A technology that could not exist without effectively-secret money transfers, and which lets that 1% of bastards affect the hell out of everyone else.
Those victims had no prior use for crypto. Their nightmare scenario is not a side effect of some new advance they were otherwise thrilled with. This isn’t like effectively-secret point-to-point communication, which is desirable to damn near everybody, and would obviously be used primarily for meaningless conversations like this. The ability to transfer arbitrary sums of money, unstoppably and untraceably, is the sort of thing we have laws about for damn good reasons.
Crimes done by talking can’t be reversed. Crimes done with money can… unless you set up a whole techno-libertarian shadow economy and pretend those crimes aren’t quite a fucking lot of what it’s used for.
I like to learn different points of view; some of your points are valid. This conversation is indeed meaningless for you, though, if you’re only interested in “winning” as in “I’m correct, they’re wrong. I want to correct them.” 😺
As for malware, you may agree that the root of the problem is security flaws of the said user or their OS. Even if all the cryptos are banned, such a user (executing random files, blindly believing in Big Tech…) is likely to be exploited and abused; their credit card numbers, passwords, sensitive info being stolen anyway.
Both you and I know that most of crimes in this world have nothing to do with Monero. On the other hand, quite a few people use Monero for good-will donations too, which would have been otherwise impossible. Surely you don’t want to make a donation to support Country X with transparent KYC BTC if that makes Country Y angry but you might need to visit this scary country for some reason. Maybe it’s like cars, guns, knives, etc. Cars may help criminals run away, without which some crimes would be impossible. Cars may kill a lot of people too. We know that. But we may not outlaw cars, nevertheless. Can we agree that this is actually a difficult problem, with a lot of philosophical ramifications or something like that?
It’s enticing for ransomware.
A technology that could not exist without effectively-secret money transfers, and which lets that 1% of bastards affect the hell out of everyone else.
Those victims had no prior use for crypto. Their nightmare scenario is not a side effect of some new advance they were otherwise thrilled with. This isn’t like effectively-secret point-to-point communication, which is desirable to damn near everybody, and would obviously be used primarily for meaningless conversations like this. The ability to transfer arbitrary sums of money, unstoppably and untraceably, is the sort of thing we have laws about for damn good reasons.
Crimes done by talking can’t be reversed. Crimes done with money can… unless you set up a whole techno-libertarian shadow economy and pretend those crimes aren’t quite a fucking lot of what it’s used for.
I like to learn different points of view; some of your points are valid. This conversation is indeed meaningless for you, though, if you’re only interested in “winning” as in “I’m correct, they’re wrong. I want to correct them.” 😺
As for malware, you may agree that the root of the problem is security flaws of the said user or their OS. Even if all the cryptos are banned, such a user (executing random files, blindly believing in Big Tech…) is likely to be exploited and abused; their credit card numbers, passwords, sensitive info being stolen anyway.
Both you and I know that most of crimes in this world have nothing to do with Monero. On the other hand, quite a few people use Monero for good-will donations too, which would have been otherwise impossible. Surely you don’t want to make a donation to support Country X with transparent KYC BTC if that makes Country Y angry but you might need to visit this scary country for some reason. Maybe it’s like cars, guns, knives, etc. Cars may help criminals run away, without which some crimes would be impossible. Cars may kill a lot of people too. We know that. But we may not outlaw cars, nevertheless. Can we agree that this is actually a difficult problem, with a lot of philosophical ramifications or something like that?