[carapace]

> Dunno why you would fight against a fair, open, censorship-resistant, global financial system

If that's all it was then you would be correct, only nasty folks would be against it. But that's not all it is, or even the main thing it is. The same qualities that make it useful for your friends during a war also make it useful for various sorts of crime, but all the time not just under (what should be) highly unusual and dangerous circumstances.

The fight here is all of us against the dictators and warmongers. If we work to create a "fair, open, censorship-resistant, global financial system" together we can do that without enabling scammers and crooks.

[forum_ghost]

How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people?

First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures?

Either something is permissionless, or it isn’t.

[carapace]

> How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people?

The current rise of ubiquitous surveillance is already creating a censorship-resistant system. Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy, rather than technology.

> First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures?

That's a really good point: I would hope if there were more footage of civil forfeiture it would be harder to get away with it, eh? If everybody can see what everybody else-- including police and politicians --is up to then we can only get away with what everybody (or most everybody) accepts. I call it the "Tyranny of Mrs. Grundy".

[forum_ghost]

So you are proposing we just mail some camcorders to North Korea to end their tyranny?

[carapace]

You don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

FWIW, N. Korea is my go-to example for how NOT to organize a society. I have no idea what to do about them, and I'm grateful that it's not my problem.

[forum_ghost]

> Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy

If you have to rely on some policy - it’s not censorship free.

You propose we literally rely on a trusted third party to adjudicate things.

AKA a literal censor? To make things censor free?

[carapace]

I enjoy a good discussion, but your rhetorical style is bad.

Above we're talking about "censorship-resistant" and here you've "moved the goalposts" to "censorship free".

What's your goal in this conversation? Do you want to fight or think?