4 ms·
What that means in practice is that rich people have financial privacy and poor people don't. Personally I think it should be the opposite: poor people should h
by howinteresting 5y ago
What that means in practice is that rich people have financial privacy and poor people don't. Personally I think it should be the opposite: poor people should have privacy and rich people shouldn't.
If you're in favor of e2ee messaging but not e2ee financial privacy, you're saying that you don't want people to do anything material with the e2ee messaging.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoHighly dependent on your government and the electorate. Elect shitty people, get shitty government and policy. Technology will save you from neither.
- howinteresting 5y agoIn what jurisdiction do rich people not have access to webs of shell companies to hide their transactions through?
- toomuchtodo 5y agoI don’t disagree. How does crypto solve that? It doesn’t. It’s just as harmful. Perfection doesn’t exist, only the continual efforts towards an ideal. Edit: (HN throttling), reply to below comment. I agree that there are niche use cases where crypto is bridging a gap for the disenfranchised (sex workers in this example) until policy catches up, but that it’s unsustainable to extrapolate that out as a call for wide adoption of crypto by the masses.
- howinteresting 5y agoCrypto (not Bitcoin or Ethereum, Zcash) gives everyone the same privacy rich people enjoy, leveling the playing field. I think crypto has a bunch of other problems, but I consider (for example) sex workers being able to transact online an unalloyed good.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoAny elected leader can suddenly become not replaceable via elections. Hitler, Putin, Chavez, Lukashenko were all elected once.