It's amazing that I can transfer wealth across borders with zero bank involvement using this technology and I still have to see people like you claim the sky isn't blue. Like that's nice and all but you sound like sour grapes.
Right, that's called regulatory arbitrage. It's not a [edit](unique) use case, it's basically crime, give or take. You're just skipping the AML and KYC checks that you'd ordinarily be required to take. Believe it or not sending money takes a few milliseconds in a classical system, except for, you know, regulatory and compliance checks that coiners pretend aren't actually needed.
The use cases are: regulatory arbitrage, crime and grift. That's it and that's all folks. Nothing more. Everything else is better solved by classical means.
The golden rule of blockchain is: if you think blockchain solves any given problem better than a classical solution you either don't know enough about the problem, or you don't know enough about the blockchain.
> Like that's nice and all but you sound like sour grapes.
[edit] As always, it's important to remind crypto folks that outside of the cult, ad hominem attacks are not suitable replacements for fact.
I always tell people of how my mother was smuggling Soviet rubles stitched into her coat when she flew to NYC to immigrate to America and in the real world people are aghast at the unjust laws of the USSR while on the internet everyone is like "but the law".
Fuck the law. Law != Justice. Use some critical thinking skills for once.
You earned your wealth. It's not the government's.
> I always tell people of how my mother was smuggling Soviet rubles stitched into her coat when she flew to NYC to immigrate to America...
Typically people were smuggling foreign currency (US dollars) out of the Soviet Union rather than rubles. Rubles were of little use in America. But smuggling dollars was in violation of two soviet laws at one -- any operation with foreign currency was illegal (up to death penalty for currency "speculation" at scale); and transporting undeclared valuables across the border was illegal too. People in 1978 were literally risking ending up in a Siberian labor camp while trying to board an Aeroflot plane to Vienna (transit hub for immigration from the soviet union during iron curtain).
I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy, but to put it bluntly, you can just apply logic applicable to the fucking Soviet Union for any country and law system.
> You earned your wealth. It's not the government's
A common misconception among libertarians and alike; that's outright false. Pretty much everyone in a regular developed/ing country, especially in a centrally planned economy like the USSR, has wealth because a society and a government enable it. Be it with infrastructure, education, regulations, monetary system, or whatever. For examples how important those are for any wealth generation, look at Venezuela or Turkey.
Money is representation of value within a society, but it only has value within that society - and to the extent it can be traded abroad. The value is protected by the legal system, by the army, facilitated by the roads, bridges and infrastructure. Just because you get a "dollar" or "ruble" in exchange for work doesn't intrinsically mean that you are owed anything. That obligation comes from the system in which you, your employer and your fellow countryfolk coexist and cooperate.
You cannot divorce one from the other.
[edit] (They earned units that they could exchange immediately or at some future time. Whether or not that amounted to wealth is based on what those units could or did turn into at the point of measure within the framework of the society in which they exist.)
Forced labour is pushing it, at least for the general population. They were paid, had vacations and other "benefits", and could change jobs. If those are your criteria for forced labour, wait until you hear of countries with healthcare tied to the employer, and close to zero employee protections.
But yes, they were kept inside the country, which is a separate issue.
Who is arguing that a 100% tax is legal and just? Is that some weird slippery slope tuned to a million? A 100% tax can't work, so any tax is bad! Is that it?
Taxes are a great way for citizens to give back to the pool used on them, proportionally, and for governments to insentivise and discourage behaviour ( e.g. lower taxes on electric vehicles and raise them on more polluting types). Saying taxation is theft is a great way to out oneself as incredibly naïve and with approximately zero understanding of how anything related to government, politics or economy functions.
It's extremely funny that the US kind of does the same thing in a roundabout way - if you're a US citizen, you have to pay taxes to the US government, wherever you live. If you want to abandon your US citizenship, you have to pay an exit tax and pay all the other taxes you owe.
Not at all, cash is a terrible way of conducting illegal transactions, doubly so at scale. There's a reason the cartels used to use binders of gift cards - and now, well, Bitcoin.
It's practically impossible to get meaningful quantities of it without having a SAR or CTR filed against you. Denominations are small so having a large amount is visible, risky, bulky and inefficient. Not to mention hard to explain away. And it's practically impossible to deposit meaningful quantities of it without having a SAR or CTR filed. The whole modern financial system is designed to catch criminals using cash.
Cash does a good job of threading the needle, taking into consideration the need for individuals to have a peer-to-peer, anonymous, offline decentralized currency while also taking into consideration regulatory and compliance needs.
I've nothing against cash, it has it's place, and no need to put words in my mouth.