5 ms·

This is what cryptocurrencies are good for: Protecting and helping the absolute worst of humanity.

vmception 5y ago
and also everyone it is only happenstance that online purchases require name and address, as this is required to process over credit card networks at lower transaction fees (due to slightly lessened ability for payment fraud - which could be reversed - from the payment processor's perspective). As crypto currencies do not have reversal without nearly complete network consensus, such information is not applicable.
- dariusj18 5y ago
  There's a certain sense to that. If it is effective for the worst of society who are constant targets, it will work for grandma. However that is assuming the technology can become user friendly/cheap.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    No, there is no sense to that. The worst of society have a lot of tools that are effective for them, that your grandma has absolutely no use for. The worst of society will also put up with using some pretty weird things as long as they will help them break the law, that are incredibly awkward to use for anyone else.
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      My point was that if a solution was battle tested to withstand the scrutiny that the ne'er-do-wells encourage, then random person who knows nothing can feel comfortable that their use of the technology is also secure. It's kind of like calling something "military-grade". In addition I also qualified the statement to ensure that your second point was covered, that overhead could restrict it's use.
      - vmception 5y ago
        you are trying to straddle a line and it won't go anywhere. so let me help you: crypto is a better solution for e-commerce and people won't be able to get doxxed when employing the best practices. the best practices will become more convenient.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        You actually hit the nail on the head there: It is a lot like calling something "military grade". Military grade is not something regular people want! Military grade is clunky, cumbersome and problematic for reasons that are a tradeoff for things that matter a lot to the military, but which are not an issue at all for regular people. You don't want your car to be covered in heavy armour. That gains you nothing and costs you a lot. But the military does want that, a lot.
        ashwagary 5y ago
        >You don't want your car to be covered in heavy armour. That gains you nothing and costs you a lot. Heavy armour gets you protection from firearms and some explosives. I wouldn't call that nothing. *I know high value individuals that drive armored vehicles in the US.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        It is nothing, since nobody is going to be shooting at your car unless you live in a warzone. It gives you protection against a non-existent threat, while costing you money and convenience.
        dariusj18 5y ago
        But let's do apples to apples here, because you are comparing "military grade" hardware and I'm talking about software, something where component costs are 0 and have 0 cost to duplicate. But that's really secondary to the point, if something has proven itself in the most strenuous conditions you can feel confident that it will meet your needs. Assuming your needs are in line with the aforementioned conditions, ex. yes, a "military grade" laptop will be bulky, and grandma will not care about that feature, but someone in an auto-shop who needs a laptop to withstand all sorts of punishment might feel the extra bucks are worth the confidence. My assumption here is you and those with similar views do not view privacy as a requirement for grandma, and I think that is the crux of the argument. Privacy can be its own reward and everyone will determine their own value for it. If grandma's circumstances are that she needs/wants that privacy, then having a battle tested solution that can be counted on is an easy decision to make.
    - vmception 5y ago
      from my perspective, you are advocating for the worst opsec possible: "hey everyone add your name, address, and the private key to all your funds for the credit/debit network to every site, just because using crypto is inconvenient for grandma for now and therefore only for the 'worst of society'" its funny to me because you don't even realize thats your argument, since you are focused on the specific use case of far-right subscribers not being able to get doxxed when actual criminals actually hack a website
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Regular people don't need "opsec". And you can make up things you think I am arguing and feel smug about it all day, but that is not going to gain you any insight into anything.
dredmorbius 5y ago
I'm not a cryptocurrency fan. Or a fan of the far right. But if you value secure data, communications, and interactions, there's little better test than that those you'd least want to support would be able to use a tool without risk of being exposed by its use. Because if they're able to, anyone with good intentions but who is at risk whether from establishment, corporate, criminal, or violent radical/reactionary actors, will be able to do so as well. Which I see as a societal good. I'd like to see a world which does a better job of balancing legitimate common weal interests in accessing such information, whilst affording strong protections against general surveillance and fishing expeditions. I think we're terrifyingly far to the latter extreme, and that law-enforcement agency alarmism over "dark threats" is a case of crocodile tears.

and also everyone it is only happenstance that online purchases require name and address, as this is required to process over credit card networks at lower transaction fees (due to slightly lessened ability for payment fraud - which could be reversed - from the payment processor's perspective). As crypto currencies do not have reversal without nearly complete network consensus, such information is not applicable.

dariusj18 5y ago
There's a certain sense to that. If it is effective for the worst of society who are constant targets, it will work for grandma. However that is assuming the technology can become user friendly/cheap.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  No, there is no sense to that. The worst of society have a lot of tools that are effective for them, that your grandma has absolutely no use for. The worst of society will also put up with using some pretty weird things as long as they will help them break the law, that are incredibly awkward to use for anyone else.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    My point was that if a solution was battle tested to withstand the scrutiny that the ne'er-do-wells encourage, then random person who knows nothing can feel comfortable that their use of the technology is also secure. It's kind of like calling something "military-grade". In addition I also qualified the statement to ensure that your second point was covered, that overhead could restrict it's use.
    - vmception 5y ago
      you are trying to straddle a line and it won't go anywhere. so let me help you: crypto is a better solution for e-commerce and people won't be able to get doxxed when employing the best practices. the best practices will become more convenient.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      You actually hit the nail on the head there: It is a lot like calling something "military grade". Military grade is not something regular people want! Military grade is clunky, cumbersome and problematic for reasons that are a tradeoff for things that matter a lot to the military, but which are not an issue at all for regular people. You don't want your car to be covered in heavy armour. That gains you nothing and costs you a lot. But the military does want that, a lot.
      - ashwagary 5y ago
        >You don't want your car to be covered in heavy armour. That gains you nothing and costs you a lot. Heavy armour gets you protection from firearms and some explosives. I wouldn't call that nothing. *I know high value individuals that drive armored vehicles in the US.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        It is nothing, since nobody is going to be shooting at your car unless you live in a warzone. It gives you protection against a non-existent threat, while costing you money and convenience.
      - dariusj18 5y ago
        But let's do apples to apples here, because you are comparing "military grade" hardware and I'm talking about software, something where component costs are 0 and have 0 cost to duplicate. But that's really secondary to the point, if something has proven itself in the most strenuous conditions you can feel confident that it will meet your needs. Assuming your needs are in line with the aforementioned conditions, ex. yes, a "military grade" laptop will be bulky, and grandma will not care about that feature, but someone in an auto-shop who needs a laptop to withstand all sorts of punishment might feel the extra bucks are worth the confidence. My assumption here is you and those with similar views do not view privacy as a requirement for grandma, and I think that is the crux of the argument. Privacy can be its own reward and everyone will determine their own value for it. If grandma's circumstances are that she needs/wants that privacy, then having a battle tested solution that can be counted on is an easy decision to make.
  - vmception 5y ago
    from my perspective, you are advocating for the worst opsec possible: "hey everyone add your name, address, and the private key to all your funds for the credit/debit network to every site, just because using crypto is inconvenient for grandma for now and therefore only for the 'worst of society'" its funny to me because you don't even realize thats your argument, since you are focused on the specific use case of far-right subscribers not being able to get doxxed when actual criminals actually hack a website
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Regular people don't need "opsec". And you can make up things you think I am arguing and feel smug about it all day, but that is not going to gain you any insight into anything.

dredmorbius 5y ago

I'm not a cryptocurrency fan. Or a fan of the far right. But if you value secure data, communications, and interactions, there's little better test than that those you'd least want to support would be able to use a tool without risk of being exposed by its use. Because if they're able to, anyone with good intentions but who is at risk whether from establishment, corporate, criminal, or violent radical/reactionary actors, will be able to do so as well. Which I see as a societal good. I'd like to see a world which does a better job of balancing legitimate common weal interests in accessing such information, whilst affording strong protections against general surveillance and fishing expeditions. I think we're terrifyingly far to the latter extreme, and that law-enforcement agency alarmism over "dark threats" is a case of crocodile tears.