61–70 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Widespread privacy in crypto == end of civilisation. This sounds ridiculous but logically one has to follow the other in a few very short steps. That does sound ridiculous. What are the steps?
Privacy in crypto -> fewer taxes being paid -> less money to develop an anti-meteor shield -> large meteorite destroys civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way for crypto to win is to implement privacy and anonymity in a way regulators cannot prevent, such as privacy coins. Btc and Eth relying on mixers is a flaw which regulators will exploit to their advantage.
Crypto can technically implement privacy and anonymity in a way that regulators cannot prevent. Now what do we do about it? Also, Ethereum could adopt privacy by default some day, via their proposal process. It's fascinating to watch regulators talk about "bitcoin" and "ethereum" as if they're "gold" and "oil", unchanging commodities that just need to be categorized and dealt with appropriately. Ethereum is totally p…
It is interesting that I have strictly no empathy for the people defending "privacy" in crypto. I have it fully for the ability to pay in cash for our every day stuff. Privacy in crypto is basically reallowing tax havens in the " digital " world where we spent years to try to curtain them in the " real " world. A good friend of us happens to be working at a high level at the EU commission. Discussing about Bitcoin/Cr…
> “We will ban all crypto as soon as we consider it to create problems with taxes” Surely you were not discussing those things with the Great Dictator of EU, not accountable in their decisions to citizens and courts?
The only questionable thing here is that you cannot vote for politicians of other EU nations and that there is literally only one EU wide party called Volt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read my comment, I explicitly said that we should keep cash.
First off, i like cash and try to do most transactions with cash. But in an increasingly computational world it seems useful, probably inevitable, that digital programmable money will play a bigger part in the future. So do we want p2p borderless networks, built on a history of foss and the internet, with varying mixtures of privacy and transparency? or do we want government digital coins that will likely be fully su…
This is the real reason people get so irrationally mad about crypto. There's no difference between the importance of encrypted communication and encrypted transactions, except that there's money involved. There's many people using web3 hype and bullshit as a grift, and many (most) people who see crypto as a speculative bubble they can get in on but neither of these things change the fact that it's the only trustless form of digitial payment we have. Terrorists can kill thousands of people, governments can kill millions, so I'm much more worried about one than the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Widespread privacy in crypto == end of civilisation. This sounds ridiculous but logically one has to follow the other in a few very short steps. That does sound ridiculous. What are the steps?
Privacy in crypto -> fewer taxes being paid -> less money to develop an anti-meteor shield -> large meteorite destroys civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s wasted money. Infinite public money will be spent to bat down these lawsuits until it’s set in stone. Widespread privacy in crypto == end of civilisation. This sounds ridiculous but logically one has to follow the other in a few very short steps.
> Widespread privacy in crypto == end of civilisation. This sounds ridiculous but logically one has to follow the other in a few very short steps. That does sound ridiculous. What are the steps?
Without taxation you can't have:
Law enforcement, schools, hospitals, fire departments, roads, road servicing, running water, public transport, welfare, electricity or sanitation.
More directly, you can't have drugs laws, child protection laws or prevent human trafficking, as there's no way to stop the money supply to the perpetrators.
I mean you can probably still get Starlink access for even more astronomical rates, but that's OK because Cryptbros love them some Elon and think all forms of government are encroaching on dem derr freedums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, just like you have the potential to import heroin in your GI tract.
Do you want to actually reply or just be snarky?
There's consequences in both instances. It's just how rule of law is.
It is interesting that I have strictly no empathy for the people defending "privacy" in crypto. I have it fully for the ability to pay in cash for our every day stuff. Privacy in crypto is basically reallowing tax havens in the " digital " world where we spent years to try to curtain them in the " real " world. A good friend of us happens to be working at a high level at the EU commission. Discussing about Bitcoin/Cr…
'Banning all crypto' is just as realistic as banning all use of end-to-end-encryption (E2EE) in apps, tools, etc because it allows criminals, terrorists and scammers to hide their communications for doing illegal activities.
The fact is, a total 100% ban on either of them is an unrealistic and hopelessly utopian request beyond delusional.
What I would like to see is reversible and auditable privacy in crypto: to participate I need to disclose my real identity to a broker I trust that follows all KYC compliance rules in the jurisdiction it operates, and my financial identity and transactions are private until law enforcement performs an unblinding transaction that is auditable on the blockchain, (in the vein of Chaum blind signatures), yielding my brok…
https://tornado-cash.medium.com/tornado-cash-compliance-9abb...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Crypto and digital assets should be free from regulation, even if it brings side effects (e.g. laundering). It's far from clear to me why on earth crypto should be free from regulation at all.
I think this case is a pretty clear example of why. The regulators are supposed to be protecting who from what exactly? And at whose expense? So far I've seen two lines of reasoning: 1) Regulators are needed to protect me from myself. I can't assess if these dog-coins have long-term investment potential or not, so I want the government in the loop somehow. If I can purchase something on the internet, I assume it's sa…
What was Abe's killer motivation? A cult brainwashed his mother into giving all her money and pension to them. Abe was one of the most public and prominent supporter of this cult amongst japanese officials. He killed him.
Do you think that can happen in the US? I mean, i know that while AR-15 are authorized, most sniper rifles aren't (which makes it very clear what's the NRA is really about), but you have hunting rifles with a great range and cheap, really good optics nowadays. If the scam industry aimed towards young isolated (but with wealthy enough parents) middle class kids keep up, if one of them snap and instead of a school shooting choose to kill bitboy or any other rugpuller, what happens?
He won't be as vilified as Abe's killer from the start. Now looks what's happening in Japan with the killer and Abe's reputation. Do you think that kind of mood can encourage copycats, especially if we enter a small depression?
The influencer+scam industry, in an economically constrained period, can lead to an evolution of our belief system, from the liberal 'i get what i deserve, mostly' to the fascist 'if I'm not as (good/well of/...) as I can be, it's because of this outgroup, and particularly him'. Both are fondamental attribution error fallacy, but one is really, really more violent than the other.