3 ms·
Cash is much more difficult to take across borders... Monero is superior to cash for criminal activity in just about every way, the only downside is that it's a
by colinmhayes 5y ago
Cash is much more difficult to take across borders... Monero is superior to cash for criminal activity in just about every way, the only downside is that it's a bit less liquid. This deflection about it being used in crime less than cash is weak to the point of bad faith.
The privacy argument has more to stand on though. Although I will say "not your money, not our business" is a pretty controversial take.
- rmbyrro 5y agoCriminals send illegal goods from Colombia to Europe through amateur submarines [1]. Doesn't require much thinking to guess what submarines come back filled with. It's not that they can't move money illegally already. We wouldn't advocate the usage of horses in modern cities because cars make it easier for criminals to escape law enforcement. I also don't think it's reasonable to not support Monero just because you worry it might be used for criminal activity. [1] https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/colombia-narco-submarines-europe/ https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/colombia-narco-submar...
- robbedpeter 5y agoThere should be absolutely nothing controversial with that. What I spend my money on that doesn't harm anyone is nobody's business but mine and whoever I'm paying. If it does harm someone, well, that's why we have laws and law enforcement. It's the harm - the crime - that gets punished or penalized. Just like someone who gets drunk and drives. The results can be heinous, so the action is appropriately and severely punished. Anonymity, or fungibility, doesn't interfere with that. It simply requires that evidence of harm or crime not depend on an abstract exchange of information.