4 ms·

I'm not sure that enabling illegal things is a positive value though. Sure, there might be some things that are banned for dumb reasons (cannabis comes to mind)

I'm not sure that enabling illegal things is a positive value though. Sure, there might be some things that are banned for dumb reasons (cannabis comes to mind), but if you enable any and all commerce, you end up also enabling stuff like assassinations and child abuse. Imo a currency that makes those possible has negative value. Regarding the "fiscal games" by nation states part - in democratic societies those "games" are policy decisions, voted for by the people. I find trying to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in a democratic vote morally questionable, and think that enabling antidemocratic behavior, too, is negative value. (Not to mention that it doesn't work anyways, as you noted).

galangalalgol 4y ago
I was talking about economic or market value, not societal or moral value. While I agree that that enabling child abuse or trafficking in people is a societal negative value, that sadly does not mean there isn't a positive market value for doing so. When you live in a nation whose bank's decisions don't influence the world economy, you don't get a vote when those nations decide to raise or lower interest rates, or to suppress the value of their currencies, or have trade wars with each other. The idea of insulating yourself from those decisions that you did not vote on is attractive, but it now seems like more traditional assets are likely a better approach.
ziddoap 4y ago
>Imo a currency that makes those possible has negative value. 'Regular' currency has been used for all sorts of nefarious things since the dawn of currency, including assassinations and child trafficking and such. Nothing about USD/EUR/CAD/etc. inherently makes it impossible to purchase or participate in illegal goods/activities. I'm not in favor of cryptocurrency, but the argument that cryptocurrency is the thing enables bad things to be bought/sold is a really tired argument and seems to forget all of human history prior to the last 10 years.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  If this were true then cryptocurrency would not replace regular currency for drugs, assassinations, and dark market activities generally. I believe KYC, banking regulations, and traceability all reduce the utility of conventional money for bad things. You can't easily transfer large amounts of money without leaving a trail that investigators may find in the conventional system. Bitcoin solves this!
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    What do you mean "If this were true [...]" ? How do you think crimes were paid for before BTC? On a related note, my dealer takes cash and even accepts electronic transfers, but not BTC.
rswail 4y ago
You can use ordinary USD (or any other fiat currencies) to "enable" stuff like assassinations and child abuse. All anonymous cash allows that to happen. That's why there are regulations and reporting of large cash transactions. There's nothing special about cryptocurrency there, except that regulators have not regulated KYC/AML enough yet. There's very little "value" in cryptocurrency, there is some value in the concept of blockchains, with proof-of-stake, replacing titles offices and other regulatory registers. NFTs are essentially that, but don't have any legal or regulatory power behind enforcing the "ownership" that the NFT records.

galangalalgol 4y ago

I was talking about economic or market value, not societal or moral value. While I agree that that enabling child abuse or trafficking in people is a societal negative value, that sadly does not mean there isn't a positive market value for doing so. When you live in a nation whose bank's decisions don't influence the world economy, you don't get a vote when those nations decide to raise or lower interest rates, or to suppress the value of their currencies, or have trade wars with each other. The idea of insulating yourself from those decisions that you did not vote on is attractive, but it now seems like more traditional assets are likely a better approach.

ziddoap 4y ago

>Imo a currency that makes those possible has negative value. 'Regular' currency has been used for all sorts of nefarious things since the dawn of currency, including assassinations and child trafficking and such. Nothing about USD/EUR/CAD/etc. inherently makes it impossible to purchase or participate in illegal goods/activities. I'm not in favor of cryptocurrency, but the argument that cryptocurrency is the thing enables bad things to be bought/sold is a really tired argument and seems to forget all of human history prior to the last 10 years.

ALittleLight 4y ago
If this were true then cryptocurrency would not replace regular currency for drugs, assassinations, and dark market activities generally. I believe KYC, banking regulations, and traceability all reduce the utility of conventional money for bad things. You can't easily transfer large amounts of money without leaving a trail that investigators may find in the conventional system. Bitcoin solves this!
- ziddoap 4y ago
  What do you mean "If this were true [...]" ? How do you think crimes were paid for before BTC? On a related note, my dealer takes cash and even accepts electronic transfers, but not BTC.

rswail 4y ago

You can use ordinary USD (or any other fiat currencies) to "enable" stuff like assassinations and child abuse. All anonymous cash allows that to happen. That's why there are regulations and reporting of large cash transactions. There's nothing special about cryptocurrency there, except that regulators have not regulated KYC/AML enough yet. There's very little "value" in cryptocurrency, there is some value in the concept of blockchains, with proof-of-stake, replacing titles offices and other regulatory registers. NFTs are essentially that, but don't have any legal or regulatory power behind enforcing the "ownership" that the NFT records.