[rglullis]

You are moving the goal posts. The point initially was to show that the current socio-political institutions are no better than "Wild-West" blockchain systems to avoid fraud and misappropriation of assets.

You are now talking about how much of a "real economy" blockchain can handle, which is a different matter and a totally unfair comparison. Let's talk about a "real economy" when people are allowed to enter a work agreement and have a contract specifying a salary in crypto.

[ivalm]

Even without the real part I showed 44% is illegal activity, which is ore than 16%.

[rglullis]

It is still unrelated to the point of comparing the percentage of funds taken from its owners or misappropriated in the blockchain vs fiat. The activity may be illegal, so what? They were still desired by both participants. Bringing that to the story is still goal-post moving.

[ivalm]

You commented on “cost of violence”, if you talk about cost of violence this includes illegal activity.

[rglullis]

Depending on the jurisdiction, a lot of non-violent activities are considered illegal and happen on black markets anyway: gambling/sports betting, recreational drugs, contraband goods, prostitution... A lot of the "violence" that you are trying to prescribe to this comes from the fact that these activities are pushed to the underground, not due to the activity itself.

You are grasping at straws and you know it. Right now all your argument is based on your preconceptions against blockchain, but you are misattributing a whole lot of things to it.

Come back when you have a significant number of cases of people being attacked in order to get their bitcoin wallets stolen, banks being robbed for private keys in paper wallets or corrupt officials locking people up and demanding crypto for payment. Then I will start listening to you in regards to "violence that is caused by the nature of cryptocurrency and blockchain"