3 ms·

The big question is if these things would be possible without crypto existing. History suggests they are, so I’m not sure if crypto really makes anything possib

The big question is if these things would be possible without crypto existing. History suggests they are, so I’m not sure if crypto really makes anything possible on that front that wasn’t before. Some of the largest terrorist attacks and most entrenched armed resistance movements took place pre crypto. I don’t think access to cryptocurrency would have made the vietcong significantly more effective for example.

infecto 3y ago
No, the big question is what the overall percentage of dollar volume is being used for these crimes. Comparing to history is silly. I would also assume that cryptocurrency makes moving money for crimes vastly easier. And I would also suspect a large amount of volume of transactions are illegal or gray in nature.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Say you have crypto sent to your little radical sect. Now what? You still need to figure out how to get weapons to where you are. These are tightly controlled of course and have to be smuggled or supplied in some way. That’s the real limiting factor. Money is hardly a factor, states can support whoever they want with an arbitrary amount of funding as we’ve seen between the various US/Iran/Russia proxy conflicts. Put it this way, a pile of crypto wouldn’t change the outcome of the syrian civil war. Might and muscle would, and that ultimately comes from states after a long chain of trying to obfuscate associations along the way.
crazygringo 3y ago
It's not about a binary possibility of yes/no, it's about ease and frequency. Crypto can mean an attack can be funded with 50x more money than had been possible previously, or 20 organizations can be funded where previously only 2 could have worked out the logistics. Trying to frame this as a binary possible/impossible is the wrong lens.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Money doesn’t transmute into things like weapons. The issue is probably just getting arms to these groups at all. You could front them on debt or “foreign aid” all you want if you can get them arms and supplies. Crypto doesn’t solve that hard part of getting arms or people where they need to be to have a big effect.

infecto 3y ago

No, the big question is what the overall percentage of dollar volume is being used for these crimes. Comparing to history is silly. I would also assume that cryptocurrency makes moving money for crimes vastly easier. And I would also suspect a large amount of volume of transactions are illegal or gray in nature.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Say you have crypto sent to your little radical sect. Now what? You still need to figure out how to get weapons to where you are. These are tightly controlled of course and have to be smuggled or supplied in some way. That’s the real limiting factor. Money is hardly a factor, states can support whoever they want with an arbitrary amount of funding as we’ve seen between the various US/Iran/Russia proxy conflicts. Put it this way, a pile of crypto wouldn’t change the outcome of the syrian civil war. Might and muscle would, and that ultimately comes from states after a long chain of trying to obfuscate associations along the way.

crazygringo 3y ago

It's not about a binary possibility of yes/no, it's about ease and frequency. Crypto can mean an attack can be funded with 50x more money than had been possible previously, or 20 organizations can be funded where previously only 2 could have worked out the logistics. Trying to frame this as a binary possible/impossible is the wrong lens.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Money doesn’t transmute into things like weapons. The issue is probably just getting arms to these groups at all. You could front them on debt or “foreign aid” all you want if you can get them arms and supplies. Crypto doesn’t solve that hard part of getting arms or people where they need to be to have a big effect.