4 ms·
That's not refuting my argument. My argument is that the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of govern
by gfodor 4y ago
That's not refuting my argument. My argument is that the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws. Plucking one very obvious form of immoral criminality out of that gigantic pool of use cases is misleading at best. I think many people in the West forget how lucky they are that, on average, the correlation between the morality and legality of economic transactions is fairly decent.
- n4r9 4y ago> the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws I'm far from convinced that blockchain solves this. For a transaction system to be used in a serious and widespread manner, there must be recourse in case money is lost to fraud, hacking etc... . Currently this is typically provided by some goverment/state body regulating the system and prosecuting criminal abuse of it. I haven't seen any good arguments that cryptocurrencies can provide this kind of security without government involvement. Blockchain might provide a provisional workaround for people under unjust governments, but the long-term robust solution to me seems to be political and cultural progress, not technology.
- gfodor 4y agoTechnology leads norms, not the other way around. Technology doesn't dictate norms, but forces materialization of norms that otherwise wouldn't be necessary.
- n4r9 4y agoThere are some situations where technology forces a reassessment of norms, yes. But this is beside the point, which is that blockchain does not properly solve the problem of secure global payments. It's a stopgap, and incentivises people to design a better solution.
- lottin 4y agoSomeone who lives under an oppressive government is not going to be less oppressed just because they gain the ability to send digital tokens around without government interference.
- mypastself 4y agoIf the person purchases goods or services with, or holds said token during a period in which a government devalues or confiscates their other stores of value to a greater degree, then I think it’s fair to say they are less oppressed.
- lottin 4y agoCan you give a concrete example (even a hypothetical one)? I'm a little lost.
- mypastself 4y agoA government might: block sending or receiving remittances; track or prohibit purchases of goods and services it considers immoral; devalue the official currency to a significant degree; easily confiscate gold, land or other traditional stores of value. Some or all of these could be considered opressive, depending on the context. A medium of exchange that can circumvent unjust laws could be said to decrease repression. Not sure how much better I can explain it.
- lottin 4y agoLiterally all governments have capital controls and ban certain goods and services. Devaluation of a currency is not oppression either. Economic persecution is oppression. Let's say they fabricate a legal case against you and make you pay a big fine. How is bitcoin helping you being less oppressed in these circumstances? Feel free to come with another example, where bitcoin would help. I can't think of any. That's why I'm asking.
- 4y ago