3 ms·

Ok, imagine yourself in Belarus. All traditional means are under government control. How do you fund anti-Lukashemko guerrillas? Cash?

WheatM 5y ago
alkonaut 5y ago
Yes, for example. Or any other way that has worked more or less well throughout history. Few people are buying the “but the dissidents” argument of cryptocurrency. It’s a valid use case in theory but little so far shows that has been a use case. The thing about Bitcoin is that it’s mature tech now. Whatever promises it has should be materialized now. If it’s to be a currency rather than a store of value and instrument of speculation - it ought to show already. But it doesn’t. It hasn’t materialized. And we shouldn’t be sinking resources into something that is perpetually a few years from being a currency.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  > but little so far shows that has been a use case. How do you think I donate to the anti-Putin opposition every month?!
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Oh that settles it then. Definitely in wide use as a currency…
  - grlthng 5y ago
    He expects you to mail them a batch of dollars with Fedex of course , lol.
hagbard_c 5y ago
Not using any currency which depends on an internet connection anyway since that makes it rather easy for the government to deprive those rebels of their funding - just block the 'net and jam satellite-borne access methods. I'd fund my guerillas with armaments, food and medical supplies. Gold and silver maybe. No digital currencies for the stated reasons.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  And how do much armaments do you have on hand and how do you plan to deliver it to your guerillas?
  - hagbard_c 5y ago
    None, yet, for lack of a cause as well as a guerilla army to fight for it. Should I ever get the urge to find a cause and an army I know I'll go long on tools of war and short on digital currencies. As stated, an SD card full of hitcoins will hit no harder than a card without such a load, i.e. not at all. Any digital currency which relies on an internet connection suffers from this problem.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      thing is, you can't fully block internet connectivity in your country. Unless you want to destroy it fast, of course. And if you don't completely block all internet access, people will find ways to send a transaction.
      - hagbard_c 5y ago
        Of course you can block it, what a silly statement. Remember that many of the participants of this forum were alive when the 'net was but a glint in the eye of some future greybeards, things worked just as well/badly as they do now and they can be made to work just as well/badly in a disconnected country. Also realise that the situation we're talking about - a country on the brink of war - has more important issues than whether its inhabitants can get on the 'net. Would such a block inconvenience the populace? Sure it would. Would it cause some of them to riot? Sure it would. Would it cause the country to be destroyed? No way, it wouldn't. Riot police would quickly put an end to those internet riots like they've done to many other riots in many countries. Is it possible to keep network connectivity for the happy few while blocking it for the rest of the country? Yes, even that is possible, have a look at the self-reliant "Juche" [1] paradise of North Korea for an example of such. Assuming that the guerilla financier is not one of those anointed few he'd be sadly out of luck in trying to buy that crate of Kalashnikov's without tangible funds. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

WheatM 5y ago

alkonaut 5y ago

Yes, for example. Or any other way that has worked more or less well throughout history. Few people are buying the “but the dissidents” argument of cryptocurrency. It’s a valid use case in theory but little so far shows that has been a use case. The thing about Bitcoin is that it’s mature tech now. Whatever promises it has should be materialized now. If it’s to be a currency rather than a store of value and instrument of speculation - it ought to show already. But it doesn’t. It hasn’t materialized. And we shouldn’t be sinking resources into something that is perpetually a few years from being a currency.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
> but little so far shows that has been a use case. How do you think I donate to the anti-Putin opposition every month?!
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Oh that settles it then. Definitely in wide use as a currency…
- grlthng 5y ago
  He expects you to mail them a batch of dollars with Fedex of course , lol.

hagbard_c 5y ago

Not using any currency which depends on an internet connection anyway since that makes it rather easy for the government to deprive those rebels of their funding - just block the 'net and jam satellite-borne access methods. I'd fund my guerillas with armaments, food and medical supplies. Gold and silver maybe. No digital currencies for the stated reasons.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
And how do much armaments do you have on hand and how do you plan to deliver it to your guerillas?
- hagbard_c 5y ago
  None, yet, for lack of a cause as well as a guerilla army to fight for it. Should I ever get the urge to find a cause and an army I know I'll go long on tools of war and short on digital currencies. As stated, an SD card full of hitcoins will hit no harder than a card without such a load, i.e. not at all. Any digital currency which relies on an internet connection suffers from this problem.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    thing is, you can't fully block internet connectivity in your country. Unless you want to destroy it fast, of course. And if you don't completely block all internet access, people will find ways to send a transaction.
    - hagbard_c 5y ago
      Of course you can block it, what a silly statement. Remember that many of the participants of this forum were alive when the 'net was but a glint in the eye of some future greybeards, things worked just as well/badly as they do now and they can be made to work just as well/badly in a disconnected country. Also realise that the situation we're talking about - a country on the brink of war - has more important issues than whether its inhabitants can get on the 'net. Would such a block inconvenience the populace? Sure it would. Would it cause some of them to riot? Sure it would. Would it cause the country to be destroyed? No way, it wouldn't. Riot police would quickly put an end to those internet riots like they've done to many other riots in many countries. Is it possible to keep network connectivity for the happy few while blocking it for the rest of the country? Yes, even that is possible, have a look at the self-reliant "Juche" [1] paradise of North Korea for an example of such. Assuming that the guerilla financier is not one of those anointed few he'd be sadly out of luck in trying to buy that crate of Kalashnikov's without tangible funds. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche