[argvargc]

Said the medieval King:

Ransom: Another great "feature" of difficult-to-trace personal gold coinage

What you're actually saying is:

Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty

Or

Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of progress

---

Progress comes with pitfalls. Sharp knives prepare food and also kill people.

You argument effectively reduces to: never innovate.

[dTal]

Your argument reduces to: "progress" is always good, even if it's bad.

I think we're perfectly allowed to discuss whether we think a particular kind of change is a good or bad thing.

[argvargc]

I'm not making an argument "for progress" at all. I actually 100% agree that we are allowed to, and should, discuss the ramifications of any kind of change.

My point is only that the original comment didn't attempt make any argument, other than the reduced one I outlined.

[dalbasal]

That's not really a reduction... more of a random association to a generality you feel strongly about.

You "reduced" difficult to trace digital currencies to "any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty."

No need to keep defending a mistake. Just reread your own comment and the OP's. Respond to the comment itself, not other discussions you've had on the topic. If you think the argument implies something you disagree with, make the connection. Don't just assert that the argument reduces to this. Besides being mistake prone, it's unfriendly and unproductive.

I've made plenty of comments myself that I don't/shouldn't stand behind, in short retrospect. I suspect this is one of yours. Minor foul. Happens. Shake hands and make good.

[argvargc]

I genuinely appreciate your comment and the direction it provides - it's rare to see this when people disagree.

When re-reading the OP's comment just now, I just can't interpret it any other way other than "see! crypto bad". Maybe I'm missing something.

I'd accept that my responding, effectively in-kind ("see! your position bad"), isn't particularly useful other than potentially alerting them to the fact (my intention), and I'd no doubt do better to provide some examples of benefits at least (as I see the current top-voted reply did, that is otherwise identical to mine).

My admission of that however, does not indemnify the original commenter - at least, in terms of my interpretation of their comment, which is really all I can be responsible for.

[dalbasal]

Cheers mate.

The original comment linked ransomware to crypto, which isn't too controversial. There are good things about crypto, which may outweigh that... certainly discussable.

Personally, I don't see either point as representing the most substantial positive or negative of crypto... so I don't really have a dog in this one.

No need do indemnify or vilify anyone. It's perfectly ok to hold any of these views. It's also fine to make an unconvincing argument... it just may not be convincing.

[dTal]

But they did. They said that digital currencies are difficult to trace and lead to an increase in ransomware. The closest thing to a response you made was "Progress comes with pitfalls".

[ramblerman]

> You argument effectively reduces to: never innovate.

You chose to reduce it to that. There is no need to reduce every argument to its black and white extreme, although that is the easiest interpretation.

Bitcoin in particular requires truly ridiculous amounts of compute and has made hacking a far more profitable enterprise than before.

There are already digital currencies tackling the first problem, the 2nd could potentially also be solved.

So a more charitable interpretation might be, more innovation is needed to get digital currencies right.

[dalbasal]

What does your argument reduce to, assuming someone who disagrees does the reducing?