you calculate it. I don't know if the positive outcomes of Tor now or ever will outweigh the negative outcomes. I still don't want either banned. And I think a good case could be made that the positive outcomes may outweigh the negative ones, for Proof of Stake-based smart contract protocols like the upcoming Ethereum 2.0, which will likely be out this year. (And please none of this ridiculous "Proof of Stake is vaporware and continuously promised to be just around the corner, like cold fusion", because it's not true. Tons of progress has been made and is being made every day.) I don't think cryptocurrencies (like ether) are necessarily that interesting, but decentralized smart contract protocols (like Ethereum) are super technologically and societally interesting. I think I could write an even longer blog post about the core problem I have with this writing. I would feel this way if I read someone writing like this about almost any topic imaginable in the world. It's extremely one-sided, unnuanced, uncharitable, unrigorous, and comes across as very emotionally charged and biased. (And all this was before I learned he's the founder of a company that's trying to compete with cryptocurrencies in many ways.) The tone and style is the main thing I dislike.