[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!

[rosndo]

Am I getting this right? You’re pro legalization, but you’re so upset with some people in Mexico(?) that you’re happy to see consumers around the world jailed in order to spite the Mexicans?

> 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.

People in more repressive countries usually source their cryptocurrencies anonymously, western markets all use anonymous monero. Hydra will probably move sooner than later too.

Anyway, in the real world people buying from “traditional” dealers are far more likely to go to jail than those buying dead drops off of hydra.

The truth is that enabling the cartels is extremely progressive. This will eventually force the governments to play ball and liberalize their policies.

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

In philosophy ad hominem reasoning is often considered an essential part of moral debates. Some opinions are vile and reflect poorly on you, that’s just how it is.

[arcticbull]

https://news.bitcoin.com/ciphertrace-enhanced-monero-tracing...

Prosecution futures.

> In philosophy ad hominem reasoning is often considered an essential part of moral debates.

No it is not lol.

And I strongly suggest you re-read what I wrote because it appears to have bypassed you entirely.

[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.

[ashwagary]

>Not to mention the insane volatility, long transaction times, climate impact and high fees.

Not correct, transactions on bitcoin's lightning network take 1-2 seconds to complete and cost a fraction of a penny.

[arcticbull]

Not quite. Because you still need to open a channel and probably eventually close a channel on the L1. Doing so for everyone on earth would cost 75 years, the entire block reward and about a half a trillion dollars. Double if you plan to close. So yeah it's fast so long as nobody's using it, but if they ever (god help us) start, you'll be putting in your payment requests like a Soviet phone line. Then, you have to deal with the quadratic routing complexity which would likely make it completely untenable past a certain number of users. This is why even the Chivo and Strike wallets don't actually use LN - they have a couple of their own nodes, that they don't allow external peering with, and only in certain circumstances. Mostly they just use MySQL.

Either way, it's not relevant because everyone uses centralized exchanges.