3 ms·

I'm broadly anti-blockchain and anti-cryptocurrency since I grew disillusioned by the scene early on, but even I think blockchain has solved some problems, I ju

I'm broadly anti-blockchain and anti-cryptocurrency since I grew disillusioned by the scene early on, but even I think blockchain has solved some problems, I just don't think those problems are worth the cost or that those problems are of people that should have them, like criminals. For example, blockchain is allowing many Russians to move capital out of the country while the state locks down foreign currency transactions. That's a real problem that's getting solved, and I'm sure in some cases it's good people trying their best to survive. On the other hand, it also allows individuals or organizations to avoid sanctions or paying taxes. The cost isn't worth it. I'd rather not have the crime, schemes, and pollution that so often come with crypto. Plus all the countless stories of good people losing all their money because they forgot their password to their cryptowallet.

knorker 5y ago
> blockchain is allowing many Russians to move capital out of the country while the state locks down foreign currency transactions. Like it or not, this means it's breaking the law. So this is just another way of saying that it allows you to break the laws you don't agree with. (also the ones you do agree with, of course) > That's a real problem that's getting solved On the flip side it's a real law that's being broken. So your "on the one hand, on the other hand" is "it allows people to commit good crimes, but also commit bad crimes". The law isn't perfect. Absolutely not. But the solution to bad law isn't "no law". That's not the path to a good future. There are people out there who think all taxation is theft, and that tax evasion is as moral as smuggling money out of Russia. Of course others say exactly the same, but mean that they are both immoral.
- mypastself 5y ago
  What about a piece of software designed to circumvent laws against accessing websites critical of some authoritarian regime? Should citizens of that country suck it up, because the solution to a bad law isn’t “no law”? Is using such software immoral?
  - vkou 5y ago
    Well, that depends. Is that software breaking local law? Then creating it is obviously immoral. Is that software breaking foreign law? That depends on whether your government currently sees that foreign country as an ally, or an enemy. If its an ally, it's obviously immoral. If it's an enemy, it's obviously moral. This morality will, of course, flip along with the geopolitical situation. ... Unless, of course, your ethics are utilitarian in nature - in which case, you will need to do a full accounting of all plausibly foreseeable consequences of creating this software - the same kind of accounting that was done by people who were philosophically motivated to leak nuclear secrets to the USSR.
    - mypastself 5y ago
      Well, if the parent commenter is of the latter persuasion, legal status of the specific issue should be irrelevant, only its utility points. Otherwise he’s arguing that all legal systems and their sets of laws ought to be respected, including mutually contradictory ones.
    - knorker 5y ago
      > Well, that depends. Is that software breaking local law? Then creating it is obviously immoral. Breaking a law is not obviously immoral. Many people have broken traffic laws to save a life by getting them to the hospital, to give an obvious example. (well, less obvious in case they actually hit someone. The morality shouldn't depend on the outcome. Anyway, this is getting a bit too deep) I think both your options, which seem like they're referring to realpolitik and utilitarianism, are way too simplified to even be useful for practical application on this topic. And they are most certainly not an exhaustive list of the options. So no, it's neither A nor B. And as for utilitarianism, the problem with blockchain is exactly it's LARPing strength: "It's math". It's pretending that you have the right, today, to decide morality, and indeed utility, for all of time. And you can't. Adding anonyminity to the mix means that you are even hiding evidence of something going wrong with your predictions. Looking forward to seeing President Eric Trump ordering the treasury to transfer everything into some Monero account? That may impeach him, but the money is gone forever. If it's the same guy looting Fort Knox, then we can send people to get the things back.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  I guess what I'm trying to say in defence here is that I 99.5% agree with your response to my comment. Yes: Lawlessness is abhorrent. That said, there were plenty of inventions used by spies against The Third Reich. Those inventions, in of themselves, could be used to destabilize any possible state; but the fact that they were being used by real heroes in the fight against injustice does, at least in part, redeem them. We both may not like the practical consequences of most of what blockchain has to offer, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend as if there were no benefit. There is some partial benefit to blockchain, even if it is mostly a scam.
  - knorker 5y ago
    Breaking a law is not by definition immoral. That doesn't conflict with saying "A system that prevents laws is absolutely horrible and immoral".

knorker 5y ago

> blockchain is allowing many Russians to move capital out of the country while the state locks down foreign currency transactions. Like it or not, this means it's breaking the law. So this is just another way of saying that it allows you to break the laws you don't agree with. (also the ones you do agree with, of course) > That's a real problem that's getting solved On the flip side it's a real law that's being broken. So your "on the one hand, on the other hand" is "it allows people to commit good crimes, but also commit bad crimes". The law isn't perfect. Absolutely not. But the solution to bad law isn't "no law". That's not the path to a good future. There are people out there who think all taxation is theft, and that tax evasion is as moral as smuggling money out of Russia. Of course others say exactly the same, but mean that they are both immoral.

mypastself 5y ago
What about a piece of software designed to circumvent laws against accessing websites critical of some authoritarian regime? Should citizens of that country suck it up, because the solution to a bad law isn’t “no law”? Is using such software immoral?
- vkou 5y ago
  Well, that depends. Is that software breaking local law? Then creating it is obviously immoral. Is that software breaking foreign law? That depends on whether your government currently sees that foreign country as an ally, or an enemy. If its an ally, it's obviously immoral. If it's an enemy, it's obviously moral. This morality will, of course, flip along with the geopolitical situation. ... Unless, of course, your ethics are utilitarian in nature - in which case, you will need to do a full accounting of all plausibly foreseeable consequences of creating this software - the same kind of accounting that was done by people who were philosophically motivated to leak nuclear secrets to the USSR.
  - mypastself 5y ago
    Well, if the parent commenter is of the latter persuasion, legal status of the specific issue should be irrelevant, only its utility points. Otherwise he’s arguing that all legal systems and their sets of laws ought to be respected, including mutually contradictory ones.
  - knorker 5y ago
    > Well, that depends. Is that software breaking local law? Then creating it is obviously immoral. Breaking a law is not obviously immoral. Many people have broken traffic laws to save a life by getting them to the hospital, to give an obvious example. (well, less obvious in case they actually hit someone. The morality shouldn't depend on the outcome. Anyway, this is getting a bit too deep) I think both your options, which seem like they're referring to realpolitik and utilitarianism, are way too simplified to even be useful for practical application on this topic. And they are most certainly not an exhaustive list of the options. So no, it's neither A nor B. And as for utilitarianism, the problem with blockchain is exactly it's LARPing strength: "It's math". It's pretending that you have the right, today, to decide morality, and indeed utility, for all of time. And you can't. Adding anonyminity to the mix means that you are even hiding evidence of something going wrong with your predictions. Looking forward to seeing President Eric Trump ordering the treasury to transfer everything into some Monero account? That may impeach him, but the money is gone forever. If it's the same guy looting Fort Knox, then we can send people to get the things back.
3pt14159 5y ago
I guess what I'm trying to say in defence here is that I 99.5% agree with your response to my comment. Yes: Lawlessness is abhorrent. That said, there were plenty of inventions used by spies against The Third Reich. Those inventions, in of themselves, could be used to destabilize any possible state; but the fact that they were being used by real heroes in the fight against injustice does, at least in part, redeem them. We both may not like the practical consequences of most of what blockchain has to offer, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend as if there were no benefit. There is some partial benefit to blockchain, even if it is mostly a scam.
- knorker 5y ago
  Breaking a law is not by definition immoral. That doesn't conflict with saying "A system that prevents laws is absolutely horrible and immoral".