3 ms·

I'll rationalize it by being wrong. It's happened before, it'll happen again. But given that all the blockchain/crypto community has to show so far is "a really

• trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  There is an example use case right in the article we're commenting on.
• benreesman 3y ago
  I say this as one strident HN loudmouth to another, not as a guy in a glass house with a rock in his hand. If you have a substantive argument about how PayPal, or Paxos, or the regulators have blown this, or why it's a net-negative, or why this case is so exceptional that you aren't "closing the tab" this time: I will listen with avid interest, and I imagine everyone else on the site will do the same. But as someone who takes too many cheap shots at groups of people too large and too diverse to generalize about too often myself: chip in on all of us being better. If you think it's a bad thing, explain why. My read is that it's a net improvement in a flawed world, and if I've got that wrong, I'd like to get un-wrong. But it's pretty much an unwritten rule of HN that "shitty X technology" and cavalier uses of the word "criminal" are party fouls (which I still make, I'm also working on this). My read is that the consensus view of the community is that prohibition of e.g. drugs or prostitution or selling sex toys or whatever is stupid and ways around those things are necessary, and I'm basically sure that it's a consensus view that there are regimes in the world where being a criminal is the only ethical move. So even if "Bitcoin is for Drugs", I still think an argument with some meat on it's bones is merited here.