4 ms·
The answer is that sometimes progress comes with a cost. Whether or not you consider cryptocurrencies "progress" is irrelevant, because it's an emerging techno
by J5892 5y ago
The answer is that sometimes progress comes with a cost.
Whether or not you consider cryptocurrencies "progress" is irrelevant, because it's an emerging technology that exists whether you (or I) like it or not.
The cold, hard, unavoidable truth is this: Ransomware may be a Bitcoin problem, and it may not be. Either way, tough shit.
- verdverm 5y agoHow does this compare to banning ICE vehicles? They are widely adopted and useful, yet their secondary harms warrant laws to be written.
- emodendroket 5y ago> Whether or not you consider cryptocurrencies "progress" is irrelevant I mean not really. If we were to decide, as a country, that it was bad, we could take actions to stop its proliferation. The dollar-BTC transition points are chokepoints we could easily target to get started.
- devonbleak 5y agoMoney laundering is also illegal and it's still prolific. Buying weed is also illegal and it's still prolific. Banning things like this just turns them into another laundering opportunity - where there's money to be made there's a way.
- emodendroket 5y agoIf I take this claim literally it's never worth having any kind of law at all. I don't believe that. I also don't think crypto currency looks nearly as attractive if there are no legitimate channels to convert or spend it.
- Zednivat 5y agoI just want to be sure we're on the same page. Is the full version of that: "If we were to decide, as a country, that it was bad, we could assign new orders to our federal, state, and local law enforcements officers to target and violate the property rights of people who engage with cryptocurrencies"? In order to solve the ransomware problem, we create a new problem in the use of violence or the threat of violence in order to stop anyone from using crypto at all.
- emodendroket 5y agoYeah, I'm not an anarchist, so I am indeed advocating that the state use its power to achieve societal benefits, which is ultimately, one might say, backed by its monopoly on the use of violence. Property rights are not and should not be absolute.