3 ms·
Sure, but crypto allows these because it's not as easily controlled by the governments as other things. Same with cash. Which governments increasingly constrai
by sinity 4y ago
Sure, but crypto allows these because it's not as easily controlled by the governments as other things.
Same with cash. Which governments increasingly constrain, for this reason.
Yet there are not as many people commenting enthusiastically about wanting cash to disappear / fail, or suggesting similar measures against it. (KYC, AML...)
Why is cash okay, but _digital equivalent_ is not? When physical transactions are less and less relevant? Why make the decision to basically leave these advantages in the past?
I don't think preventing ransomware attacks or financing terrorism is worth losing the capability to transact freely online. Potential totalitarianism is way more scary than 9/11.
Quote from a book, "Manna":
> With the arrival of robots, tens of millions of people lost their minimum wage jobs and the wealth concentrated so quickly. The rich controlled America’s bureaucracy, military, businesses and natural resources, and the unemployed masses lived in terrafoam, cut off from any opportunity to change their situation. There was the facade of “free elections,” but only candidates supported by the rich could ever get on the ballot. The government was completely controlled by the rich, as were the robotic security forces, the military and the intelligence organizations. American democracy had morphed into a third world dictatorship ruled by the wealthy elite.
> Ultimately, you would expect that there would be riots across America. But the people could not riot. The terrorist scares at the beginning of the century had caused a number of important changes. Eventually, there were video security cameras and microphones covering and recording nearly every square inch of public space in America. There were taps on all phone conversations and Internet messages sniffing for terrorist clues. If anyone thought about starting a protest rally or a riot, or discussed any form of civil disobedience with anyone else, he was branded a terrorist and preemptively put in jail. Combine that with robotic security forces, and riots are impossible.
- lisper 4y ago> Why is cash okay, but _digital equivalent_ is not? Because exchanging cash requires physical presence. The introduces friction and requires putative criminals to take risks that they don't have to take with crypto, which makes crime less lucrative.
- cozzyd 4y agoIt's also grandfathered in, independent of the many other ways in which it's not equivalent.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago>Same with cash. Which governments increasingly constrain, for this reason. Yet there are not as many people commenting enthusiastically about wanting cash to disappear / fail, or suggesting similar measures against it. (KYC, AML...) Why is cash okay, but _digital equivalent_ is not? Crypto is not a digital equivalent to cash no matter how much you say it. I can pay my tax organisation with cash. They explicitly list the acceptable forms of payment. I cannot send them any sort of crypto currency. Cash is also legal tender. There are times where not accepting cash could have legal consequences. I can reject crypto as much as I want. I can't help but think these lines of argument are intentionally deceptive. If you just repeat it enough times, other people will as well.