6 ms·
It can be argued that the resources spent on keeping Bitcoin running are disproportionately high to the utility it provides. Some would even say that the utilit
by lolc 4y ago
It can be argued that the resources spent on keeping Bitcoin running are disproportionately high to the utility it provides. Some would even say that the utility is negative, as it facilitates money-laundering.
- taolegal 4y agoCriminals wear shoes and need shoes. We should ban shoes.
- cinntaile 4y agoThose are valid points but that's a different meaning of value as used in the article.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoNo they're not valid points, they're purely subjective and with no comparison.
- irusensei 4y agoLet me guess. From the time you are replying you are probably from west Europe, live under a stable democracy and financial system and have very broad interpretation of what constitutes money laundering - that is anything outside the current financial panopticon. You probably cannot imagine why permissionless currency that can't be controlled by government is a desirable thing. After all you've never lived under tyrannical governments. It's not like there are say 45 countries in this planet where woman are forbidden to manage money, have a company or even a bank account. Pff... preposterous right? Why should allow Mohamed to send money to his mother in Palest... I mean commit money laundering?
- Tesl 4y agoOh and you are from one of those countries right? No, your interest is most likely the same as almost everyone else in crypto - seeing the line go up.
- irusensei 4y agoI actually am from a country in South America with very weak democratic values. I've been blessed with skills that are marketable. I might or might not commit """money laundering""" every month to feed my mother and brother.
- Yizahi 4y agoI hope you do realise that while you are saving lets say half of your money from the incompetent government or whatever is the case there, at the same time your South American oligarchs are using the same token system to steal billions from yours country, and from you indirectly. What you are proposing is eventually devolves to the social darwinism. You have a global aggressor - your government. You have a lot of citizens i nthe country, both rich and poor. All were hurt by aggressor (financially), rich less so, poor - a lot. Now you introduce a new system in the equation - tokens. It works like a private pipe from a shared pool. Now the individuals are are more proactive, smarter, and richer will utilise such pipes earlier and more thoroughly, funneling money to the offshores. And people not utilising such pipes/tokens are left "having fun staying poor". You personally is simply hoping to save your own money faster than aggressor takes them from you. The problem is that you country will be in the worse position when such "money saving" system will be working at scale.
- zarzavat 4y ago“Facilitates money laundering” is another way of saying “preserves freedom”, they are two sides of the same bitcoin. The argument of whether governments and payment processors should have the power of prior restraint on all transactions (e.g. by going cashless) or not is older than cryptocurrency.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoAnd the US dollar punches well above its weight in "preserving freedom", despite all the rules, all the enforcement, all the regulation, all the threat of violence, all the drug wars. Theatre.
- Yizahi 4y agoThe question is - are benefits of token systems outweigh the negatives? Since the purpose of all these systems is law avoidance (both "legitimate" and "oppressive", all of laws), then in my opinion negatives are much much bigger than benefits. And I say this as a person who can benefit from tokens, i.e. send my money cross border without any legal oversight. But in reality for a the few grey private transaction, the majority of this system usage will be utilised by corporations, billionaires, shady governments, mafia etc. Tokens in the current state are net negative for humans. And hypothetically tokens with control and oversight and protections are just overall worse and more limited digital "money".
- garydevenay 4y agoI argue that it's the best value exchange that humans have found since turning wood in to fire.