[yellowapple]

> More that it seems to be exclusively used by bad people.

So I'm a bad person, then? Are the migrant workers sending money back to their families bad people? Are the refugees using it to bring their life savings with them bad people? Are the people currently subject to those bad regimes and unable to escape bad people?

At best, the belief that "it seems to be exclusively used by bad people" is blatantly ignorant of reality. At worst, it's saying the quiet part out loud: that as far as the legacy financial system (and the supporters thereof) is concerned, these people are just as "bad" (read: worth shunning from the benefits of said system), with the only difference being that said system is able to exploit them and their labor while it pretends they don't exist.

> Cryptocurrency has zero effective solutions for this.

Because there's no problem to be solved in the first place. There are many issues with cryptocurrency, but "wah nation-states can't arbitrarily censor transactions wah" ain't one of 'em.

[ShamelessC]

Can you prove any of those things is actually happening with the sort of regularity you’re implying? Preferably without linking to coinbase articles?

[yellowapple]

https://restofworld.org/2021/crypto-remittances/

https://coinflip.tech/blog/how-cryptocurrency-is-aiding-ukra...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2020/10/19/dissident...

Your turn: prove your assertion that cryptocurrencies "seem" to be used exclusively by bad people.

[ShamelessC]

I never said that. I said it was my read of the parent comment. Further, it’s a comment about perceptions (“seems”), not a deliberate statement of fact.

It’s more like saying “I can’t recommend this to anyone because the legitimate use cases (if there are any) dont offset the potential for abuse (particularly in societies with an existing, trusted banking infrastructure).

[yellowapple]

> I never said that. I said it was my read of the parent comment.

Fair enough. Regardless...

> It’s more like saying “I can’t recommend this to anyone because the legitimate use cases (if there are any) dont offset the potential for abuse (particularly in societies with an existing, trusted banking infrastructure).

And in saying that, one betrays either a severe ignorance of reality or a vested interest in the continued marginalization of the very people to whom that "existing, trusted banking infrastructure" currently does more harm than good. There are legitimate use cases and they vastly offset any abuse (potential or otherwise), even in (ostensibly) "developed" economies like here in the US.

Not to mention that said "existing, trusted banking infrastructure" conflates its definition of "abuse" with "whatever the current local regime deems illegal"; as one of many examples, it seems rather plausible (if not probable) for anti-abortion states to start seizing assets from the bank accounts of women who solicit the services of abortion clinics - something which any cryptocurrency worth its salt is explicitly designed to prevent. And don't get me started on the can of worms overturning Roe v. Wade just opened; GSRMs, contraceptive customers/vendors, and other folks previously enjoying that implied right to privacy are now suddenly much more vulnerable to the same economic exile that sex workers and drug users/suppliers have already long faced. Talk about "potential for abuse"!

[ShamelessC]

Ah, and now “I’m a bad person?” for not jumping on your bandwagon which promises so much but delivers so little.

If you really think cryptocurrency can help with abortion access - stfu and get to work, no need to virtue signal when you have a working system.

In the meantime, things like Biden’s recent executive action to enable purchase of birth control across state lines is far more likely to actually be helpful.

You have to at least realize that the defenses you’re making are the same ones that a jaded libertarian might make and have very little to do with the actual tech, which is too complicated to usefully describe anyway. This paired with the underlying belief-oriented nature of cryptocurrency (e.g. “it has value because we all agree it does”) makes it effectively a neo-libertarian political movement, using self-rolled (objectively worse) “patreon” as its backer.

[yellowapple]

> Ah, and now “I’m a bad person?” for not jumping on your bandwagon which promises so much but delivers so little.

I mean, if you're opposed to cryptocurrencies even after it's been shown to you both how they currently benefit marginalized groups and how they can potentially benefit yet more marginalized groups, then that does indeed say something about the quality of your character. I wouldn't go so far as to write you off as a "bad person", but I would hope that you reflect on whether one's desire to continue the marginalization of said groups on the basis of "North Korea bad" might preclude one being a "good person".

> If you really think cryptocurrency can help with abortion access - stfu and get to work

If I was qualified to administer abortions, then I absolutely would.

> In the meantime, things like Biden’s recent executive action to enable purchase of birth control across state lines is far more likely to actually be helpful.

Sure, until the same Supreme Court that was willing to overturn Roe v. Wade decides it's willing to invalidate such an EO.

> You have to at least realize that the defenses you’re making are the same ones that a jaded libertarian might make

Well I would hope so, being a jaded libertarian and all ;)