2 ms·
> This is trivially falsifiable Only if you consider making it easier to break the law to be solving a problem rather than creating one. Personally, I hew tow
by lisper 4y ago
> This is trivially falsifiable
Only if you consider making it easier to break the law to be solving a problem rather than creating one. Personally, I hew towards the latter point of view. And if you think about it, the continuation of civilization literally depends on having a significant majority of people do the same.
> a transaction is morally just if and only if it is legal
But that is not the same thing at all. What you originally said was that (legal) crypto transactions solve a problem by making it easier to do other illegal things. The legality of the crypto transaction itself is a red herring. The point is that you are advancing the view that crypto's ability to facilitate breaking the law in general is a feature, not a bug, notwithstanding the legality of crypto per se.
Civilization cannot survive that attitude spreading too widely. A system can only sustain so many parasites before it dies.
- gfodor 4y ago> Only if you consider making it easier to break the law to be solving a problem rather than creating one. The question at hand, raised by Schneier, is if the technology has the capability to solve any problems. This seems objectively true: that it has the capacity to help solve the very specific problem of transacting in spite of unjust laws and tyrannical governments. This is a problem we aren't used to having in the West as of late, but certainly it's a common problem for many in history. What you're asking here is if, on net, we ought to consider it a harmful or beneficial technology, to the point where we ought to promote its development or stifle it. That is a separate, more complex question than the one raised of if the technology can solve any real problems.