3 ms·

The way the law works is often by banning based on intent and meaning and content. Exchanging information is too general: the law looks at what information, by

The way the law works is often by banning based on intent and meaning and content. Exchanging information is too general: the law looks at what information, by whom, for what purpose. Nearly every white collar crime fundamentally involves some sort of unauthorized communication. (Insider trading, for example, involves receiving information by virtue of a trusted position and then communication information to a broker which causes them to execute trades on your behalf). We can even get beyond white collar: hiring a hitman is obviously illegal even if it involves. communication. I'm not saying (in this comment) crypto is necessarily bad. I am saying you need to defend it on the merits; it's just info so it's ok isn't how anything in society works.

jrm4 4y ago
But no; we're a default "freedom" kind of place. You don't get to summarily declare crypto verboten and make crypto prove it's okay -- the burden is on crypto's detractors to show specifically why it's bad.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  One word: FTX.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    No, like a lawyer or policy maker would.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    One word: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... (You can pick which word)
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      Looks like a lot more than a word to me. Also, do you respond to car crashes by saying we should get rid of speed limits and drunk driving laws?
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        I respond to car crashes by saying that regulating cars out of existence in response is overkill.
        polygamous_bat 4y ago
        The difference between regulating cars and regulating crack cocaine is that cars have actual, provable use cases. Even fentanyl has legitimate, real world use cases in anesthesia. And no, money laundering isn't a valid use case.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        > And no, money laundering isn't a valid use case. Working-class folks sending money to their families abroad without predatory middlemen like Western Union, on the other hand, is a valid use case. So is making/accepting payments without being subject to credit card processors playing morality police (or payment handlers like Paypal outright confiscating money from individuals/businesses they don't like).
        polygamous_bat 4y ago
        Real question: have you ever sent money to a third world country? Because I have, both using traditional means and using crypto. And using Wise has been _so much_ easier (5 minutes and money goes from your bank account to their mobile banking account) than figuring out binance's bullshit, and finding a buyer at the other end for the sent cryptocurrency, especially after the "leveraged trading" aka gambling market imploded. Sorry, your bullshit "but muh African finance!" would have probably worked for less world-aware folks. But not today. I hope you really are a person deluded by crypto pumper propaganda rather than an intentionally evil pump-and-dumper, and in that case, please take the above anecdote as a real counterpoint to the hopium you've been fed by other pumpers.
        yellowapple 4y ago
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Sort of. Gensler doesn't get to wave his hand and eliminate crypto. But he does get to bring lawsuits against crypto companies alleging they violate existing law. He will have the burden of proof in those lawsuits. If he wins them he may be able to effectively eliminate crypto through application of existing law. Edit: I realize "you have to defend it on the merits" was poorly phrased. What I meant was that I predict judges will find crypto against existing law. So if you want it to be allowed you'll need to argue for new laws. But it was a very bad way to put it.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    And that will be when things get really interesting; the entire point of crypto is to route around this. I'm not saying this as particularly pro OR anti, but feels like there's a lot of heads in the sand on the fact that some of this stuff provably works VERY WELL, and its especially odd that even tech folks (who would be expected to understand it) appear to be so "luddite" on it.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > its especially odd that even tech folks (who would be expected to understand it) appear to be so "luddite" on it. Have you considered the alternative hypothesis that these smart people are actually understanding the true nature of crypto very well, and you are stuck in a confirmation bias loop? Whether the "tech" works is very different question than the social effect of it. A biochemist can be awed by the effectiveness of fentanyl while also maintaining that the average person should never be getting their hands on it.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        I almost like your fentanyl comparison -- but where it fails to me is that your biochemists will have very specific ideas about what will happen. To me, tech's war on crypto feels more like "the War on Drugs." It's fine to be against, but it's the extreme lack of interest in discussing detail (which if you were anti you'd need to get into to stop it) and they don't do that. Let's say you wanted to attack crypto on principle? Great. First you'd need to ID and figure out their weak points. Bitcoin kills the environment so you attack there. Now, others don't - but a lot of the post ETH coins are centralized with a small number of founders, so you can get them there. Now, ETH is going to be harder because they've done a better job on decentralization... ETC. That little paragraph above is orders of magnitude more detailed than any actual attack I've seen. Which again- SUPER WEIRD for tech folks!

jrm4 4y ago

But no; we're a default "freedom" kind of place. You don't get to summarily declare crypto verboten and make crypto prove it's okay -- the burden is on crypto's detractors to show specifically why it's bad.

polygamous_bat 4y ago
One word: FTX.
- jrm4 4y ago
  No, like a lawyer or policy maker would.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  One word: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/ https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai... (You can pick which word)
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    Looks like a lot more than a word to me. Also, do you respond to car crashes by saying we should get rid of speed limits and drunk driving laws?
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      I respond to car crashes by saying that regulating cars out of existence in response is overkill.
      - polygamous_bat 4y ago
        The difference between regulating cars and regulating crack cocaine is that cars have actual, provable use cases. Even fentanyl has legitimate, real world use cases in anesthesia. And no, money laundering isn't a valid use case.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        > And no, money laundering isn't a valid use case. Working-class folks sending money to their families abroad without predatory middlemen like Western Union, on the other hand, is a valid use case. So is making/accepting payments without being subject to credit card processors playing morality police (or payment handlers like Paypal outright confiscating money from individuals/businesses they don't like).
        polygamous_bat 4y ago
        Real question: have you ever sent money to a third world country? Because I have, both using traditional means and using crypto. And using Wise has been _so much_ easier (5 minutes and money goes from your bank account to their mobile banking account) than figuring out binance's bullshit, and finding a buyer at the other end for the sent cryptocurrency, especially after the "leveraged trading" aka gambling market imploded. Sorry, your bullshit "but muh African finance!" would have probably worked for less world-aware folks. But not today. I hope you really are a person deluded by crypto pumper propaganda rather than an intentionally evil pump-and-dumper, and in that case, please take the above anecdote as a real counterpoint to the hopium you've been fed by other pumpers.
        yellowapple 4y ago
iudqnolq 4y ago
Sort of. Gensler doesn't get to wave his hand and eliminate crypto. But he does get to bring lawsuits against crypto companies alleging they violate existing law. He will have the burden of proof in those lawsuits. If he wins them he may be able to effectively eliminate crypto through application of existing law. Edit: I realize "you have to defend it on the merits" was poorly phrased. What I meant was that I predict judges will find crypto against existing law. So if you want it to be allowed you'll need to argue for new laws. But it was a very bad way to put it.
- jrm4 4y ago
  And that will be when things get really interesting; the entire point of crypto is to route around this. I'm not saying this as particularly pro OR anti, but feels like there's a lot of heads in the sand on the fact that some of this stuff provably works VERY WELL, and its especially odd that even tech folks (who would be expected to understand it) appear to be so "luddite" on it.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > its especially odd that even tech folks (who would be expected to understand it) appear to be so "luddite" on it. Have you considered the alternative hypothesis that these smart people are actually understanding the true nature of crypto very well, and you are stuck in a confirmation bias loop? Whether the "tech" works is very different question than the social effect of it. A biochemist can be awed by the effectiveness of fentanyl while also maintaining that the average person should never be getting their hands on it.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      I almost like your fentanyl comparison -- but where it fails to me is that your biochemists will have very specific ideas about what will happen. To me, tech's war on crypto feels more like "the War on Drugs." It's fine to be against, but it's the extreme lack of interest in discussing detail (which if you were anti you'd need to get into to stop it) and they don't do that. Let's say you wanted to attack crypto on principle? Great. First you'd need to ID and figure out their weak points. Bitcoin kills the environment so you attack there. Now, others don't - but a lot of the post ETH coins are centralized with a small number of founders, so you can get them there. Now, ETH is going to be harder because they've done a better job on decentralization... ETC. That little paragraph above is orders of magnitude more detailed than any actual attack I've seen. Which again- SUPER WEIRD for tech folks!