2 ms·
I swear this reminds me of the 1990s in the United States, known as the "Crypto Wars". Many argued that the primary users of strong encryption would be criminal
by kelthuzad 2y ago
I swear this reminds me of the 1990s in the United States, known as the "Crypto Wars". Many argued that the primary users of strong encryption would be criminals, terrorists, and other malicious actors, implying that law-abiding citizens had no need for such privacy. I've used tornado cash even for small amounts because I'm privacy conscious.
For me "What's the legitimate purpose for Tornado Cash?" sounds like the 1990s "What's the legitimate purpose for encryption?"
- jfengel 2y agoEven today, most people don't go out of their way to encrypt their emails. They don't want to go through the additional effort. Similarly, people rarely pay for things in cash, despite the privacy risk of having a transaction record. There will always exist people who will go out of their way to be privacy conscious, but the vast majority will simply trust in the basic security mechanisms. The legitimate purposes exist. But unless they're effectively zero effort and zero cost, people won't use them. It'll always be just a few privacy advocates and a whole buncha criminals.
- kelthuzad 2y ago>The legitimate purposes exist. But unless they're effectively zero effort and zero cost, people won't use them. It'll always be just a few privacy advocates and a whole buncha criminals. But this sentiment of yours is weaponized by the state to oppose a reality where everybody can enjoy better privacy with zero effort and zero cost, so the ruling class can have more power over the peasants. I don't want to live in a panopticon where an all-powerful state has absolute control over our lives and persists every single of our actions, transactions and thoughts in a database.