[Sangermaine]

> it's reasonable to suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection but subversion of technology which presents a challenge to the FIRE economy

No, it isn't. It's only reasonable within the tiny fantasy world of True Believers where the whole world is conspiring to keep the glory of cryptocurrency down. This is the exact same action that would be taken against any other unauthorized, unregistered securities trading. Not to mention an area which has become infamously rife with scams and fraud.

Schneiderman especially has a sterling reputation with regard to pushing against the great financial powers and investigating crimes in that area.

[jMyles]

> No, it isn't. It's only reasonable within the tiny fantasy world of True Believers where the whole world is conspiring to keep the glory of cryptocurrency down.

Come on now - that's not fair.

I have lived most of my life in NY. I have spent a lot of time interacting with Albany, including briefly having access clearance to SUNY Plaza. I have met with people in the NY government who seemed like they had good intentions, and those who didn't - in the executive branch, the Senate, and the Assembly.

And I think it's very reasonable to always suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection, but defense of entrenched interests. Saying so doesn't put someone in a "tiny fantasy world."

This Museum of Political Corruption[0] (not accidentally put in Albany) opens next year - I suggest you visit and learn about the struggles we've had with our government over the years.

0: http://www.museumofpoliticalcorruption.org/

[cycrutchfield]

>the tiny fantasy world of True Believers

Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills. They have a vested financial interest in twisting logic and reason to convince the world that a secret cabal of bureaucrats and bankers are conspiring against this particular technology.

This is the primary problem with discussing anything crypto-related online. In a technical discussion about the merits of Linux and free software, you can be reasonably sure that whomever you are engaging with does not have a financial interest in pushing their particular stance. It seems like in any crypto-related discussion, it is impossible to find honest, impartial debate.

[jMyles]

> Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills.

Excuse me - are you addressing me with this comment? My identity is not secret. My contributions to open source software (and to higher education in New York State) are reasonably well known.

Are you seriously directly calling me a shill right now?

Is this the level of discussion that we've reached on HN now?

FWIW, I think my comments have been pretty moderate. I don't see anything that is even vaguely construable as shilling. Nor am I positioned with anywhere near the resources to make shilling worthwhile.

Rather than a shill, I am a long-time NY activist who has deep problems with the way my government has interacted with nearly every facet of the (largely toxic) financial industry in my state. I don't think that concerns regarding the underlying motivation of the AG's office are ever unreasonable to raise, and certainly not here.

[cycrutchfield]

Sorry, I was not referring to you here, although I realize that it's confusing given the threading. I was more referring to some of the other posters here (the "True Believers" referred above).