4 ms·

Sending money is a pretty clear use case. Ukraine received a bunch of international crypto donations last year, for example. Your lack of imagination doesn't m

Sending money is a pretty clear use case. Ukraine received a bunch of international crypto donations last year, for example. Your lack of imagination doesn't mean something is just for "illegal activities".

RandomLensman 4y ago
Ukraine uses(used) normal funding markets and is accessible via standard transfer avenues. Not sure why crypto is needed - certainly billions being transferred to Ukraine are not in crypto.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
I actually think there are plenty of legitimate uses of cryptocurrency, and that it is being used in those ways today. But the Ukraine example is a strange one to me, only because I'm unclear on the legality of funding the war efforts of another country.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >I actually think there are plenty of legitimate uses of cryptocurrency, and that it is being used in those ways today. Absolutely. I never said anything that contradicts that statement. Rather, I pointed out that the majority of those legitimate use cases are currently better served with the global financial system. And as such, the current, practical* use cases for cryptocurrency are as a medium of exchange for goods and services that governments frown upon. I make no judgement as to whether that's good or bad, just that it is. I'll remind you that I said currently, not forever, not it's just a scam, not everyone who touches cryptocurrency is a criminal and most certainly not there are no legitimate uses for cryptocurrency; Just that currently the most compelling use case for cryptocurrency is as a medium of exchange for "illegal" goods and services. Most (not all, I'm not being categorical here) other use cases are currently better served via the global financial ecosystem based on government-backed currencies.
dmitriid 4y ago
> Ukraine received a bunch of international crypto donations last year, for example. That they can surely use, right, right? Because all that crypto can be easily used for buying stuff, right? right? In reality it looks like those donations were laundered through an offshore exchange. Someone will always find ways to profit from war.
- DennisP 4y ago
  According to Ukrainian officials, yes, some of their military suppliers did in fact accept crypto directly, and it was quicker and easier than using the banking system. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/07/ukraine-is-buying-bulletproof-vests-and-night-vision-goggles-using-crypto/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/07/ukraine-is-buying...
  - mnd999 4y ago
    Arms dealers are pragmatists.
nobody9999 4y ago
>Ukraine received a bunch of international crypto donations last year, for example. While cryptocurrency was used to donate to Ukraine, a bank transfer or Western Union would have done the trick too -- since no one (except maybe the Russians) would consider such donations criminally actionable. Which was my point. Sure, foreign remittances, sending money to friends/family and other mechanisms allowing money to be transmitted around the world is certainly a use case for cryptocurrency. The rub is that for the vast majority of legal transactions (i.e., those that won't raise government hackles), cryptocurrency is currently riskier and less reliable than using a government-backed currency. That's not a dig at cryptocurrencies. Rather, it's an assessment of the current financial ecosystem. Cryptocurrencies have lots of potential but, like most immature technologies, it's not quite ready for prime time. As such, the vast majority of folks who choose to use cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange are those who either don't want their transactions detected by the government (the vast majority of which are those things that raise government hackles) and/or those who are risk tolerant. Which is why cryptocurrencies are mostly used as a medium of exchange on the fringes of society/legality. As the technology matures, you'll see cryptocurrencies become more and more mainstream -- even government-backed currencies. Because, in the end, cryptocurrencies are just another form of money. For now, the primary use case for cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange is avoidance of government knowledge/involvement. Eventually that will change, but I'll probably be dead[0] before that happens. [0] If I'm still alive in 2050, I'll be surprised. Edit: Clarified my estimate for when cryptocurrencies will be pretty mainstream.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nobody9999 4y ago
I explicitly said[0]: "I'm not aware of any current practical use case for cryptocurrency, that government-backed currencies don't provide" "that government-backed currencies don't provide." That's the important part which you ignored. Sending money using established, government-backed currencies/ecosystems that you're not trying to hide from the government (for legal stuff, generally) is currently (note the adverb here) more secure and less risky than using cryptocurrencies to do so. Is it poor reading comprehension your part, did you just not like what I said and so ignored it, or are you unable to process information if it contradicts your trained-in prejudices? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34470711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34470711 Edit: Fixed prose to say what I wanted to say, not the opposite.

RandomLensman 4y ago

Ukraine uses(used) normal funding markets and is accessible via standard transfer avenues. Not sure why crypto is needed - certainly billions being transferred to Ukraine are not in crypto.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

I actually think there are plenty of legitimate uses of cryptocurrency, and that it is being used in those ways today. But the Ukraine example is a strange one to me, only because I'm unclear on the legality of funding the war efforts of another country.

nobody9999 4y ago
>I actually think there are plenty of legitimate uses of cryptocurrency, and that it is being used in those ways today. Absolutely. I never said anything that contradicts that statement. Rather, I pointed out that the majority of those legitimate use cases are currently better served with the global financial system. And as such, the current, practical* use cases for cryptocurrency are as a medium of exchange for goods and services that governments frown upon. I make no judgement as to whether that's good or bad, just that it is. I'll remind you that I said currently, not forever, not it's just a scam, not everyone who touches cryptocurrency is a criminal and most certainly not there are no legitimate uses for cryptocurrency; Just that currently the most compelling use case for cryptocurrency is as a medium of exchange for "illegal" goods and services. Most (not all, I'm not being categorical here) other use cases are currently better served via the global financial ecosystem based on government-backed currencies.

dmitriid 4y ago

> Ukraine received a bunch of international crypto donations last year, for example. That they can surely use, right, right? Because all that crypto can be easily used for buying stuff, right? right? In reality it looks like those donations were laundered through an offshore exchange. Someone will always find ways to profit from war.

DennisP 4y ago
According to Ukrainian officials, yes, some of their military suppliers did in fact accept crypto directly, and it was quicker and easier than using the banking system. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/07/ukraine-is-buying-bulletproof-vests-and-night-vision-goggles-using-crypto/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/07/ukraine-is-buying...
- mnd999 4y ago
  Arms dealers are pragmatists.

nobody9999 4y ago

>Ukraine received a bunch of international crypto donations last year, for example. While cryptocurrency was used to donate to Ukraine, a bank transfer or Western Union would have done the trick too -- since no one (except maybe the Russians) would consider such donations criminally actionable. Which was my point. Sure, foreign remittances, sending money to friends/family and other mechanisms allowing money to be transmitted around the world is certainly a use case for cryptocurrency. The rub is that for the vast majority of legal transactions (i.e., those that won't raise government hackles), cryptocurrency is currently riskier and less reliable than using a government-backed currency. That's not a dig at cryptocurrencies. Rather, it's an assessment of the current financial ecosystem. Cryptocurrencies have lots of potential but, like most immature technologies, it's not quite ready for prime time. As such, the vast majority of folks who choose to use cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange are those who either don't want their transactions detected by the government (the vast majority of which are those things that raise government hackles) and/or those who are risk tolerant. Which is why cryptocurrencies are mostly used as a medium of exchange on the fringes of society/legality. As the technology matures, you'll see cryptocurrencies become more and more mainstream -- even government-backed currencies. Because, in the end, cryptocurrencies are just another form of money. For now, the primary use case for cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange is avoidance of government knowledge/involvement. Eventually that will change, but I'll probably be dead[0] before that happens. [0] If I'm still alive in 2050, I'll be surprised. Edit: Clarified my estimate for when cryptocurrencies will be pretty mainstream.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nobody9999 4y ago

I explicitly said[0]: "I'm not aware of any current practical use case for cryptocurrency, that government-backed currencies don't provide" "that government-backed currencies don't provide." That's the important part which you ignored. Sending money using established, government-backed currencies/ecosystems that you're not trying to hide from the government (for legal stuff, generally) is currently (note the adverb here) more secure and less risky than using cryptocurrencies to do so. Is it poor reading comprehension your part, did you just not like what I said and so ignored it, or are you unable to process information if it contradicts your trained-in prejudices? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34470711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34470711 Edit: Fixed prose to say what I wanted to say, not the opposite.