[mijamo]

Of course it is lower! You have plenty of rich people living in known places without any special security and no one comes to kidnap them because they cannot just send over their whole wealth in an irreversible transaction in a second. The problem is not to know who has money, it is a system in which it is trivial to transfer it without any supervision and without any way to go back.

[akimbostrawman]

Correct which means it's even more important for that currency to be not public but private and even anonymous.

[0dayz]

... Which means an even easier time for ransom criminals?

[akimbostrawman]

Just like encryption and cash. You wanna ban or discourage its use too?

Bad people can do bad things with good technology but that doesn't mean good people shouldn't use and benefit from that technology. I would think someone on HACKERnews would agree.

[0dayz]

Ironic your name is "strawman" when you constructed one.

And this has nothing to do whenever the tech is good or bad, this is literally about how "untraceable" tech will make it easier for criminals to turn the supporters into helpless victims.

Since the irony is with your absolutist argument that it goes the other way too, if we have a proper surveillance state for instance there would be clear and obvious benefits to this; however this doesn't mean that these benefits outweighs the negatives far from it, hence why a lot of the tech that are raising concerns is being discussed and tested out to see how far we can create a better world while not forsaking said tech.

The question about crypto isn't can it keep the feds from auditing it, it's whenever or not it's worth having an anonymous currency given all the implications, risks and general problematic aspect of it outweighs the benefits of it.

So far it seems that people have moved away from crypto due to that reason, and instead it's mostly seen as a speculative market.

[akimbostrawman]

Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here.

>it's whenever or not it's worth having an anonymous currency given all the implications

And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if they trust there state with there money or people in unsafe environments auch as abuse victims, journalists, whistleblowers or activists.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

>So far it seems that people have moved away from crypto due to that reason, and instead it's mostly seen as a speculative market.

I'm talking about crypto where the word currency means something not speculative assets like with btc. And those i can assure you are doing better than ever regardless what opinion you or anybody else has because they are, by design, censorship and tyranny resistant. the hacker spirit.

[0dayz]

>Its a adhominem trap and you fell for it. None of the things I said was a strawman, your comments obviously implied if there even should be anonymous money which you doubled down here.

You created a strawman from a position I didn't imply or stated, since I was merely responding to your claim.

>And I think it is worth the same way privacy or autonomy is worth the "risk". Maybe you should ask people in less safe and stable countries if they trust there state with there money or people in unsafe environments auch as abuse victims, journalists, whistleblowers or activists.

What does "safe" and "stable" countries mean here? These aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples.

This is because "safe" can mean either free from violent crime then for instance China would be a better contestant than USA, or "safe" as in not being worried about being persecuted by individuals/the state, then USA is considered much safer although that has slipped with the current admin.

Same thing goes with "stable".

And it's fine to advocate for privacy due safety but you cannot proclaim there's no consequences of this and implying then that it's "better" because of this is naïve at best.

>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Using that quote outside of the context it was meant to address is a bit cheesy.

>I'm talking about crypto where the word currency means something not speculative assets like with btc. And those i can assure you are doing better than ever regardless what opinion you or anybody else has because they are, by design, censorship and tyranny resistant. the hacker spirit.

And also extremely prone to support criminals/government seeking to destabilize/promote abuse and victims of said economic abuse/scams have far less protection.

[dandanua]

> it is a system in which it is trivial to transfer it without any supervision and without any way to go back

And somehow they praise it as a solution to all world's problems.

[akimbostrawman]

Who is this they? cryptocurrencies and there users are a highly fragmented ecosystem. Ofc if you only listen to the most obnoxious superficial corners you will find conmen like in any community involving finances.

cryptocurrencies solve real world problems but like any technology also have drawbacks.

[olelele]

What real world problems?

[akimbostrawman]

Cheap and fast decentralized exchange of value without middle man and financial independence from banks and countries.

With the right cryptocurrency also private and anonymous.