[lmm]

It's a technology for allowing money to bypass the rule of law. By design it concentrates power in the hands of property owners, and allows them to undercut democratic rules against activities with negative externalities - and since it's more expensive than currency, those are the only use cases that make sense; prime use cases would be things like drugs, smuggling, tax evasion, child porn, terrorism. I think IED control software is a pretty fair comparison actually, except that IEDs are somewhat more democratic.

[LeoPanthera]

Are you talking about Bitcoin, or cash?

[lmm]

Cash isn't quite as bad because it's less practical, but yes both are primarily useful for crime and antisocial activity. I would be suspicious of someone who paid a large bill in cash (or used gold, or bricks of drugs); wouldn't you?

[LeoPanthera]

I'm not answering your question as written because I disagree with the concept of cash and "bricks of drugs" as being equally suspicious.

Being suspicious of cash is very dangerous. Historically, the poor rely on cash far more than the rich, so if we start demonizing it, really you're demonizing the poor. Politicians know this and often exploit it to help their rich friends.

Bitcoin has the capability to be the great equalizer, not just across economic bands but also across country borders. Your fear of it seems unfounded, though the paranoid part of me does wonder if you work for Visa or some other financial institution.

[lmm]

> Bitcoin has the capability to be the great equalizer, not just across economic bands but also across country borders.

That's backwards. Bitcoin is directly controlled by the owners of property (miners), in proportion to how much they own.

[EdHominem]

That'd be a proof-of-stake coin. They exist. You're thinking of in proportion to their percentage of the network mining power. Which for a pool (cartel?) can be sizable.

But that it is more akin to controlling the post-office than controlling the bank. People can be inconvenienced but not stolen from (except in certain cases with confederates of the post-master) and those can be guarded against more easily than avoiding phishing email from "your bank".

[lmm]

> those can be guarded against more easily than avoiding phishing email from "your bank".

What risk measure are you using there, and what ease measure? E.g. waiting for 6 blocks for transactions to settle (best practice AIUI) would be a serious inconvenience when e.g. paying at a restaurant.