5 ms·
Ah ok, the use case is breaking the law.
by okasaki 4y ago
Ah ok, the use case is breaking the law.
- brookst 4y agoI read it as maintaining privacy while doing legal things that a corrupt government might punish despite their legality. What led you to think laws are being broken in those scenarios?
- keyme 4y agoYes. Or, in other words, maintaining morality despite laws.
- andrepd 4y agoYes, it may surprise you that the women in Iran, for instance, are breaking the law. And so did the people who founded the USA, in another example. Law ≠ moralityb
- okasaki 4y agoIt's beautiful when people you like doing things you approve of are breaking the law. Let's say someone uses crypto to buy weapons or explosives and your loved one dies in the attack. Are you still going to support it?
- smcn 4y agoThat's quite the response. Are you suggesting that weapons or explosives can only be bought with crypto?
- lmm 4y agoCrypto makes it easier to buy things that are illegal to buy. That's exactly what's being touted as a benefit here. Being outside the law cuts both ways.
- smcn 4y agoCrypto is a new innovation. People have been able to buy prohibited items as far back as there has been prohibited items. Crypto doesn't change anything there. Finding out that somebody used crypto to buy something that harmed your family shouldn't make you dislike crypto. Bad people will get a hold of weapons regardless.
- lmm 4y ago> Crypto is a new innovation. People have been able to buy prohibited items as far back as there has been prohibited items. Crypto doesn't change anything there. If it didn't change anything then by the same token it wouldn't help people in oppressive regimes. > Finding out that somebody used crypto to buy something that harmed your family shouldn't make you dislike crypto. Bad people will get a hold of weapons regardless. Security is always a tradeoff. You can't make it impossible to get hold of weapons, but you can make it harder, and that matters at the margin.
- smcn 4y ago> If it didn't change anything then by the same token it wouldn't help people in oppressive regimes. I said "doesn't change anything there", not "doesn't change anything". > Security is always a tradeoff. You can't make it impossible to get hold of weapons, but you can make it harder, and that matters at the margin. The payment itself is not where these efforts should go to. Transport, manufacturing, advertising. These are all much more fruitful places to look at stopping illegal trade.
- lmm 4y ago> I said "doesn't change anything there", not "doesn't change anything". But there's a symmetry to the situations. To the extent that it helps people evade government controls, it will help people evade government controls. > The payment itself is not where these efforts should go to. Transport, manufacturing, advertising. These are all much more fruitful places to look at stopping illegal trade. That's pure whataboutism. Enforcing laws against bitcoin makes all kinds of illegal activity harder, without significant downsides for law abiding people. So it's a worthwhile measure, regardless of what else you do or don't do.
- dbfx 4y agoyes
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoYes. The way it's paid for isn't the problem.
- AlexandrB 4y ago> Yes, it may surprise you that the women in Iran, for instance, are breaking the law. And so did the people who founded the USA, in another example. Sure, but plenty of bad actors have broken the law as well - the examples of these are far more numerous. While there are hypothetical moral use cases for crypto, some of the most common actual uses are greed (yield farming, speculation), scams (rug pulls, pump and dumps, wash trading, ransomware), tax evasion, and as currency for contraband like drugs. What ratio of moral to immoral use cases is acceptable to the crypto community? 1:10? 1:100? Or is anything ok as long as someone out there is using it to escape repression?
- mbg721 4y agoThe more frequently breaking the law coincides with good morality, the weaker the law becomes, and the less legitimacy the state holds. That's why setting everything up for selective enforcement is so destructive.
- dnissley 4y agoYes