4 ms·

The US government can also swoop in and ban or heavily tax ETH exchanges and that cuts off the majority of those would do transactions. There's no need to take

The US government can also swoop in and ban or heavily tax ETH exchanges and that cuts off the majority of those would do transactions. There's no need to take down every node; I can't see how any of those translate to killer features for this reason. For PGP, I don't understand why the user isn't encrypting them on their own machine. That seems like an incredible waste to implement encryption in a smart contract. As far as sanctions go, the fact that criminals and ransomware and other fraudsters can't be stopped or sanctioned is an anti-feature if you ask me. Also I hope you can understand that leading the conversation with these "fight the government" sentiments really sours the debate on crypto, to me that only cements the idea that this stuff only appeals to other nation-state actors, activists, journalists, and scammers/criminals. Which I suppose is fine, except for the criminals, but at that point it's the same niche that Tor fits into.

selestify 5y ago
> The US government can also swoop in and ban or heavily tax ETH exchanges and that cuts off the majority of those would do transactions. Yes, that would cut off most of the fiat on/off ramps, but your assets there are still untouched. You could still, if you wanted, go to another country that hasn't banned crypto and exchange it for other assets in those countries. That's far different from the US freezing your US bank account, in which case it doesn't matter which country you go to, your assets are still locked in the US bank. And even in the US, I'm sure there will still be people on the street willing to exchange cash for crypto, albeit obviously at a markup. Like I said elsewhere, we've been unable to stop the billion dollar drug trade. What makes you think we will be able to completely stop a trillion dollar crypto market from within our borders? > There's no need to take down every node; I can't see how any of those translate to killer features for this reason. Because you need to take down every node (or prevent anyone in your country from accessing any node) before the smart contracts stop executing. So long as that's the case, it's a killer feature for anyone who is concerned about traditional financial services shutting them off. You can't see how any of these are killer features because that is presumably not you. > For PGP, I don't understand why the user isn't encrypting them on their own machine. That seems like an incredible waste to implement encryption in a smart contract. I didn't mean that PGP would be implemented on the smart contracts, I meant that functionality wouldn't change from under you like they did with the darknet markets. The functionality you see in a smart contract is the functionality you get, and it'll stay that way forever unless you built your smart contract to allow for such change in the future. > As far as sanctions go, the fact that criminals and ransomware and other fraudsters can't be stopped or sanctioned is an anti-feature if you ask me. That's fine. It's a feature for others. In other words, it creates value for people who are not you. > but at that point it's the same niche that Tor fits into. Well yes, I do strongly believe this is the case. Which is why I make repeated references to Tor. Do you also think that Tor's strong anonymity guarantees protecting pedophiles is an anti-feature too?
- shatteredgate 5y ago
  The drug trade seems to be heavily bolstered by crypto. It seems like the US could hamper both the drug trade and the crypto trade just by increasing taxes on crypto. A significant number of ETH nodes are in the US so they could also mess with it a lot just by cracking down on domestic node operators. >I meant that functionality wouldn't change from under you like they did with the darknet markets I still don't get why it did, it sounds like they were not using secure tools? Crypto isn't necessary there, just an ordinary E2E encryption scheme. >In other words, it creates value for people who are not you. Yes, criminals, who actively decrease value for me when people I know get hit by ransomware attacks, people I know get addicted to drugs purchased online, companies I work with get taken offline with ransomware attacks, government services I need to use get taken down by ransomware attacks, etc. All of this has already happened to me, by the way; I'm not an investor so the only real effect crypto has had on me is loss of money and well being. >Do you also think that Tor's strong anonymity guarantees protecting pedophiles is an anti-feature too? Well just like a lot of promises about crypto being faulty, I think this one is also faulty; I've heard a lot of stories of deep web child sex abuse rings being busted up. Tor is not a panacea. But if we say for a moment that it was, I don't think I would be ok with it. Would you be okay with finding sex abuse content on Tor that included your children? What would you do?

selestify 5y ago

> The US government can also swoop in and ban or heavily tax ETH exchanges and that cuts off the majority of those would do transactions. Yes, that would cut off most of the fiat on/off ramps, but your assets there are still untouched. You could still, if you wanted, go to another country that hasn't banned crypto and exchange it for other assets in those countries. That's far different from the US freezing your US bank account, in which case it doesn't matter which country you go to, your assets are still locked in the US bank. And even in the US, I'm sure there will still be people on the street willing to exchange cash for crypto, albeit obviously at a markup. Like I said elsewhere, we've been unable to stop the billion dollar drug trade. What makes you think we will be able to completely stop a trillion dollar crypto market from within our borders? > There's no need to take down every node; I can't see how any of those translate to killer features for this reason. Because you need to take down every node (or prevent anyone in your country from accessing any node) before the smart contracts stop executing. So long as that's the case, it's a killer feature for anyone who is concerned about traditional financial services shutting them off. You can't see how any of these are killer features because that is presumably not you. > For PGP, I don't understand why the user isn't encrypting them on their own machine. That seems like an incredible waste to implement encryption in a smart contract. I didn't mean that PGP would be implemented on the smart contracts, I meant that functionality wouldn't change from under you like they did with the darknet markets. The functionality you see in a smart contract is the functionality you get, and it'll stay that way forever unless you built your smart contract to allow for such change in the future. > As far as sanctions go, the fact that criminals and ransomware and other fraudsters can't be stopped or sanctioned is an anti-feature if you ask me. That's fine. It's a feature for others. In other words, it creates value for people who are not you. > but at that point it's the same niche that Tor fits into. Well yes, I do strongly believe this is the case. Which is why I make repeated references to Tor. Do you also think that Tor's strong anonymity guarantees protecting pedophiles is an anti-feature too?

shatteredgate 5y ago
The drug trade seems to be heavily bolstered by crypto. It seems like the US could hamper both the drug trade and the crypto trade just by increasing taxes on crypto. A significant number of ETH nodes are in the US so they could also mess with it a lot just by cracking down on domestic node operators. >I meant that functionality wouldn't change from under you like they did with the darknet markets I still don't get why it did, it sounds like they were not using secure tools? Crypto isn't necessary there, just an ordinary E2E encryption scheme. >In other words, it creates value for people who are not you. Yes, criminals, who actively decrease value for me when people I know get hit by ransomware attacks, people I know get addicted to drugs purchased online, companies I work with get taken offline with ransomware attacks, government services I need to use get taken down by ransomware attacks, etc. All of this has already happened to me, by the way; I'm not an investor so the only real effect crypto has had on me is loss of money and well being. >Do you also think that Tor's strong anonymity guarantees protecting pedophiles is an anti-feature too? Well just like a lot of promises about crypto being faulty, I think this one is also faulty; I've heard a lot of stories of deep web child sex abuse rings being busted up. Tor is not a panacea. But if we say for a moment that it was, I don't think I would be ok with it. Would you be okay with finding sex abuse content on Tor that included your children? What would you do?