People know what Monero is, and it's likely one of the most important cryptos for many people.
It's also in a legally tenuous area in many jurisdictions, and therefore perhaps not considered as 'safe' for people who just want to speculate on price.
It's still massive, and a 2.6 billion $ market cap is nothing to sneeze at. Not sure why we need to compare everything to the price of other projects in the space. The fact that people inevitably place so much emphasis on 'price' (as denominated in USD of course), is really the most negative consequence of the space.
What led you to think laws are being broken in those scenarios?
Law ≠ moralityb
Sure, but plenty of bad actors have broken the law as well - the examples of these are far more numerous. While there are hypothetical moral use cases for crypto, some of the most common actual uses are greed (yield farming, speculation), scams (rug pulls, pump and dumps, wash trading, ransomware), tax evasion, and as currency for contraband like drugs. What ratio of moral to immoral use cases is acceptable to the crypto community? 1:10? 1:100? Or is anything ok as long as someone out there is using it to escape repression?
Finding out that somebody used crypto to buy something that harmed your family shouldn't make you dislike crypto. Bad people will get a hold of weapons regardless.
If it didn't change anything then by the same token it wouldn't help people in oppressive regimes.
> Finding out that somebody used crypto to buy something that harmed your family shouldn't make you dislike crypto. Bad people will get a hold of weapons regardless.
Security is always a tradeoff. You can't make it impossible to get hold of weapons, but you can make it harder, and that matters at the margin.
I said "doesn't change anything there", not "doesn't change anything".
> Security is always a tradeoff. You can't make it impossible to get hold of weapons, but you can make it harder, and that matters at the margin.
The payment itself is not where these efforts should go to. Transport, manufacturing, advertising. These are all much more fruitful places to look at stopping illegal trade.
But there's a symmetry to the situations. To the extent that it helps people evade government controls, it will help people evade government controls.
> The payment itself is not where these efforts should go to. Transport, manufacturing, advertising. These are all much more fruitful places to look at stopping illegal trade.
That's pure whataboutism. Enforcing laws against bitcoin makes all kinds of illegal activity harder, without significant downsides for law abiding people. So it's a worthwhile measure, regardless of what else you do or don't do.
I said that crypto didn't create black market trading and so I'm unsure what you mean by this?
> That's pure whataboutism. Enforcing laws against bitcoin makes all kinds of illegal activity harder, without significant downsides for law abiding people. So it's a worthwhile measure, regardless of what else you do or don't do.
That's not what whataboutism means. I said that it's a better idea to target other aspects of the black market.
Interesting framing.
I would have thought the ability to control what goes into a person's body, ie bodily autonomy would have far outweigh religious freedom.
If I had to give one up, and I don't think anyone should have to give up either, I would give up religious freedom long before having to give up control over my own body.
I guess that goes hand in hand with the abortion debate, you're either in the religious freedoms camp or the bodily autonomy camp.
it's good to see there are other's who think the opposite.
I appreciate the differing opinion.
An abortion kills a baby by directly attacking his or her body (dismemberment, lethal injection, etc.). You can firmly be in the bodily autonomy camp and in the religious freedoms camp at the same time.