12 ms·

You are neglecting to mention the great upsides in crypto currency. * Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. *

by saboot 5y ago

You are neglecting to mention the great upsides in crypto currency. * Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. * Providing a source of funding North Korea's nuclear weapons program * Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people * Convincing older and gullible people to give their money to someone they don't know and a technology they can't explain * It's the future!! EDIT: Couple more * Transactions are so energy intensive that the currency eclipses the carbon footprint of many countries * Those transactions are also incredibly slow! * Matt Damon! I think there is a use for blockchain, but as a technology for everything from buying groceries to countries using it as a currency, no.

mrmuagi 5y ago
>* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. I don't see how this is any different than the bog standard "encryption lets criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously.". Should money/txns be fundamentally track-able/examinable/un-encrypted but your private data/messages not? Surely this contention is something you also consider -- care to expand? >* Convincing older and gullible people to give their money to someone they don't know and a technology they can't explain I am surprised. My initial viewpoint was why would scammers bother to fish for bitcoin when bank transfers/gift cards are a lower barrier -- but seems you are right [1], the cat and mouse chase continues... [1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitboga+bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitboga+bitcoin
- allturtles 5y ago
  > I don't see how this is any different than the bog standard "encryption lets criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously." The obvious difference is that encryption has many, many actually useful and productive applications.
  - Sargos 5y ago
    >encryption has many, many actually useful and productive applications So does crypto but likewise opponents of encryption disregard the positives and focus on the negatives to align with their preformed ideas. The only way out of this trap is to have an open mind and internalize the fact that all technologies can be used for good and evil and thus are relatively neutral overall. Humanity must take the good and bad and see where the path goes in order to advance as a species.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > So does crypto It doesn't. Everyone who claims otherwise can't come up with a single credible example.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Buying a subscription to gay.com from Syria. Your on the clock..
        tablespoon 5y ago
        >> It doesn't. Everyone who claims otherwise can't come up with a single credible example. > Buying a subscription to gay.com from Syria. That is not a credible example. Here are some reasons: 1) Paying for porn? Paying for porn when the implication is that it's illegal and could get you in trouble? Who would do that? 2) Cryptocurrency isn't anonymous, and is usually highly traceable. 3) And even if it was anonymous, what good will it do when your DNS lookups will divulge you're looking at gay porn? 4) Oh, so now someone's supposed to be using some elaborate TOR/VPN setup in a repressive country, just so they can pay for porn? 5) What, exactly is the process for converting Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency again? 6) etc. > Your on the clock.. Why were you so confident in your non-credible example?
        ipaddr 5y ago
        Who would pay for porn? Someone who wants to see what's behind that paywall. Crytocurrency is difficult and costly to trace and exchange identifying not available to Syria. VPNs would be used Same process for other currencies on Binance and other exchanges.
- sfifs 5y ago
  > . My initial viewpoint was why would scammers bother to fish for bitcoin when bank transfers/gift cards are a lower barrier Because bank transfers at least are inherently traceable. It just requires a sufficiently motivated government agency or prosecutor to go after them. On Gift cards, there's a lot publicity regarding scams and stores are increasingly flagging scams. Crypto for now at least is far safer from a scmer POV as it requires far higher level of investment and expertise to trace and unmask, so only the ultra big fish seem to get chased
- LtdJorge 5y ago
  The difference is crypto(graphy) is "old" and established, while crypto(currencies) and blockchain are new and trendy. It's like what happened with the JS frameworks, which have stabilized now a bit. Everyone wanted to create a new amazing project, everyone was lured into using X or Y framework because Z. But not many know a lot about them. Same with crypto, people see it's trendy and go in even if they lack all the technical knowledge around it. Thus, scams and hacks are everywhere.
at-fates-hands 5y ago
> * Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. Doesn't cash do the same thing?
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  Cash doesn't scale, doesn't work remotely and, in any case, cash is actually useful for legitimate purposes, like snorting cocaine.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    How was Escobar able to build a multi million dollar empire if cash does not scale?
    - KarlKemp 5y ago
      Escobar sold drugs. The margins on that stuff are rather large, allowing for a few inefficiencies. But I should have really said: cash doesn’t scale down. Escobar can put people with briefcase on planes to pay his suppliers on all continents. But any smaller outfit would struggle with those logistics.
  - simonh 5y ago
    > Cash doesn't scale I refer the learned gentleman to, er, the global economy. How much more scaled up would you like? Meanwhile crypto transactions have to go through a single common blockchain with pitiful throughput. Even the enhancements like lightning are laughably slow compared to the global banking system.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  Pretty sure the orignal post is a joke, but I think crypto is a bit like a VPN in this way. Sure your bank can see the initial spend. But after that it's harder to see where the money goes. And you have some of the benefits of normal banking systems. Much harder to buy things from far away with cash.
Nextgrid 5y ago
> Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. Plenty of scams happen right there in the open. With all the traceability that fiat currencies provide, gift card, advance-fee and other scams are still plentiful and the victims are very unlikely to ever see their money back. In the UK, even when reported by the financial institution to the National Crime Agency, they often do nothing and the institution is forced to return the money even in cases where it's very obvious it is part of a scam. A lot of people I know are still getting constant scam calls trying to get them to send fiat money to them under various excuses so clearly these people are able to launder that money and evade the law just fine, and I doubt they're using crypto for that. > criminals The other problem with considering every "criminal" as bad is that the definition of "crime" depends on who's currently in power. Beyond the obvious violent crimes that the majority of people will agree are bad and should be prevented/punished, there's also a huge "grey area" - Russians who disagree with the war (or even call it a war instead of a "special military operation" as is the official party line) are now considered "criminals" by their government. Do you agree with their assessment that those people are bad and should be punished? > Providing a source of funding North Korea's nuclear weapons program The fact that there are people working (or rather, being exploited) on the ground in Poland and Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPjKs8NuY4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPjKs8NuY4s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI suggests that moving money is not the issue when they seem to be able to transport people just fine. > Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people I disagree with punishing average people and making their life hell because their government, over which they have no power over is doing something stupid. The vast majority of these people don't intend to hurt anyone and were just unlucky to be born at the wrong time and in the wrong place. If your solution to stupid governments is to make the life of their citizens impossible, may as well just nuke said country and be done with it? I'm no crypto fanatic. I don't believe in Web3 and call BS on whatever new crypto project comes out (and so far I have been right the vast majority of the time - every time as far as I know, but leaving the benefit of the doubt). I don't want crypto to take over the world because it's inefficient compared to competing solutions. But cryptocurrencies are a useful tool in certain situations just like end-to-end-encrypted messaging or anonymity tools such as Tor, and their benefits outweigh the cons even if they can be used to facilitate "bad" things.
abriosi 5y ago
Having access to basic finance and the ability of storing money safely, should be a right. There are place in the world where these things don't exist because society doesn't get along. Should decentralized and anonymous communication, like TOR tries to be, exist? Should a decentralized currency exist? Should and open, free and decentralized internet exist? For some of us the answer is clear but complex. Between black and white there are many shades of grey
f38zf5vdt 5y ago
Here we go again. While these things have been enabled by cryptocurrency, especially ransomware, all these human activities predate it. For those of us old enough to remember the drama of the crypto wars, it all sounds eerily familiar. > In fact, it's the proponents of widespread unbreakable encryption who want to create a brave new world, one in which all of us – crooks included – have a guarantee that the government can't tap our phones. Yet these proponents have done nothing to show us that the new world they seek will really be a better one. > In fact, even a civil libertarian might prefer a world where wiretaps are possible. If we want to catch and convict the leaders of criminal organizations, there are usually only two good ways to do it. We can "turn" a gang member – get him to testify against his leaders. Or we can wiretap the leaders as they plan the crime. > ... > If unescrowed encryption becomes ubiquitous, there will be many more stories like this. We can't afford as a society to protect pedophiles and criminals today just to keep alive the far-fetched notion that some future tyrant will be brought down by guerrillas wearing bandoleers and pocket protectors and sending PGP-encrypted messages to each other across cyberspace. > ... > As encryption technology gets cheaper and more common, though, we face the real prospect that the federal government's own research, its own standards, its own purchases will help create the future I described earlier – one in which criminals use ubiquitous encryption to hide their activities. How can anyone expect the standard-setting arms of government to use their power to destroy the capabilities of law enforcement – especially at a time when the threat of crime and terror seems to be rising dramatically? https://www.wired.com/1994/06/nsa-clipper/ https://www.wired.com/1994/06/nsa-clipper/ My take on it as an outsider is that these are bridging technologies that will probably die off once the rest of the world moves to a secure private digital currency system analogous to cash, since we will no longer need these "wildcat cryptocurrencies" any longer. Like how modern banking progressively evolved from distributed roots.
ibejoeb 5y ago
The ransomware actually wouldn't exist at all without cryptocurrencies making the scheme viable.
- ryoshu 5y ago
  The first ransomware attack was in 1989.
  - pfundstein 5y ago
    PLEASE elaborate, I'm intrigued.
    - nl 5y ago
      > In the late 1980s, criminals were already holding encrypted files hostage in exchange for cash sent via the postal service. One of the first ransomware attacks ever documented was the AIDS trojan (PC Cyborg Virus) that was released via floppy disk in 1989. Victims needed to send $189 to a P.O. box in Panama to restore access to their systems, even though it was a simple virus that utilized symmetric cryptography. https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/ransomware/history-of-ransomware/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/ransomware/his... Note that in 1989 Panama was a narco-state, so running a scheme like this via there made some sense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thehappypm 5y ago
I still haven’t seen anyone actually buy anything with a cryptocurrency yet.
netheril96 5y ago
You must be against end-to-end encryption for chat messages too. Think about how the terrorists and pedophiles can take advantage of that!
- miracle2k 5y ago
  More importantly, private citizens have essentially no need to use end to end encryption. Nor has society a reason to allow its citizens to hide data on encrypted devices from the state. It is all entirely benefiting criminals. /s
- saboot 5y ago
  Surprisingly (?) no! Only against a wasteful, overly complicated system, that's proven itself to be a haven of fraud and crime.
chemmail 5y ago
Sounds like you should here to China, where the CCP controls all the money and every action is logged and checked by the CCP. Wanna play games? You need that cleared by the CCP first and you are only allowed a quota. All your problems are solved over there. As for me in HK, its time to get out.
gfodor 5y ago
The last six months proved that governments are willing to debank their own citizens and entire countries without due process. Thank god for crypto.
- john_alan 5y ago
  Precisely. Not sure why the pseudo intellectuals of HN don’t get it.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
Ukraine raised $100 million in crypto donations. It's going to be offering an NFT series on Ethereum to raise yet more funds: https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bonds/ https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bond... Beyond the state's fundraising efforts, many in Ukraine were only able to take their wealth with them when they fled the country because they had it in the form of crypto. >>* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. And encrypted chat applications give criminals and scammers the ability to coordinate their scams anonymously. Centralization via mass-surveillance (Total Information Awareness) is not a solution to social problems. It's putting all of society's eggs in one basket, and hoping the basket doesn't fall into corruption. >>* Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people And according to this pro-centralization philosophy, a million people dying in Iraq due to sanctions is "worth it". So are all the people who "starve" due to this philosophy's AML mass-surveillance laws: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-side-153111892.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-...
- bryananderson 5y ago
  As always with crypto, this “use case” falls apart on even the tiniest inspection. Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It was quick and it was easy and the Ukrainians lost a hell of a lot less of my donation to transaction fees than they did of the ETH. Donating to Ukraine in ETH is a higher-fee way to do something you can already do (this is typical of purported blockchain “use cases”). If you actually care about the recipient of the donation, you should want as little of the donation to be siphoned off as transaction fees as possible.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    There is an advantage to Ukraine though: This might get them more donations from the crowd that has fully bought into all the crypto junk and will happily throw money at everything with the right buzzwords. I suppose you can consider the transaction fees marketing budget.
bamboozled 5y ago
I don't know if people are victims of misinformation campaigns or something but the way people blame blockchain for everything is just so ridiculous. Like as if it's the reason North Korea has a nuclear missile program, give me a break?
stefek99 5y ago
I guess there is no point trying to convince you? The most important technology since the internet. Changes the foundation of trust, governance, economy, incentives. New operating system for humanity. (and there is no way to stop it, countries who will ban it will go into dark ages while other will prosper)

by saboot 5y ago

mrmuagi 5y ago

>* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. I don't see how this is any different than the bog standard "encryption lets criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously.". Should money/txns be fundamentally track-able/examinable/un-encrypted but your private data/messages not? Surely this contention is something you also consider -- care to expand? >* Convincing older and gullible people to give their money to someone they don't know and a technology they can't explain I am surprised. My initial viewpoint was why would scammers bother to fish for bitcoin when bank transfers/gift cards are a lower barrier -- but seems you are right [1], the cat and mouse chase continues... [1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitboga+bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kitboga+bitcoin

allturtles 5y ago
> I don't see how this is any different than the bog standard "encryption lets criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously." The obvious difference is that encryption has many, many actually useful and productive applications.
- Sargos 5y ago
  >encryption has many, many actually useful and productive applications So does crypto but likewise opponents of encryption disregard the positives and focus on the negatives to align with their preformed ideas. The only way out of this trap is to have an open mind and internalize the fact that all technologies can be used for good and evil and thus are relatively neutral overall. Humanity must take the good and bad and see where the path goes in order to advance as a species.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > So does crypto It doesn't. Everyone who claims otherwise can't come up with a single credible example.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Buying a subscription to gay.com from Syria. Your on the clock..
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >> It doesn't. Everyone who claims otherwise can't come up with a single credible example. > Buying a subscription to gay.com from Syria. That is not a credible example. Here are some reasons: 1) Paying for porn? Paying for porn when the implication is that it's illegal and could get you in trouble? Who would do that? 2) Cryptocurrency isn't anonymous, and is usually highly traceable. 3) And even if it was anonymous, what good will it do when your DNS lookups will divulge you're looking at gay porn? 4) Oh, so now someone's supposed to be using some elaborate TOR/VPN setup in a repressive country, just so they can pay for porn? 5) What, exactly is the process for converting Syrian Pounds into cryptocurrency again? 6) etc. > Your on the clock.. Why were you so confident in your non-credible example?
        ipaddr 5y ago
        Who would pay for porn? Someone who wants to see what's behind that paywall. Crytocurrency is difficult and costly to trace and exchange identifying not available to Syria. VPNs would be used Same process for other currencies on Binance and other exchanges.
sfifs 5y ago
> . My initial viewpoint was why would scammers bother to fish for bitcoin when bank transfers/gift cards are a lower barrier Because bank transfers at least are inherently traceable. It just requires a sufficiently motivated government agency or prosecutor to go after them. On Gift cards, there's a lot publicity regarding scams and stores are increasingly flagging scams. Crypto for now at least is far safer from a scmer POV as it requires far higher level of investment and expertise to trace and unmask, so only the ultra big fish seem to get chased
LtdJorge 5y ago
The difference is crypto(graphy) is "old" and established, while crypto(currencies) and blockchain are new and trendy. It's like what happened with the JS frameworks, which have stabilized now a bit. Everyone wanted to create a new amazing project, everyone was lured into using X or Y framework because Z. But not many know a lot about them. Same with crypto, people see it's trendy and go in even if they lack all the technical knowledge around it. Thus, scams and hacks are everywhere.

at-fates-hands 5y ago

> * Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. Doesn't cash do the same thing?

KarlKemp 5y ago
Cash doesn't scale, doesn't work remotely and, in any case, cash is actually useful for legitimate purposes, like snorting cocaine.
- sumedh 5y ago
  How was Escobar able to build a multi million dollar empire if cash does not scale?
  - KarlKemp 5y ago
    Escobar sold drugs. The margins on that stuff are rather large, allowing for a few inefficiencies. But I should have really said: cash doesn’t scale down. Escobar can put people with briefcase on planes to pay his suppliers on all continents. But any smaller outfit would struggle with those logistics.
- simonh 5y ago
  > Cash doesn't scale I refer the learned gentleman to, er, the global economy. How much more scaled up would you like? Meanwhile crypto transactions have to go through a single common blockchain with pitiful throughput. Even the enhancements like lightning are laughably slow compared to the global banking system.
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
Pretty sure the orignal post is a joke, but I think crypto is a bit like a VPN in this way. Sure your bank can see the initial spend. But after that it's harder to see where the money goes. And you have some of the benefits of normal banking systems. Much harder to buy things from far away with cash.

Nextgrid 5y ago

> Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. Plenty of scams happen right there in the open. With all the traceability that fiat currencies provide, gift card, advance-fee and other scams are still plentiful and the victims are very unlikely to ever see their money back. In the UK, even when reported by the financial institution to the National Crime Agency, they often do nothing and the institution is forced to return the money even in cases where it's very obvious it is part of a scam. A lot of people I know are still getting constant scam calls trying to get them to send fiat money to them under various excuses so clearly these people are able to launder that money and evade the law just fine, and I doubt they're using crypto for that. > criminals The other problem with considering every "criminal" as bad is that the definition of "crime" depends on who's currently in power. Beyond the obvious violent crimes that the majority of people will agree are bad and should be prevented/punished, there's also a huge "grey area" - Russians who disagree with the war (or even call it a war instead of a "special military operation" as is the official party line) are now considered "criminals" by their government. Do you agree with their assessment that those people are bad and should be punished? > Providing a source of funding North Korea's nuclear weapons program The fact that there are people working (or rather, being exploited) on the ground in Poland and Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPjKs8NuY4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPjKs8NuY4s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI suggests that moving money is not the issue when they seem to be able to transport people just fine. > Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people I disagree with punishing average people and making their life hell because their government, over which they have no power over is doing something stupid. The vast majority of these people don't intend to hurt anyone and were just unlucky to be born at the wrong time and in the wrong place. If your solution to stupid governments is to make the life of their citizens impossible, may as well just nuke said country and be done with it? I'm no crypto fanatic. I don't believe in Web3 and call BS on whatever new crypto project comes out (and so far I have been right the vast majority of the time - every time as far as I know, but leaving the benefit of the doubt). I don't want crypto to take over the world because it's inefficient compared to competing solutions. But cryptocurrencies are a useful tool in certain situations just like end-to-end-encrypted messaging or anonymity tools such as Tor, and their benefits outweigh the cons even if they can be used to facilitate "bad" things.

abriosi 5y ago

Having access to basic finance and the ability of storing money safely, should be a right. There are place in the world where these things don't exist because society doesn't get along. Should decentralized and anonymous communication, like TOR tries to be, exist? Should a decentralized currency exist? Should and open, free and decentralized internet exist? For some of us the answer is clear but complex. Between black and white there are many shades of grey

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

Here we go again. While these things have been enabled by cryptocurrency, especially ransomware, all these human activities predate it. For those of us old enough to remember the drama of the crypto wars, it all sounds eerily familiar. > In fact, it's the proponents of widespread unbreakable encryption who want to create a brave new world, one in which all of us – crooks included – have a guarantee that the government can't tap our phones. Yet these proponents have done nothing to show us that the new world they seek will really be a better one. > In fact, even a civil libertarian might prefer a world where wiretaps are possible. If we want to catch and convict the leaders of criminal organizations, there are usually only two good ways to do it. We can "turn" a gang member – get him to testify against his leaders. Or we can wiretap the leaders as they plan the crime. > ... > If unescrowed encryption becomes ubiquitous, there will be many more stories like this. We can't afford as a society to protect pedophiles and criminals today just to keep alive the far-fetched notion that some future tyrant will be brought down by guerrillas wearing bandoleers and pocket protectors and sending PGP-encrypted messages to each other across cyberspace. > ... > As encryption technology gets cheaper and more common, though, we face the real prospect that the federal government's own research, its own standards, its own purchases will help create the future I described earlier – one in which criminals use ubiquitous encryption to hide their activities. How can anyone expect the standard-setting arms of government to use their power to destroy the capabilities of law enforcement – especially at a time when the threat of crime and terror seems to be rising dramatically? https://www.wired.com/1994/06/nsa-clipper/ https://www.wired.com/1994/06/nsa-clipper/ My take on it as an outsider is that these are bridging technologies that will probably die off once the rest of the world moves to a secure private digital currency system analogous to cash, since we will no longer need these "wildcat cryptocurrencies" any longer. Like how modern banking progressively evolved from distributed roots.

ibejoeb 5y ago

The ransomware actually wouldn't exist at all without cryptocurrencies making the scheme viable.

ryoshu 5y ago
The first ransomware attack was in 1989.
- pfundstein 5y ago
  PLEASE elaborate, I'm intrigued.
  - nl 5y ago
    > In the late 1980s, criminals were already holding encrypted files hostage in exchange for cash sent via the postal service. One of the first ransomware attacks ever documented was the AIDS trojan (PC Cyborg Virus) that was released via floppy disk in 1989. Victims needed to send $189 to a P.O. box in Panama to restore access to their systems, even though it was a simple virus that utilized symmetric cryptography. https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/ransomware/history-of-ransomware/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/cybersecurity-101/ransomware/his... Note that in 1989 Panama was a narco-state, so running a scheme like this via there made some sense.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

thehappypm 5y ago

I still haven’t seen anyone actually buy anything with a cryptocurrency yet.

netheril96 5y ago

You must be against end-to-end encryption for chat messages too. Think about how the terrorists and pedophiles can take advantage of that!

miracle2k 5y ago
More importantly, private citizens have essentially no need to use end to end encryption. Nor has society a reason to allow its citizens to hide data on encrypted devices from the state. It is all entirely benefiting criminals. /s
saboot 5y ago
Surprisingly (?) no! Only against a wasteful, overly complicated system, that's proven itself to be a haven of fraud and crime.

chemmail 5y ago

Sounds like you should here to China, where the CCP controls all the money and every action is logged and checked by the CCP. Wanna play games? You need that cleared by the CCP first and you are only allowed a quota. All your problems are solved over there. As for me in HK, its time to get out.

gfodor 5y ago

The last six months proved that governments are willing to debank their own citizens and entire countries without due process. Thank god for crypto.

john_alan 5y ago
Precisely. Not sure why the pseudo intellectuals of HN don’t get it.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

Ukraine raised $100 million in crypto donations. It's going to be offering an NFT series on Ethereum to raise yet more funds: https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bonds/ https://qz.com/2147694/ukraine-is-selling-nfts-like-war-bond... Beyond the state's fundraising efforts, many in Ukraine were only able to take their wealth with them when they fled the country because they had it in the form of crypto. >>* Giving criminals and scammers the ability to exchange goods and services anonymously. And encrypted chat applications give criminals and scammers the ability to coordinate their scams anonymously. Centralization via mass-surveillance (Total Information Awareness) is not a solution to social problems. It's putting all of society's eggs in one basket, and hoping the basket doesn't fall into corruption. >>* Allowing nation states to engage in global commerce despite sanctions because they won't stop killing innocent people And according to this pro-centralization philosophy, a million people dying in Iraq due to sanctions is "worth it". So are all the people who "starve" due to this philosophy's AML mass-surveillance laws: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-side-153111892.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/money-reimagined-starve-ugly-...

bryananderson 5y ago
As always with crypto, this “use case” falls apart on even the tiniest inspection. Ukraine was not cut off from the global financial system and had no issue receiving donations in fiat currency—I myself sent them some fiat. It was quick and it was easy and the Ukrainians lost a hell of a lot less of my donation to transaction fees than they did of the ETH. Donating to Ukraine in ETH is a higher-fee way to do something you can already do (this is typical of purported blockchain “use cases”). If you actually care about the recipient of the donation, you should want as little of the donation to be siphoned off as transaction fees as possible.
- malermeister 5y ago
  There is an advantage to Ukraine though: This might get them more donations from the crowd that has fully bought into all the crypto junk and will happily throw money at everything with the right buzzwords. I suppose you can consider the transaction fees marketing budget.

bamboozled 5y ago

I don't know if people are victims of misinformation campaigns or something but the way people blame blockchain for everything is just so ridiculous. Like as if it's the reason North Korea has a nuclear missile program, give me a break?

stefek99 5y ago

I guess there is no point trying to convince you? The most important technology since the internet. Changes the foundation of trust, governance, economy, incentives. New operating system for humanity. (and there is no way to stop it, countries who will ban it will go into dark ages while other will prosper)