It's almost like a sort of willful ignorance of division of labour and the concept of pooling risk.
If you are working a w2 job and paying taxes and paying your mortgage / auto loan... crypto doesn't really help you.
Blackmail? Awesome. Buying illegal substances? Awesome. Gambling? You got it...
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/05/moon-missi...
Anything is a store of value, wood, gold, water, dogecoin ect. If people want to accept something for something else this is a way of life.
It's just sad that people only see the bad use cases. How about if I transact only in crypto (Monolith card), now every purchase I make is via crypto, nothing different to using a bank card with US dollars backing it, just you have the full control over your own money.
> How about if I transact only in crypto (Monolith card), now every purchase I make is via crypto
Do you in fact do this?
> nothing different to using a bank card with US dollars backing it
There certainly is if you read Monolith's fine print, and it's wildly disingenuous to pretend otherwise:
The Monolith account and Visa Debit Card are electronic money products which are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Deposit Insurance System of the Republic of Lithuania. The funds will be safeguarded by Contis Financial Services Ltd or UAB „Finansinės paslaugos „Contis“. For any disputes, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Bank of Lithuania consumers disputes resolutions institution are available.
Nope, because they didn't do their due diligence. Do you deposit your savings to a new bank that's not had a single audit done? Are there any specific banks that you won't do business with? It's the exact same in the crypto sphere.
> Do you in fact do this?
I do indeed. I use it as my daily spending card. Should Contis Financial Services Ltd collapse it'd be a bummer, but I've lost more on a night out by dropping a paper note. I will agree it's not like using a bank card, I should specify more like a pre-paid card.
Whilst you don't get the financial protection that you do with standard institutions it's the price you have to pay to start working towards a different financial future.
Sure, because banks in my country are regulated, and deposits are insured, so I trust literally any bank.
The only value add for crypto right now is that it's pseudoanonymous and you can use it for black market transactions. Other than that why not just use Venmo or CashApp?
Well, that's the noble explanation. Another consequence is they can now have an electronic record of every single purchase almost every citizen makes.
Yeah, when 95%+ of the actual things that people use crypto for are those things, it's hard not to. Can you honestly say the "valid" uses for crypto take up more than 5% the total volume in any possible metric you can think of? It's always ransomware, extortion, blackmail, money laundering, drugs, you name it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-fal...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/24/overall-bitcoin-related-crim...
There is many other cases for blockchain / crypto technologies far beyond the world of ransomware, extortion, blackmail, money laundering.
> The country will implement a national, blockchain-based student and teacher ID and attainment recording system to digitally verify grades, remotely monitor school performance and boost education and employment nationwide.
> IOHK’s Atala PRISM identity solution will enable authorities to create tamper-proof records of educational performance across 3,500 schools, 5 million students, and 750,000 teachers to pinpoint the locations and causes of educational under-achievement and allocate educational resources effectively.
You've got Walmarts chinese subsidy investing in vechain for logistics:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/walmart-china-subsidiary-team...
These are just two off the top of my head, let alone all the partnerships in the works that we haven't heard about yet.
There's big money getting into crypto whilst simultaniously lots of news and opinions regarding the fact it's used for nefarious acts.
https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-use-bitcoin-dropped-50-2020...
That said, to deposit 10k of cash in a bank you need to fill out some forms.
I also don't have a great way to send you say 100k in cash. Suitcase full of dollars? But I can send you 2 BTC much easier.
The big hole in demanding giant ransoms was always taking delivery of the suitcase full of money. Not so hard to do with digital currency.
I had high hopes for betsofbitcoin but after making a bet on the 2014(?) superbowl the mtgox scandal occurred and my last bet was never redeemed.
You forgot to add "and live in a stable country with a stable currency and relatively functional contract/justice system".
I don’t understand this “crypto is good for doing crime” narrative.
When I’m doing crime, I strongly prefer there to be no record of the transaction. The closer I can get to an assurance there is no permanent record of the transaction, the safer I feel in deviating from the law.
Conducting any illegal business in a permanent public ledger is a non-starter for me. Even with a public ledger that ”guarantees” privacy, I’m staking my freedom on the underlying cryptography not being broken before the statute of limitations for my crime passes.
I’d go as far as reversing this narrative. Crime moving to a permanent public ledger strikes me as any regulating body’s dream.
You're exactly right about this, which is why it's important to remember that a plurality (majority?) of those who speculate in cryptocurrencies don't seem to be especially aware of the whole "immutable, irrefutable public ledger" aspect.
Reasons it might be happening: You can say they're being shortsighted and taking on unnecessary risk, but then, people who make criminal livings tend to have a higher appetite for risk than e.g. I do.
Add in the ability to move it around the world easily, its liquidity and transaction volume and you have just about the perfect grey / black activity currency.
Criminals don’t care if there’s a record of their transactions because trans-national law enforcement is basically non existent. You got ransomwared from Ukraine? Nobody cares. Until, apparently, you cause havoc across the eastern seaboard by infecting a few corporate machines associated with a gas pipeline.
Other than cash, this isn't viable. You'll have to launder your money no matter what, at some point. Crypto just makes transferring trivial, it's less regulated, you can't go to your bank and ask them for help, etc. It's good for criminals for these reasons.
There's radically more infrastructure for this sort of thing in existing systems. Crypto is far less regulated, you can transfer across countries easily, laundering becomes trivial, transfers via hacked accounts, etc.
Further, this point is completely nullified by the fact that there are private ledger cryptocurrencies (e.g. Monero). Widely available public cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are useful for crime because they're (relatively) easily understandable, usable, and purchasable by laypeople. This results in a process that goes as such:
> Customer wants illicit good
> Customer goes on coin brokerage and buys Bitcoin
> Customer sends Bitcoin to illicit goods dealer in exchange for goods/services
> Dealer exchanges Bitcoin for Monero
> Dealer now has "clean" currency that could be used for anonymous cash drops, speculation, or even withdrawal from a public marketplace.
There are at least hundreds of people operating in the many millions of revenue using this model (with some additional safeguards) that have been successful for years and years. You are correct in saying that you are staking your freedom on the safety of something such as Monero, although you are free to analyze its safety and determine whether or not it is suitable for your threat model.
In your process, my statement was 100% talking about the “customer” steps. You’re right. But, at scale, it’s hard to conduct any crime that doesn’t leave a record. At the many millions of dollars of revenue scale, I could see crypto being a trade-off conversation.
> Public ledger cryptocurrencies are able to be digitally transferred without any form of personal identification, unlike almost any other form of payment.
Absolutely correct. But for any crime I’d likely commit, I’d be operating at a scale where anonymity would be hard to achieve. For example, I’d be hard pressed to acquire Bitcoin in a way that didn’t associate the wallet with my identity (if you have methods, please share!). For most transactional crimes I’d likely commit, I’d substitute “show up with cash for crime” with “show up with cash for Bitcoin, then use Bitcoin for crime.” It seems like an extra, unnecessary, step. Cash is already a record-less value transfer system.
> Further, this point is completely nullified by the fact that there are private ledger cryptocurrencies
I’m not sure if we are arguing semantics on this one. But my understanding of tech like Monero and ZK-snarks is that the ledger IS public, but it’s a bunch of locked boxes. Without the keys you can’t see the contents of the ledger. But now you’re in a race against time between implementation bugs (or broken crypto) and the statute of limitations. It’s not enough to audit it yourself. You’re not betting that _you_ couldn’t break it _today_, but that _no one_ will _ever_ break it. The incentive model seems broken. My crime may not be of interest, but I’m committing the transaction to the same ledger where nation states may have interest in decrypting other transactions. I can’t “uncommit” my transaction if the crypto falls to a nation state; my private business becoming public will just be collateral damage.
At a small scale, I’d much prefer taking a one time risk of conducting a no name cash transaction.
I think there are a couple fundamental misunderstandings here regarding cash. Answering this question may fix that a little bit:
> I’d be hard pressed to acquire Bitcoin in a way that didn’t associate the wallet with my identity (if you have methods, please share!)
If one purchases BTC on Coinbase, trades it for XMR, and then trades the XMR for BTC back to a separate BTC wallet, it is currently unfeasible to determine that the final BTC is linked to the initial BTC. Also, cash is not completely private- bills have serial numbers that are tracked in a similar way as to how one might track Bitcoin (unless you're dealing solely in coins). BTC and XMR are both able to be cashed out fairly easily as well. They could be legally sold, given that they're functionally untraceable. You can also fairly easily coordinate cash overnighted to a PO box set up with a fake identity.
Re: Private ledger cryptocurrencies
With Monero (for example), the sender, receiver, and transaction amount are all private. The quality of Monero's privacy is up for debate, but I see no reason why explicitly tracked cash bills are more secure than a private ledger cryptocurrency.
In conclusion, within the initial context of, "When I’m doing crime, I strongly prefer there to be no record of the transaction", I don't believe that there is an opsec-based reason for you to choose cash over cryptocurrencies. There is always going to be a risk when committing crimes- that is unavoidable. Maybe this is a big point for dealing in gold, haha?
Sure, the vast potential of reward justifies the added risk. But I'm also not in the US, I'm not rabidly anti-government, and I don't want to store my money under my floorboards. Good, old-fashioned, regulated banks serve a valuable purpose.
This is the scariest bit about crypto by far and that I will not deny. This is why whilst I don't trust banks, they do have big safes with locked boxes in. Using these with shamir backups is what protects my assets, and worst case scenario my private key is also split in two and engraved in two seperate countries.
If it's ever at the point where I can't access any of these, there's bigger shit going on in the world.
The latter point is a stickler, so get regulation in there and ensure anyone doing banking is protected up to a certain sum. Any money beyond that... you put all your eggs in one basket, sorry. Other people need to be made whole, too.
Use the same regulation so that banks that embezzle protected customer funds can be prosecuted, too. This equally applies to insurance, credit cards, loans, and other industries that make money out of offering money.
You can't stop a run on the bank if everyone loses confidence at the same time, as we saw in 2008 (Northern Rock in the UK) or in 1929 (Wall Street). But as you say... that's when bigger shit is going on.
But now... to me crypto feels like a group of upstarts thinking they can reinvent millennia of economics and come up with something better. All I've seen so far is a skeuomorphism to a scarce resource, essentially treating silicon as if it were gold.
It's making a handful of people filthy rich, people who would have been well-off in the first place, but it's not changing the world for the better. It's siphoning another resource for a wealthy elite.
This doesn't matter at all. Banks will hand your money over during a robbery - it's policy and it happens often. What matters is that banks have insurance and legal infrastructure to deal with theft. When a bank is robbed insurance covers the loss, the FBI begins investigations, etc. The lockboxes are for show (I worked in a bank, no one will tell you otherwise).
Some of crypto's loudest voices are young, college-aged people who've recently read Atlas Shrugged or Catcher in the Rye and are certain that they will never be the ones to lose their keys.
Having a middle man doesn’t ensure safety. It just means that you have someone to blame if it all goes wrong. And even if you blame them, they most likely won’t see any negative repercussions anyway.