3 ms·
"Governments can ban things but it frequently doesn't work" works directly against the idea that crypto is providing any value - because the argument it does st
by XorNot 4y ago
"Governments can ban things but it frequently doesn't work" works directly against the idea that crypto is providing any value - because the argument it does starts with "governments can ban X but cryptocurrency will save us!"
You can't have it both ways: if cryptocurrency is the be all and end all of avoiding government censure of other activities, why would it not be a high priority to crush it compared to those other things? If it is not, then is it all that useful?
- savingsPossible 4y agoA stronger version of the opposing argument: Cash and banks are easier for the government to control than crypto That is all that there is to the argument! Maybe the difference won't be significant, but I see no reason to think (nor to think the opposite) as of now. Do you have one?
- XorNot 4y agoThat's making a specific argument (which you are doing without supporting it in anyway). I am saying you don't get to hedge your argument like this: crypto cannot be both an important part of evading government censure, and too small to be worth government effort to censure. If someone wants to make the middle ground argument, make it, but you're starting from the position of government already engaging in significant regulatory interest in the use of cryptocurrencies.
- twelve40 4y agopretty sure that's false at least for cash. as for hypothetical crypto underground economy, nobody has really explained how exactly you are supposed to convert those liberating coins into physical goods (that makes all retail illegal?). Which makes it not an argument but a very fuzzy dream.
- savingsPossible 4y agoIt is harder for the government to know who is spending cash, but easier for the government to devalue cash