[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.

[akimbostrawman]

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

I said privacy and anonymity is important to prevent bad people robbing people, you said that criminals can use it too, I said so can anything good too but is no argument against using them. You should look up what strawman actually means before using it as gotcha

>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.

Needing an example for bad coutries or environments existing??? You know what you are right there does not exist such countries, my bad it was just a strawman because we live in heaven on earth.

>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.

Never said there wasn't. literally anything has consequences, i just choose freedom with "risks" above controlling tyranny that tracks, surveils and controls every transactions that claim safety.

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

It is very fitting against anti freedom and privacy rhetoric fueled by fear.

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

And also extremely prone to support good individuals against these very same things and a lot more. Your fear mongering works in the other direction too. And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"

[0dayz]

>I said privacy and anonymity is important to prevent bad people robbing people, you said that criminals can use it too, I said so can anything good too but is no argument against using them. You should look up what strawman actually means before using it as gotcha

Not at all what I said, I said criminals can ABUSE the anonymity others enjoy to make it easier for them to ensure their victims are helpless.

Hence why I pointed out why it's a strawman, my position was never about "criminals use it to fuel/wash their crimes" but that due to the very nature of crypto being private it also means it's easier for criminals to get away with robbing people who own crypto (did you even read the article?).

>Needing an example for bad coutries or environments existing??? You know what you are right there does not exist such countries, my bad it was just a strawman because we live in heaven on earth.

Yes definitions are important.

>Never said there wasn't. literally anything has consequences, i just choose freedom with "risks" above controlling tyranny that tracks, surveils and controls every transactions that claim safety.

Good, then you should be more aware of my point than acting out as if I am proposing something radically different to your idea of freedom.

>It is very fitting against anti freedom and privacy rhetoric fueled by fear.

Except that the context has nothing to do with freedom or privacy but taxation, and most measure that goes against freedom with certain exceptions are rarely born out of fear but paid in blood.

>And also extremely prone to support good individuals against these very same things and a lot more. Your fear mongering works in the other direction too. And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"

Which specific concerns would a good individual have about the traditional currency system that has plenty of laws (depending of course where you live, but let's assume in the west) protecting their assets both from illegal seizure and from theft, especially since they have a democratic right to vote in people to represent their interest in either weakening or strengthening laws that enhances privacy, protection and ownership of their assets?

What specific concern there does crypto solve?

If it is privacy to ensure the feds can't track that you bought a bad dragon dildo then absolute I 100% agree that is a valid point, but then you also need to owe up to that point and agree that any exploitation that comes from such anonymity will also be part of unfortunate reality of dealing with crypto.

Also please point out the so called "fear mongering" in my point? That I am arguing against your point? Quite bizarre Orwellian way of seeing a discussion.

Or again you are aware you're arguing in a discussion that is about an article detailing crimes being done mainly thanks weaponizing crypto's anonymity against the owner(s)?

>And to quote yourself "these aren't concrete words to be using if you're not going to back it up by examples"

Such as the various rug pulls done by various crypto coins (latest being Trump + his wife), before that the various influencers and their memecoins (hawk tuah coin being just the latest), to this very article pointing out people being robbed and there's not much to be done about stopping the transaction.