[reflexco]

Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism? One is a inherently neutral tool, functionally almost identical to cash, the other is a inherently harmful violent action.

I mean there are plenty of countries where the idea of free trade being inherently harmful is accepted as common knowledge, but the US isn't one. Your view is one of extremism.

Maybe we need to modernize Godwin's law with "terrorism".

[jahnu]

They are clearly not and it’s daft to suggest they are. They are using an extreme example that should be easy to agree on to establish a principle or point that then once understood should be used to analyse the actual, less obvious, thing they are criticising.

Whether or not their point is a good one is a separate issue.

[reflexco]

My point is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. An appropriate comparison would be between banning terrorism and banning sending cryptocurrency to enemy governments. Thankfully both are already banned so there's no need to debate on this.

[bambax]

> Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism?

Well, terrorism is a way of framing things; it's how the momentary victor labels the momentary loser. Cf. WW2; "terrorists" during the war became heroes when the war ended, and victory switched sides.

Cryptocurrency on the other hand, provides zero benefits, while contributing immensely to C02 emissions and global warming, which could end life on earth as we know it.

So the comparison might not turn to crypto's advantage.