[giaour]

> saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law"

I think you're misconstruing the original suggestion, which was that a legal solution to the problem of the unbanked would be viable. You could pass legislation mandating that banks turn no one away, you could establish a publicly run bank of last resort, etc.

I believe those measures would be "easier" solutions to the problem than replacing the entire financial system, but that's just an opinion about a hypothetical.

[trutannus]

Not suggesting we replace the banking, just pointing out how this path you suggest is still not going to be an easy fix. There's no easy fix. Again, not advocating for crypto as a solution. Just asking people to consider more deeply the issues of saying "use the government to solve it!".

[Kbelicius]

GP said "easier", not "easy". Number of people that display an inability to read a few sentences and parse them correctly is frightening.

[trutannus]

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

This is the one I'm specifically discussing, its from a different user. This is the line that started the thread. Plenty of users are discussing this specific line I believe.

[giaour]

FWIW, I thought the "Easy." you cite was meant sarcastically. The full context is:

> The same as national health insurance. You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

and national health insurance is famously a fiendishly hard public policy issue (albeit one for which several competing models exist and have been put into practice). Working from an existing public policy model (like using France's example of offering bank-of-last-resort services through the postal service) still seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto.

[trutannus]

> seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto

Yeah, I don't disagree that crypto won't fix this. I just disagreed that it was "easy". I took them as being literal.