3 ms·

> In particular, it creates an international payment system that is resilient to government interference. There we are back to what I said, > I still don't un

> In particular, it creates an international payment system that is resilient to government interference. There we are back to what I said, > I still don't understand the use case of a decentralized ledger, other than for illegal uses.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Not all acts of government are legal (even by the laws applicable to that government); often there is a remedial mechanism available for illegal government interference, but parties may still prefer a process which is resistant to such interference from the outset, particularly when engaging in activities (even lawful ones) where one or more of the governments involved have shown an interest in interference in the past. With international actions, there is also the additional concern that, with illegal (from the point of view of the law applicable where the transaction occurs) interference by some governments with actions involving foreigners that occur in other jurisdictions, there is less (if any) effective individual remedy than there would be with purely-domestic interference, and any remedy would be state-to-state with significant geopolitical ramifications. I'm not a bitcoin fan, but I can certainly see at least conceptual utility in a mechanism which is resilient against interference by outside parties (or failure or compromise of any single of the parties providing infrastructure.)
- aliakhtar 11y ago
  So, you are dumping tons of real CO2 into the atmosphere, to run an extremely inefficient ledger, which is largely used for illegal activities, because of some hypothetical dystopian future.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Nope, I'm neither using bitcoin nor even arguing that the benefits it actually produces justify the environmental costs, nor, in the account of what the benefit is, do I reference a hypothetical dystopian future, but instead the way things operate in the real world right now. So, essentially, every element you suggest is wrong.

dragonwriter 11y ago

Not all acts of government are legal (even by the laws applicable to that government); often there is a remedial mechanism available for illegal government interference, but parties may still prefer a process which is resistant to such interference from the outset, particularly when engaging in activities (even lawful ones) where one or more of the governments involved have shown an interest in interference in the past. With international actions, there is also the additional concern that, with illegal (from the point of view of the law applicable where the transaction occurs) interference by some governments with actions involving foreigners that occur in other jurisdictions, there is less (if any) effective individual remedy than there would be with purely-domestic interference, and any remedy would be state-to-state with significant geopolitical ramifications. I'm not a bitcoin fan, but I can certainly see at least conceptual utility in a mechanism which is resilient against interference by outside parties (or failure or compromise of any single of the parties providing infrastructure.)

aliakhtar 11y ago
So, you are dumping tons of real CO2 into the atmosphere, to run an extremely inefficient ledger, which is largely used for illegal activities, because of some hypothetical dystopian future.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Nope, I'm neither using bitcoin nor even arguing that the benefits it actually produces justify the environmental costs, nor, in the account of what the benefit is, do I reference a hypothetical dystopian future, but instead the way things operate in the real world right now. So, essentially, every element you suggest is wrong.