5 ms·

Well you're on the internet right now, using a technology which has done more than any other to make selling drugs, money laundering, human trafficking, and ped

• mgh2 5y ago
  Investing vs. usage...The crypto argument still does not pass a cost/benefit analysis. *Carefully examine the bias and incentives behind these comments, oppositions in this thread seem to be from people invested in cryptos. People also censor information that run against its views (this will be downvoted)
  • jjk166 5y ago
    Are drugs a technology for supporting peasants? Is there something I said that you would claim to be untrue? If so please present your counter-evidence instead of making baseless ad hominem attacks. It doesn't matter how biased someone is if they're still correct.
    • mgh2 5y ago
      Going back to the OP. Is there something in the article that you would claim as untrue? Same advice here.
      • jjk166 5y ago
        Yes. The thesis. Which I presented my case against already.
        • jwozn 5y ago
          I may have missed it, but the original commenter stated the negative externalities outweigh its benefits. What are the benefits of cyrptocurrency in it's current state that you feel outweigh the criminal use?
          • jjk166 5y ago
            Well first of all it wasn't the original commenter who made that statement, then they said that some things are banned because the negative externalities outweigh their benefits, though they didn't specifically make any argument as to why cryptocurrencies are one of them and in fact chose poor examples where the ill effects are not externalities at all but the intended function of those banned things (which incidentally is where I entered the conversation to contest), and finally in context we're talking not just about cryptocurrencies at this very moment, but also the costs of losing all benefits of the underlying technology, which includes benefits currently being worked on and those not yet imagined. But that all being said, the ability to trustlessly transmit value is, in my opinion, already more beneficial than any negative externality associated with any cryptocurrency. Indeed, the very reason that criminal enterprise has adopted cryptocurrency rather than just bartering illicit materials is specifically because the technology is useful for so much more. I for one would much prefer two consenting adults to exchange drugs directly rather than going through an organization with advanced money laundering operations which undoubtedly begets more frequent and more violent crime. All those complaints crypto-fanatics have about legitimate financial institutions apply just as much if not significantly more to illegitimate ones. But while I believe that to be true, that's not a hill I'm willing to die on. Getting back to the conversation at hand, my point was that, unlike human trafficking or pedophilia which are evils unto themselves and should be banned even if they produce the occasional beneficial byproduct, technologies like cryptocurrencies or the internet are tools which are not inherently bad and which we all use despite the capacity for abuse. Using a baseball bat to break kneecaps does not make baseball bats evil, and the idea that baseball should be banned to prevent the misuse of baseball bats ought to be considered absurd. Trying to regulate something which is at most a loose proxy for the problem you actually want solved leads to numerous problems in practice [0], but it is also wrong in principle to freedom and prosperity to the many because you are incapable of dealing with the abuses of the few. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
• mgh2 5y ago
  This is a derailment from the original argument (cost/benefit analysis). Common tactic used to sway to your point of view
  • jjk166 5y ago
    You never actually made a cost/benefit analysis, you just said some things have costs that outweigh their benefits. My comment clearly demonstrates that technologies which lead to externalities like drug use, money laundering, human trafficking, and pedophilia clearly don't automatically fail to pass a cost/benefit analysis.