I can protect my own money, thank you. I do not need a nanny.
Anonymity might seem redundant to you and other people who "have nothing to hide". However, in a slightly more dystopian reality -e.g. when we are forced to use CBDCs- the government might choose to block you from using your hard earned money because you posted a criticism of the president on twitter.
> the government might choose to block you from using your hard earned money because you posted a criticism of the president on twitter
Um, I don't really see how cryptocurrencies are going to help you much when that same government just tosses you in jail instead. In fact, there are governments in our present reality that will throw people in jail for saying the wrong thing on twitter, so that really isn't an outrageous thing to imagine.
I'm sure the government would love to throw Edward Snowden in jail, but he is out of their reach. They would love to shut down Wikileaks and Sci-Hub too. On the other hand, governments can very easily weaponize financial services to deny people the ability to send individuals and organizations money - which is how Wikileaks found itself digitally embargoed by Visa, PayPal and Mastercard. Not so with cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies can also provide anonymity to financial donors who would otherwise be targeted themselves for sending money to a party like Wikileaks.
Yes, cryptocurrencies are good if you want to finance illegal activity. However, since the vast majority of people are unable or unwilling to become international fugitives like Snowden, cryptocurrencies aren't especially useful as a way to post freely on twitter while retain your money against seizure by a hypothetical dystopian government.
You're assuming that financial censorship primarily targets illegal activity - it doesn't. The vast majority of financial censorship targets legal activity and persons, businesses and corporations who have not been charged by any government with any crime. And it's done by corporations pursuing political interests.
That's a long way from the claim that started this chain:
> in a slightly more dystopian reality -e.g. when we are forced to use CBDCs- the government might choose to block you from using your hard earned money because you posted a criticism of the president on twitter.
> I can protect my own money, thank you. I do not need a nanny
I love when people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant. Yeah, sure, for your pocket change, I'm sure you can reasonably protect it. For any significant transaction, I want the ability to reclaim my money if the other side turns out to be fraudulent.
> people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant
I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion.
> the other side turns out to be fraudulent
Crypto is not here to protect you from falling victim to fraud. It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure. The same laws against criminals apply whether they use crypto or not.
> I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion.
If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things. In that case, condescension is warranted. It means you don't have the experience needed to comment seriously on the topic.
> It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure
Yet it performs worse in every measurable metric. How many transactions per second can Bitcoin sustain? Four, lmao.
> The same laws against criminals apply whether they use crypto or not.
One does not need to be a criminal for proper regulations to apply. Again, this is the immaturity of people commenting.
Edit: after posting the below, I took a closer look at your commenting history and was shocked to see how frequently and how badly you've been breaking the site guidelines. That's definitely not ok, so I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
----
I'm late to this, but can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN and stop breaking the site guidelines? You did so extremely badly in this thread. "I love when people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant" is a bannable offense just by itself. No more of that, please.
I don't want to ban you, but we need you to post in the intended spirit of the site. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules going forward, we'd appreciate it.
@dang this is a pathetic response. HN encourages garbage comments and posts, but doesn't allow anyone to follow up. You think you're creating a safe space for discussion, but really you're creating an echo chamber of bad information.
The harm that bad information causes is incalculable, so no, I won't stop commenting on stupid posts. Perhaps you need to evaluate your responsibility to the world at large, and your role in supporting disinformation.
If someone believes that banking regulations are the "nanny", they shouldn't be allowed to comment on adult topics. Sorry not sorry.
Does it matter to you that you do more harm than my flames?
YCombinator just funded arguably the worst startup in history, Skip the Interview. Maybe you could do with a little dissension?
> If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things
Have you heard of the term "accredited investor"? That's 100% a "nanny" regulation that excludes poorer people from opportunities.
> Yet it performs worse in every measurable metric.
You jump to arbitrary conclusions. You probably did the same when it comes to Bitcoin that's why you say factually wrong things like in the comment. For example, do you understand what near-instant settlement means?
> One does not need to be a criminal for proper regulations to apply.
Anonymity might seem redundant to you and other people who "have nothing to hide". However, in a slightly more dystopian reality -e.g. when we are forced to use CBDCs- the government might choose to block you from using your hard earned money because you posted a criticism of the president on twitter.