Yes but also deeply besides the point the post you are replying to is trying to make.
His question is - can your mind wrap around the amount of progress that can happen in 1000 years? If yes, can you imagine that going from "now" to "fully automated cars" is a small amount of progress, relative to progress that's possible on 1000 years? If yes, great - now you can dial back that it probably won't take 1000 years.
This doesn't deserve to be downvoted. Despite the "defined the police" bogeyman, it seems as though the police budgets of every city have done nothing but increase every year.
To take your bitcoin (or monero) they will actually have to show up to your door with weapons. This is much more expensive and prone to failure for the government or other authorities than simply freezing your assets on a bank.
Note: I am aware that they can blacklist bitcoins and trace them nearly perfect nowadays, which can make them somewhat useless even if you still own them. With Monero, this is made far more difficult.
So by that logic monero is a perfect laundering mechanism? If a criminal (ransomware/kidnapper/bloody kleptodictator) simply exchanges dirty money through monero then law enforcement can't prove anything to stop them, so they can create a comfortable life for themselves while continuing the crime right?
It would be, if it were to be widely accepted for things other than drugs or other illegal services. At current adoption levels, the liquidity is enough for some small scale illegal fund transfer or some drug trade, but not nearly enough for big money laundering operations (good luck cashing out $100M worth of monero without tanking the price).
If they can launder even a million dollars this way it seems like an example of conflict of interest between people who want less crime and people who the gov to not take their money.
Yes, I think the government absolutely will try and it's quite probable they will succeed. But why not offer human beings the _chance_ to flee tyranny with their livelihood?
Consider jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Should they have been allowed to escape with their assets? Would the world be a better place had they been able to?
How about we create better systems for refugees to gain access to safety and citizenship instead of consigning them to a rickety shadow financial system? Are you putting this much energy into, say, opposing border walls and supporting marginalized communities?
What about people suffering brownouts because their electricity is being stolen for mining, or people losing their shirts in ponzi schemes? What about the people and companies being extorted by ransomware? Do you say to the people who've been harmed by cryptoassets, "sorry, this is for the greater good, there are hypothetical refugees who may find this useful?"
The utilitarian slant is interesting. I can understand why some people think crypto is a net negative at the moment. The set of businesses adjacent to true, on-chain applications is rife with fraud. Thousands of people have died, maybe even millions have lost life savings.
But I ask you an analogous question: what do you say to the people suffering any crime that was aided by free, encrypted communications on the internet?
I'm not using this as a fool-proof argument that the utility of crypto is positive. I do not know the true answer. I think it's positive but I acknowledge it very well could be negative.
To me, blockchains enable the basic human right of having ultimate authority over your own assets. You can choose whether attempting to circumvent your government is worth it. In most cases, it's not. But I like giving all human beings that option.
The Internet is supplying those same people with obvious, immediate benefits. They're not being asked to endure hardship for a hypothetical benefit to hypothetical people. So to people who are victims of online fraud I would say, I'm sorry that happened, let's improve the Internet so that it doesn't happen again (eg by writing more secure software). To be clear I'm not a utilitarian per say, I just look at cryptoassets and say, yep, that's causing a bunch of harm, that's not good.
The right to have authority over your financial assets is just not that interesting to me. I'm largely ambivalent about people's right to hold private property (capital), if anything I oppose it. I care more about people's rights to hold personal property, like their home and the other tools they need to survive, but crypto cannot do anything to protect that because you can't put it into the blockchain.
I'm not a big lover of state power, but I have no interest in supporting the wealthy in thwarting state power. My view is that that is how cryptoassets after used in practice; as speculative assets, which is largely a shell game that transfers more wealth to the wealthy, and as a means to evade taxes, capital controls, and law enforcement.
I believe the main place we differ is that you seem to think these are necessary evils and that crypto will change for the better, and I'm pretty sure this is crypto is telling us what it is about and what it is for, and that we should listen & believe it. I think building a better society requires changing social relations by confronting them and discussing them, not by somehow transcending then through technology. Cryptoassets propose to "solve" trust by abstracting away humans and relationships, but that's just the wrong direction; trust is formed by speaking to and connecting directly with each other, not through math. In the same way locks may keep people honest but don't really stop dishonest people who are determined to gain entry.
>> "But why fight against something that offers hope for the misfortunate?"
I mean, context. That's what the Nazis rose to power on: giving hope to a people that felt robbed after WWI. Just because a person or a technology offers hope doesn't mean it can deliver.
Yeah trying to avoid toxic chemicals as a consumer is nearly impossible. We've been doing a home renovation and have been attempting to use zero or low VOC products and it's incredibly difficult and expensive. The effort it requires to do the research and sourcing for every product you use in your life is basically impossible for most people.
> Yet, when you look at what Norway has actually produced over the past few decades in terms of innovation, companies, etc. the picture is very, very empty.
Do you have anything to back this claim up? Most of what I've searched about the Nordic countries in terms of innovation seems to disagree with this assertion.
