- They were "economically de-personed" because the protest was deemed illegal. All governments have the ability to "economically de-person" someone by arresting and jailing them. Cryptocurrencies do not and cannot change this, when they arrest you they'll take away your wallet and your computer and your phone. If you really do take issue with this, start working on the problem of how to make fairer protest laws. Start working on government accountability systems. The problem is political and needs political solutions. There is no other way. Trying to invent a new tech to fix political problems is largely not going to solve anything and probably will make the problem worse.
- If by some chance this wasn't an issue, cryptocurrency is still not "uncensorable money" by any possible definition. Among other things, you lose access to all of it simply by losing your internet connection. Cash doesn't suffer from this disadvantage.
Seriously, this meme about blockchains being "uncensorable" needs to die. At best it is technical confusion, at worst it is a lie and grift coming from con men trying to trick you into "investing" in something that can never fulfill the promise.
Agreed. Cabals of crypto exchanges maintain blocklists of wallets. Eth did a hardfork to recover the stolen DAO money. Most blockchains mempools are an unincentivized piece of infrastructure that if not properly decentralized could censor transactions.
In fact voting on hard and even soft forks is a form of blockchain transaction censorship. Every node/miner/validator/walletapp — every actor in the system - decides whether a transaction is “legal.”
Not to mention most if not all crypto is incapable of running a full node or whatever is necessary for full network participation on phones, so if you are using crypto for mobile transactions you’re probably talking to an intermediary API that can censor your transaction.
For most users, crypto has can be functionally censored by a wide range of actors.
Access to money is also quite important in fighting unjust laws, even if we'd wish otherwise.
>Access to money is also quite important in fighting unjust laws
Apparently not, as I have seen approximately none of that happening in cryptocurrency. It's almost all scams, i.e. people trying to fight against just laws that say you can't scam.
We clearly don't occupy the same universe.
You literally contradicted the statement that money is important for political change. Maybe you wish you didn't say that, but you did.
> Again, if the government really doesn't want you to rent a hall or host a website, they'll just arrest you.
They could also have gunned down all the protestors, but they weren't willing to do that. Obviously if you believe the government will escalate endlessly then that changes the equation.
Sorry, but I don't think you're cut out for this conversation, and I don't like it when people try to rewrite arguments they made mere minutes earlier. Have a great day.
It is uncensorable. Please explain how you will prevent me from signing an ECDSA message and broadcasting it to a public swarm.
Yes you need an internet connection.
It's the only thing novel to come out of the cryptosphere.
EDIT: Sorry you don't like that history disagrees with your narrative
Something tells me that you are not being objective.
Try and move more than $10K in cash and see how far you get.
It's not yet pervasive, but there are many retail places that don't even accept cash. Once CBDCs are in place there will be a massive incentive for the US to further restrict cash. CBDCs are the ultimate control over a state currency. They'll provide all kinds of legit rationale, but totalitarian control is along for the ride.
Censorship can be overt, covert, societal or authoritarian.
There is absolutely a war against bearer instruments like fiat cash.
Instead of a government blocking your bank account, they block your Coinbase account and all known addresses. Through financial networks, they tell every processor, exchange, and network to block your known addresses from transacting and impose heavy fines for negligent institutions.
Suddenly your "decentralized" bitcoin stops working everywhere unless you secretly stashed some under your bed. Which is the exact same situation that exists today.
The only difference is that promoting bitcoin enriches those with existing bitcoin investments.
2) Coinbase wouldn't be relevant in a scenario where everyone uses Bitcoin already.
This is only a problem because people use bitcoin to exchange cryptos for dollars ?
When more people are trading with cryptos only, the government won’t have much chance in stopping people using it for whatever they want ?
You won’t need coinbase…
Where are the miners?
The miners will generally be located in countries where electricity is abundant and cheap, the kind of countries who have all the incentives to sign a treaty promising to jointly enforce laws against cryptocurrencies.
What you want is the Jackboot of the state to punish those that will not bend to the desires of tyrants.
Thank Satoshi we have another way.
Satoshi left bitcoin in 2011. His "invention" was apparently not good enough for him to bother sticking around.