6 ms·

I absolutely agree we should build infrastructure that allows people within oppressive regimes options with which they can resist, escape and co-ordinate. Whic

I absolutely agree we should build infrastructure that allows people within oppressive regimes options with which they can resist, escape and co-ordinate. Which is why this infrastructure, which is clearly designed to empower those regimes, is bad. Are North Koreans using crypto-currencies? Maybe, it doesn't seem like it. Is the North Korean regime using crypto-currencies? Absolutely, we repeatedly see the North Korean regime stealing, laundering and transferring crypto. You're advocating for a theoretical possibility of helping dissidents to defend the actual reality which is that crypto is a tool of oppressive regimes.

djbebs 4y ago
Once you understand that your regime *is* the oppressive regime, you'd understand why this is necessary.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Hi, I am Russian. To really help ordinary people in oppressed countries, the first step is to implement policies such that they only affect those who should be affected. If you do that, cryptocurrency benefits become moot: a Russian freelancer working overseas can legally TransferWise money to help her mom, but a Putin-connected oligarch can't wire money to help the regime. For many reasons, it's difficult: e.g., how do you verify that your Russian user does not in fact work for Gazprom? Much safer to implement a total ban on anyone connecting from a Russian IP or using a Russian bank, explicitly sanctioned or not. However, blanket financial anonymity at scale is not an acceptable workaround. Making it simpler for kleptocrats in charge to finance questionable activities and launder money obtained through thievery and violence, it introduces more problems than it solves, and in fact props up the regime.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    >>If you do that, cryptocurrency benefits become moot: a Russian freelancer working overseas can legally TransferWise money to help her mom, but a Putin-connected oligarch can't wire money to help the regime There are plenty of nationalities which are banned from TransferWise: https://wise.com/help/articles/2813542/why-cant-i-open-a-wise-currency-account https://wise.com/help/articles/2813542/why-cant-i-open-a-wis... Russians may one day join that list.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Maybe you misunderstood me. This year Russians got de facto banned from many services, cannot use paid features of Github (Copilot or sponsoring projects), are blocked by freelancer marketplaces, etc. I am not risking using TransferWise to transfer money home (to a non-sanctioned individual's account in a non-sanctioned bank) out of fear of losing my account forever. This is because Western companies interpret sanctions wider than strictly required to err on the side of caution due to the aforementioned reasons.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        Yes, I totally misunderstood you, apologies. I agree with everything you said, except this: >>However, blanket financial anonymity at scale is not an acceptable workaround Blanket financial anonymity is the only way to prevent circumstances like today's, where entire nationalities are locked out of the global financial system, and power becomes more concentrated over time.
        throwaway290 4y ago
        It's not the answer, you may have missed the other part of what I wrote. Implementing this anonymity to allow regular guys help their families in Russia, who are now dealing with 4x price hike on basic goods, will help kleptocrats (the very guys causing that hike in the first place) finance their wars and further entrench themselves in power. Don't you see how this ultimately hurts those it ostensibly aims to help? Regular guys will send home hundreds of USD, kleptocrats will launder billions. Financial anonymity at scale exacerbates these asymmetries by helping those with the most money/power the most. Thinking otherwise is hoping they are clueless and don't employ teams of savvy people specifically to figure out various financing workarounds.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        Those with the most power can legalize everything they do. The monopoly on violence wielded by the government tends to concentrate power. Mass-surveillance of financial transactions, or conversely, lack of private money, extends the reach of the government, and with it, the ability of the most powerful to extract resources from the general population. Those in the centers of power don't need to launder money. They write the laws, so their income is not illicit.
haxiomic 4y ago
Turns out North Korea are using crypto! To fund missile programs https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60281129.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60281129.amp The more I think on these things, the more I think trust is a feature, not a bug
- olalonde 4y ago
  Do you extend that thought to the Internet as well? The web is undoubtedly helpful to North Korea, probably more so than crypto.
  - maratc 4y ago
    OpenOffice, Linux and RISC-V are of tremendous help to Russia.
    - dburflzz 4y ago
  - lottin 4y ago
    I think the problem with this argument is the internet is useful to anyone, not just criminals.
- didericis 4y ago
  Trust is a feature. Transparent systems in which transactions are screened do not trust their people. North Korea would never allow their people access to a truly private cryptocurrency (which Monero does better). It would become easier to funnel money internally and create opposing factions. This discussion is no different than a discussion about just rulers. If the person in charge of a monetary system has good intentions, or is informed by a democracy with collectively good intentions, it is better for them to dictate who can have access and who cannot. Crypto forces those on the network to trust in the free decisions of the collective. If you think more people would transact with a large criminal psychopathic state like North Korea than they would with people who oppose North Korea, that is a collective choice. In a truly decentralized system, where everyone had access (which is not the case, and complicates things), the real, in practice will of the people comes out.
_81ih 4y ago
I really don't get what the argument is here? NK and others also use Tor, Signal (Protocol), and more. Are they all bad? And why always use the most extreme examples like NK and China? If US citizens could empathize with people not only from NK, but also from places like Turkey, where the value of our currency has been demolished under the current authoritarian government (and, IMO, they aren't far away from putting limits on buying USD), I think we would have healthier discussions. Now, I can — and am — moving out of the country, but not everyone can. Thinking otherwise is privileged and ignorant thinking. Of course ETH is not flawless, and if I were in a middle-class family in the US, I would love to have these deep philosophical discussions about if Ethereum is really really decentralized, but the fact remains that cryptocurrencies DO solve real problems, and they DO help more people than they hurt, just like any technology. If this weren't the case, humans would have stoped innovating a long time ago.
- thelamest 4y ago
  You can only be sure in hindsight which solution is comparatively or net good. Not all hard work done by smart and nice people turns out to be worthwhile. There are always trade-offs and cryptoassets bring them too. You have good reasons to be worried about centralization, but concerns that this technology empowers crime and totalitarianism, just in a different way, are valid too.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    All technical solutions are trade-offs. See, burning coal is bad for the environment under many angles. But it fed the energy to the industrial revolution, with immense improvements to everyone's quality of life (from running water to advanced medical care). Now it's time to retire it, but it won't be realistic to go from muscle power to nuclear and solar power directly. Same thing with crypto currency. It's like a steam engine from 1800: large, dirty and inefficient as it is, it already solves real problems. Now, moving from proof of work to proof of stake is a huge step, like moving from firewood boiler to a turbine. Maybe not a complete perfection yet, but a huge jump in efficiency.
    - 4y ago

djbebs 4y ago

Once you understand that your regime *is* the oppressive regime, you'd understand why this is necessary.

throwaway290 4y ago
Hi, I am Russian. To really help ordinary people in oppressed countries, the first step is to implement policies such that they only affect those who should be affected. If you do that, cryptocurrency benefits become moot: a Russian freelancer working overseas can legally TransferWise money to help her mom, but a Putin-connected oligarch can't wire money to help the regime. For many reasons, it's difficult: e.g., how do you verify that your Russian user does not in fact work for Gazprom? Much safer to implement a total ban on anyone connecting from a Russian IP or using a Russian bank, explicitly sanctioned or not. However, blanket financial anonymity at scale is not an acceptable workaround. Making it simpler for kleptocrats in charge to finance questionable activities and launder money obtained through thievery and violence, it introduces more problems than it solves, and in fact props up the regime.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  >>If you do that, cryptocurrency benefits become moot: a Russian freelancer working overseas can legally TransferWise money to help her mom, but a Putin-connected oligarch can't wire money to help the regime There are plenty of nationalities which are banned from TransferWise: https://wise.com/help/articles/2813542/why-cant-i-open-a-wise-currency-account https://wise.com/help/articles/2813542/why-cant-i-open-a-wis... Russians may one day join that list.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Maybe you misunderstood me. This year Russians got de facto banned from many services, cannot use paid features of Github (Copilot or sponsoring projects), are blocked by freelancer marketplaces, etc. I am not risking using TransferWise to transfer money home (to a non-sanctioned individual's account in a non-sanctioned bank) out of fear of losing my account forever. This is because Western companies interpret sanctions wider than strictly required to err on the side of caution due to the aforementioned reasons.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Yes, I totally misunderstood you, apologies. I agree with everything you said, except this: >>However, blanket financial anonymity at scale is not an acceptable workaround Blanket financial anonymity is the only way to prevent circumstances like today's, where entire nationalities are locked out of the global financial system, and power becomes more concentrated over time.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        It's not the answer, you may have missed the other part of what I wrote. Implementing this anonymity to allow regular guys help their families in Russia, who are now dealing with 4x price hike on basic goods, will help kleptocrats (the very guys causing that hike in the first place) finance their wars and further entrench themselves in power. Don't you see how this ultimately hurts those it ostensibly aims to help? Regular guys will send home hundreds of USD, kleptocrats will launder billions. Financial anonymity at scale exacerbates these asymmetries by helping those with the most money/power the most. Thinking otherwise is hoping they are clueless and don't employ teams of savvy people specifically to figure out various financing workarounds.
        ETH_start 4y ago
        Those with the most power can legalize everything they do. The monopoly on violence wielded by the government tends to concentrate power. Mass-surveillance of financial transactions, or conversely, lack of private money, extends the reach of the government, and with it, the ability of the most powerful to extract resources from the general population. Those in the centers of power don't need to launder money. They write the laws, so their income is not illicit.

haxiomic 4y ago

Turns out North Korea are using crypto! To fund missile programs https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60281129.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60281129.amp The more I think on these things, the more I think trust is a feature, not a bug

olalonde 4y ago
Do you extend that thought to the Internet as well? The web is undoubtedly helpful to North Korea, probably more so than crypto.
- maratc 4y ago
  OpenOffice, Linux and RISC-V are of tremendous help to Russia.
  - dburflzz 4y ago
- lottin 4y ago
  I think the problem with this argument is the internet is useful to anyone, not just criminals.
didericis 4y ago
Trust is a feature. Transparent systems in which transactions are screened do not trust their people. North Korea would never allow their people access to a truly private cryptocurrency (which Monero does better). It would become easier to funnel money internally and create opposing factions. This discussion is no different than a discussion about just rulers. If the person in charge of a monetary system has good intentions, or is informed by a democracy with collectively good intentions, it is better for them to dictate who can have access and who cannot. Crypto forces those on the network to trust in the free decisions of the collective. If you think more people would transact with a large criminal psychopathic state like North Korea than they would with people who oppose North Korea, that is a collective choice. In a truly decentralized system, where everyone had access (which is not the case, and complicates things), the real, in practice will of the people comes out.

_81ih 4y ago

I really don't get what the argument is here? NK and others also use Tor, Signal (Protocol), and more. Are they all bad? And why always use the most extreme examples like NK and China? If US citizens could empathize with people not only from NK, but also from places like Turkey, where the value of our currency has been demolished under the current authoritarian government (and, IMO, they aren't far away from putting limits on buying USD), I think we would have healthier discussions. Now, I can — and am — moving out of the country, but not everyone can. Thinking otherwise is privileged and ignorant thinking. Of course ETH is not flawless, and if I were in a middle-class family in the US, I would love to have these deep philosophical discussions about if Ethereum is really really decentralized, but the fact remains that cryptocurrencies DO solve real problems, and they DO help more people than they hurt, just like any technology. If this weren't the case, humans would have stoped innovating a long time ago.

thelamest 4y ago
You can only be sure in hindsight which solution is comparatively or net good. Not all hard work done by smart and nice people turns out to be worthwhile. There are always trade-offs and cryptoassets bring them too. You have good reasons to be worried about centralization, but concerns that this technology empowers crime and totalitarianism, just in a different way, are valid too.
- nine_k 4y ago
  All technical solutions are trade-offs. See, burning coal is bad for the environment under many angles. But it fed the energy to the industrial revolution, with immense improvements to everyone's quality of life (from running water to advanced medical care). Now it's time to retire it, but it won't be realistic to go from muscle power to nuclear and solar power directly. Same thing with crypto currency. It's like a steam engine from 1800: large, dirty and inefficient as it is, it already solves real problems. Now, moving from proof of work to proof of stake is a huge step, like moving from firewood boiler to a turbine. Maybe not a complete perfection yet, but a huge jump in efficiency.
  - 4y ago