3 ms·

The "beneficial" property you're referring to is "can be easily used to fund criminal behavior", which is typically not a desirable feature in a payment system.

The "beneficial" property you're referring to is "can be easily used to fund criminal behavior", which is typically not a desirable feature in a payment system. Many people believe LibGen/Sci-Hub are good forms of breaking the law - but if that is the case the solution is "make the things they do legal" rather than "make it easier to send criminals money over the internet".

wonnage 4y ago
Also you: > Also, I'm not even sure I agree with the "a tool can be used for evil so therefore taking features away is good".
SkyBelow 4y ago
>which is typically not a desirable feature in a payment system. I think it would be desirable. Some people will get into specifics of which laws they like to break and which laws they want enforced, but my experience has been most people like the ability for some laws to be broken and it is a good thing in regards to some laws being unjust. It is hard to get a standard because we would basically be asking which laws are moral/ethical and which aren't, which is its own messy discussion, but in general I find most people want some freedom to break away from and to weaken the legal system in some cases. Sure, it might be a bandaid to a larger problem, but a bandaid is preferable to no bandaid even if the wound needs a long term resolution.
- nh23423fefe 4y ago
  This is incoherent. Some laws are unjust so I can choose what laws I want to follow and that's good because .... (implication that breaking laws causes them to become more just as opposed to more enforceable)
  - sshine 4y ago
    > Some laws are unjust so I can choose what laws I want to follow It depends on your sense of justice, but ultimately, you have to follow your personal conscience also. Some are driven more by upholding the law and others more by their personal conscience. Justice is even above the gods. Human attempts to codify it is only as good as it gets.
seri4l 4y ago
>The "beneficial" property you're referring to is "can be easily used to fund criminal behavior", which is typically not a desirable feature in a payment system. It typically is. The alternative is a system where a central authority has absolute control over all monetary transactions, which is definitely not desirable.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
joemazerino 4y ago
Criminals have never had issues sending or receiving money over the internet. This excuse is just a smokescreen.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in the world (or rational human being) where the defense "other people commit the same crime too!" is valid.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sshine 4y ago
    I think the wheel fell off here. Just because criminals send money online, it does not mean that sending money online is criminal.
savingsPossible 4y ago
Not the solution, a solution. Another seems to be bitcoin The state's legitimacy is questionable. Who wants papers to have a copyright of 70+ years? Certainly less than 10% of the stakeholder population. And still they do. Who wants movies to have 70+ years in copyright? A state that does that might be too compromised. Not immediately amenable to reform. So illegal but moral actions sometimes can (and should) be taken.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  > The state's legitimacy is questionable. Who wants papers to have a copyright of 70+ years? Certainly less than 10% of the stakeholder population. And still they do. Maybe you live in a dictatorship, and I'm sorry if you do, but the majority of the world lives in democracies. The reality is that you're either wrong, or people just don't care enough about this issue to vote based on it. There are entire political parties built around this issue (look up "pirate party") and they don't get a lot of votes.
lupire 4y ago
A government is just a group of people. They aren't your parents. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. Why do they deserve a privileged position above all other groups of people?

wonnage 4y ago

Also you: > Also, I'm not even sure I agree with the "a tool can be used for evil so therefore taking features away is good".

SkyBelow 4y ago

>which is typically not a desirable feature in a payment system. I think it would be desirable. Some people will get into specifics of which laws they like to break and which laws they want enforced, but my experience has been most people like the ability for some laws to be broken and it is a good thing in regards to some laws being unjust. It is hard to get a standard because we would basically be asking which laws are moral/ethical and which aren't, which is its own messy discussion, but in general I find most people want some freedom to break away from and to weaken the legal system in some cases. Sure, it might be a bandaid to a larger problem, but a bandaid is preferable to no bandaid even if the wound needs a long term resolution.

nh23423fefe 4y ago
This is incoherent. Some laws are unjust so I can choose what laws I want to follow and that's good because .... (implication that breaking laws causes them to become more just as opposed to more enforceable)
- sshine 4y ago
  > Some laws are unjust so I can choose what laws I want to follow It depends on your sense of justice, but ultimately, you have to follow your personal conscience also. Some are driven more by upholding the law and others more by their personal conscience. Justice is even above the gods. Human attempts to codify it is only as good as it gets.

seri4l 4y ago

>The "beneficial" property you're referring to is "can be easily used to fund criminal behavior", which is typically not a desirable feature in a payment system. It typically is. The alternative is a system where a central authority has absolute control over all monetary transactions, which is definitely not desirable.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

joemazerino 4y ago

Criminals have never had issues sending or receiving money over the internet. This excuse is just a smokescreen.

cmeacham98 4y ago
I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in the world (or rational human being) where the defense "other people commit the same crime too!" is valid.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sshine 4y ago
  I think the wheel fell off here. Just because criminals send money online, it does not mean that sending money online is criminal.

savingsPossible 4y ago

Not the solution, a solution. Another seems to be bitcoin The state's legitimacy is questionable. Who wants papers to have a copyright of 70+ years? Certainly less than 10% of the stakeholder population. And still they do. Who wants movies to have 70+ years in copyright? A state that does that might be too compromised. Not immediately amenable to reform. So illegal but moral actions sometimes can (and should) be taken.

cmeacham98 4y ago
> The state's legitimacy is questionable. Who wants papers to have a copyright of 70+ years? Certainly less than 10% of the stakeholder population. And still they do. Maybe you live in a dictatorship, and I'm sorry if you do, but the majority of the world lives in democracies. The reality is that you're either wrong, or people just don't care enough about this issue to vote based on it. There are entire political parties built around this issue (look up "pirate party") and they don't get a lot of votes.

lupire 4y ago

A government is just a group of people. They aren't your parents. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. Why do they deserve a privileged position above all other groups of people?