[lmm]

The overwhelming majority of dollars are not physical cash, and the overwhelming majority of dollar transactions by volume happen in a fashion which New York claims jurisdiction over (and, ultimately, has a big army that will back them on, which is what really matters in international law), even when neither party has any obvious connection to the US.

Even for physical cash, they might claim jurisdiction. Dollars are sometimes best understood as a particularly degenerate form of US government bonds.

[diego_sandoval]

And then people say that cryptocurrencies have no reason to exist. This one right here is a pretty powerful reason.

[o11c]

And yet it is exactly this that allows major criminal organizations like the NSO Group to be prosecuted. "Liberty [from powerful factions]" is explicitly the whole purpose of governments being instituted with the consent of the governed.

I for one would trend toward banning cryptocurrency even if it weren't a complete waste of energy.

[tempodox]

Of course criminal organizations would prefer a currency not controlled by an unfriendly government. “Reason to exist” alone doesn't make it a good idea.

[Andrex]

> Even for physical cash, they might claim jurisdiction. Dollars are sometimes best understood as a particularly degenerate form of US government bonds.

Never thought about it that way, well said.