[arcticbull]

Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another).

That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post and let's talk about it. Otherwise, one must be prepared to defend their position about the entire universe of ideas when challenging one - surely you can understand why this is counterproductive, untenable and harmful to the discourse?

[rosndo]

> Airplanes provide a useful service that otherwise isn't available (the ability to quickly move from one place to another).

Cryptocurrencies provide a useful service that otherwise isn’t available (the ability to quickly transfer value from one place to another without censorship).

> That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there.

The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive. The anonymity offered by some cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.

[arcticbull]

I do not believe that 'without censorship' provides more value than it costs as for the overwhelming majority of individuals 'without censorship' means nothing. As evidenced by the fact the overwhelming majority of crypto 'transactions' take place on centralized, permissioned, censorable exchanges.

I think the costs dramatically outweigh the value provided. However, that is the meat of the conversation we're having.

> The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.

Respectfully disagree. The ability to send money to North Korea and Iran in violation of international sanctions is regressive. The ability for folks on the OFAC and sanctions list to transact is regressive. Enabling ransomware payments is regressive. Enabling criminals to be paid for their crimes is regressive. Enabling crippling of infrastructure like the pipeline attacks is regressive.

[rosndo]

Bitcoin revolutionized the drug trade, there’s huge value there.

People living in repressive societies like Russia are now able to safely buy weed thanks to cryptocurrencies enabling Hydra.

Before these people would risk prison to get a little stoned, but now they can just buy GPS coordinates on the internet and pick up their drugs without ever interacting with anyone.

It’s not a coincidence that most of the users come from such countries, not the west https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-2021-ge...

[arcticbull]

Yes the broad enablement of crime and criminality is regressive.

[rosndo]

You are a terrible person.

How can you genuinely suggest that it is progressive for some guy to prison in Russia because of a joint?

Your position is simply indefensible.

[arcticbull]

Let's take drugs for instance. I'm pro legalization.

The bulk of the harm created by drugs isn't from the drugs, it's from the cartels, gangs, the mafia - and from the police imprisoning users. Allowing the cartels to transact directly with customers doesn't stop that. It allows the narcos to kidnap, murder, rape and fund their empires - so some Russian kid can smoke a joint.

It's actually a way to make the joint smoking kid more likely to be imprisoned because they paid for their drugs not with an envelope of cash nobody will ever be able to trace - but with an immutable, plaintext, public ledger. Entries on the blockchain are prosecution futures for the little guy. As the technology to de-anonymize them automatically becomes more and more mature, it looks less like a great way to pay for drugs and more like a list of people unaware they're awaiting indictment.

It does nothing to reduce the level of imprisonment of users. It makes the harms associated with drugs significantly worse on both ends. The only way to mitigate the harms is to push for legalization.

However, keep in mind that ad hominem attacks are against site rules.

[edit] So you're clear, no, you did not read this reply correctly. I do not believe in accelerationism. Accelerationism is not progressive. Have a good night!

[ashwagary]

Bitcoin kept Wikileaks going for years after Visa, Matercard, and Paypal cut off service for no reason.

[arcticbull]

Crypto in general has an edge case use as a payment mechanism of last resort in certain very limited circumstances - however Bitcoin isn't the one anyone should be using because it's public and transparent making anything you write up there prosecution futures. Not to mention the insane volatility, long transaction times, climate impact and high fees.

[foobank]

Yes, it's whataboutism.

Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.

[arcticbull]

"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in 'what about…?') is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument." [1]

It's a logical fallacy (a form of ad hominem [2]) that doesn't do anything productive in re: the topic at hand.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[rosndo]

I think you might have fallen victim to the fallacy fallacy :)

[arcticbull]

In what way does 'oh you hate crypto? what about airplanes?' add something valuable to this conversation? I'd rather have something concrete I can point to explaining my sentiment rather than simply being rude about it.

[rosndo]

People complaining about cryptocurrency rarely have internally consistent values, instead they’re just chasing the flavor of the month to virtue signal.

It would be fallacious to suggest that someone is wrong because of this, but it works as a standalone observation.