3 ms·

I find it hilarious that you intentionally quote one half of a sentence knowing the other half would defeat the argument you make. No, and phishing and ransomw

I find it hilarious that you intentionally quote one half of a sentence knowing the other half would defeat the argument you make. No, and phishing and ransomware aren’t what you’re targeting. Since you intend on banning general usage of crypto, you need to prove I’m being scammed when I volunteer to run a set of instructions on my computer that are available for me to read. Which is an impossible task, because your response to my “I consent” is “No you don’t”.

colesantiago 3y ago
> I find it hilarious that you intentionally quote one half of a sentence because the other half would defeat the argument you make. It wouldn't because the coming regulations will compel those exchanges working with crypto to force you to use KYC to cash out your cryptocurrencies, even your cold wallet isn't safe from this. Significant volatile prices and regular manipulative depeggings of stablecoins will force you to make a compromise to cash out to an exchange. All roads lead to KYC in either case. So yes your privacy point is well and completely useless. > No, and phishing and ransomware aren’t what you’re targeting. But you know that businesses are being targeted which defeats your ridiculous previous point on 'No, things you voluntarily participate in aren’t scams.' You're also ignoring the truth that they aren't private, so my point still stands and you know it. Nobody accepts Monero, Bitcoin in the real world, so if you're serious about privacy you wouldn't use crypto. > Since you intend on banning general usage of crypto, you need to prove I’m being scammed when I volunteer to run a set of instructions on my computer that are available for me to read. Which is an impossible task, because your response to my “I consent” is “No you don’t”. This is complete nonsense, and won't hold in any court regardless of country. See my crypto ransomware argument that you keep ignoring.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  It would because the argument I made is that you want to prevent financial privacy and control other people’s money, not about how good crypto is at preventing those things. “Scams occur so ban crypto” are the patriot act talking points and redistribution of consequences that I was referring to. Someone else being scammed is irrelevant to whether or not my participation is voluntary, and you need to prove my participation isn’t voluntary to justify banning crypto for everyone and not just scammers. Nobody is ignoring any of your points, each one was addressed in my comment. You’re just throwing a tantrum now that you’re losing and repeating my words back to me regardless of how inapplicable they are.
  - colesantiago 3y ago
    > “Scams occur so ban crypto” are the patriot act talking points and redistribution of consequences that I was referring to. Someone else being scammed is irrelevant to whether or not my participation is voluntary, and you need to prove my participation isn’t voluntary to justify banning crypto for everyone and not just scammers. When a person in your own family has been scammed by crypto scammers, it's also your problem. You have to be kidding yourself to think that pointificating your 'prove muh participation isn't voluntary' cosplaying schtick if going to work with anyone in your family. It seems you're trapped in a perpetual fantasy libertarian worldview that is inapplicable with the real world.
- ColoursofOSINT 3y ago
  Strong butthead energy. > because the coming regulations will compel those exchanges working with crypto to force you to use KYC to cash out your cryptocurrencies, even your cold wallet isn't safe from this. Dam bro, didn't know that the world government mandated this. Also "coming regulations" - So its still private. Thanks for the conformation! > Significant volatile prices and regular manipulative depeggings of stablecoins Ok bro. > You're also ignoring the truth that they aren't private, so my point still stands and you know it. Private is defined as "Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others." I buy my bitcoin with cash, no kyc, and I coinjoin it. That's private. > Nobody accepts Monero, Bitcoin in the real world Kagi, vps providers, domain hosters, non-profits, email providers... > it is pseudonymous You even admit it is at the very least "pseudonymous"! Thanks for the support! Also: > So companies and small businesses have voluntarily participated in crypto phishing and crypto ransomware scams? Oh my god! Someone got mugged and their cash got stolen. Clearly the only solution is to ban all cash!
  - colesantiago 3y ago
    Strawman energy right there. > Kagi, vps providers, domain hosters, non-profits, email providers... > I buy my bitcoin with cash, no kyc, and I coinjoin it. That's private. The internet is not the real world. You tell someone on the street that they can use Bitcoin to buy Kagi search points and they'll laugh at you. Sorry to break it to you, but if you're serious about privacy, using card to buy bitcoin just to make your transaction private defeats your point and coinjoin isn't private either and can be traced. > You even admit it is at the very least "pseudonymous"! Thanks for the support! So you can be traced. Not private at all, exactly. > Oh my god! Someone got mugged and their cash got stolen. Clearly the only solution is to ban all cash! So someone volunteered to get mugged after their cash got stolen? How do you pay for your crypto ransomware to someone quickly overseas when the scammer is telling you to use crypto?
    - ColoursofOSINT 3y ago
      Bro, can you read? I said > I buy my bitcoin with cash, no kyc and you write: >> using card to buy bitcoin ... isn't private I don't use my card to buy bitcoin, that's the point. You've got the attention span of a tiktok addict. > So you can be traced. Not private at all, exactly. See my privacy argument that you keep ignoring. LMAO. Almost anything can be tracked, but it's well within my threat model, so private against anything but the most well funded attackers is private. Your argument is; "Why have a door? Someone could just use a tank to knock it down". Welcome to threat modelling, buddy. We're glad to have you! > So someone volunteered to get mugged after their cash got stolen? Did you have a stroke while writing this? Take a break from the internet, my dude, your mental abilities are declining with every comment. During a mugging your cash gets stolen, I was making sure you understood that, just in case. It now appears you really need it all spelled out to you. > How do you pay for your crypto ransomware to someone quickly overseas when the scammer is telling you to use crypto? How do you pay for a cash ransom when someone is holding you hostage? Oh wait, you can do it normally. [1] > coming regulations will compel those Uh... ok dude [2][3]. > The internet is not the real world Tell that to Google, Microsoft, Apple... etc [4]. Welcome to the age of technology. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-ci... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/sec-loses-bid-ripple-legal-docs-138-billion-xrp-battle-2021-06-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/sec-loses-bid-rippl... [3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/ripples-court-battle-with-sec-has-gone-exceedingly-well-ceo-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/ripples-court-battle-with-se... [4]:https://intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au/economy/how-much-is-the-internet-worth https://intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au/economy/how-much-is-t...

colesantiago 3y ago

> I find it hilarious that you intentionally quote one half of a sentence because the other half would defeat the argument you make. It wouldn't because the coming regulations will compel those exchanges working with crypto to force you to use KYC to cash out your cryptocurrencies, even your cold wallet isn't safe from this. Significant volatile prices and regular manipulative depeggings of stablecoins will force you to make a compromise to cash out to an exchange. All roads lead to KYC in either case. So yes your privacy point is well and completely useless. > No, and phishing and ransomware aren’t what you’re targeting. But you know that businesses are being targeted which defeats your ridiculous previous point on 'No, things you voluntarily participate in aren’t scams.' You're also ignoring the truth that they aren't private, so my point still stands and you know it. Nobody accepts Monero, Bitcoin in the real world, so if you're serious about privacy you wouldn't use crypto. > Since you intend on banning general usage of crypto, you need to prove I’m being scammed when I volunteer to run a set of instructions on my computer that are available for me to read. Which is an impossible task, because your response to my “I consent” is “No you don’t”. This is complete nonsense, and won't hold in any court regardless of country. See my crypto ransomware argument that you keep ignoring.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
It would because the argument I made is that you want to prevent financial privacy and control other people’s money, not about how good crypto is at preventing those things. “Scams occur so ban crypto” are the patriot act talking points and redistribution of consequences that I was referring to. Someone else being scammed is irrelevant to whether or not my participation is voluntary, and you need to prove my participation isn’t voluntary to justify banning crypto for everyone and not just scammers. Nobody is ignoring any of your points, each one was addressed in my comment. You’re just throwing a tantrum now that you’re losing and repeating my words back to me regardless of how inapplicable they are.
- colesantiago 3y ago
  > “Scams occur so ban crypto” are the patriot act talking points and redistribution of consequences that I was referring to. Someone else being scammed is irrelevant to whether or not my participation is voluntary, and you need to prove my participation isn’t voluntary to justify banning crypto for everyone and not just scammers. When a person in your own family has been scammed by crypto scammers, it's also your problem. You have to be kidding yourself to think that pointificating your 'prove muh participation isn't voluntary' cosplaying schtick if going to work with anyone in your family. It seems you're trapped in a perpetual fantasy libertarian worldview that is inapplicable with the real world.
ColoursofOSINT 3y ago
Strong butthead energy. > because the coming regulations will compel those exchanges working with crypto to force you to use KYC to cash out your cryptocurrencies, even your cold wallet isn't safe from this. Dam bro, didn't know that the world government mandated this. Also "coming regulations" - So its still private. Thanks for the conformation! > Significant volatile prices and regular manipulative depeggings of stablecoins Ok bro. > You're also ignoring the truth that they aren't private, so my point still stands and you know it. Private is defined as "Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others." I buy my bitcoin with cash, no kyc, and I coinjoin it. That's private. > Nobody accepts Monero, Bitcoin in the real world Kagi, vps providers, domain hosters, non-profits, email providers... > it is pseudonymous You even admit it is at the very least "pseudonymous"! Thanks for the support! Also: > So companies and small businesses have voluntarily participated in crypto phishing and crypto ransomware scams? Oh my god! Someone got mugged and their cash got stolen. Clearly the only solution is to ban all cash!
- colesantiago 3y ago
  Strawman energy right there. > Kagi, vps providers, domain hosters, non-profits, email providers... > I buy my bitcoin with cash, no kyc, and I coinjoin it. That's private. The internet is not the real world. You tell someone on the street that they can use Bitcoin to buy Kagi search points and they'll laugh at you. Sorry to break it to you, but if you're serious about privacy, using card to buy bitcoin just to make your transaction private defeats your point and coinjoin isn't private either and can be traced. > You even admit it is at the very least "pseudonymous"! Thanks for the support! So you can be traced. Not private at all, exactly. > Oh my god! Someone got mugged and their cash got stolen. Clearly the only solution is to ban all cash! So someone volunteered to get mugged after their cash got stolen? How do you pay for your crypto ransomware to someone quickly overseas when the scammer is telling you to use crypto?
  - ColoursofOSINT 3y ago
    Bro, can you read? I said > I buy my bitcoin with cash, no kyc and you write: >> using card to buy bitcoin ... isn't private I don't use my card to buy bitcoin, that's the point. You've got the attention span of a tiktok addict. > So you can be traced. Not private at all, exactly. See my privacy argument that you keep ignoring. LMAO. Almost anything can be tracked, but it's well within my threat model, so private against anything but the most well funded attackers is private. Your argument is; "Why have a door? Someone could just use a tank to knock it down". Welcome to threat modelling, buddy. We're glad to have you! > So someone volunteered to get mugged after their cash got stolen? Did you have a stroke while writing this? Take a break from the internet, my dude, your mental abilities are declining with every comment. During a mugging your cash gets stolen, I was making sure you understood that, just in case. It now appears you really need it all spelled out to you. > How do you pay for your crypto ransomware to someone quickly overseas when the scammer is telling you to use crypto? How do you pay for a cash ransom when someone is holding you hostage? Oh wait, you can do it normally. [1] > coming regulations will compel those Uh... ok dude [2][3]. > The internet is not the real world Tell that to Google, Microsoft, Apple... etc [4]. Welcome to the age of technology. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-ci... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/sec-loses-bid-ripple-legal-docs-138-billion-xrp-battle-2021-06-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/sec-loses-bid-rippl... [3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/ripples-court-battle-with-sec-has-gone-exceedingly-well-ceo-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/ripples-court-battle-with-se... [4]:https://intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au/economy/how-much-is-the-internet-worth https://intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au/economy/how-much-is-t...