telepathy

Lots of non crypto services do that too. We're looking for a lawful use case that can only be done with crypto. Still nothing from you nutcases.

Is this still a talking point? This was a buzz word like half a decade ago

That bitcoin and mailing beanie babies have no meaningful and lawful utility. By utility I mean benefit. It will be a dead giveaway that you're biased and intellectually dishonest if you ask for the definition of utility.

1. Badly governed countries still have laws you are required to obey - regardless of your opinion. 2. Beanie babies would be the only third option. There is no 4th option. 3. They could use beanie babies.

Oh well then you're just talking about drug revenue (and worse). lol @ 90% approval lol yeah me too

It seems you've reached a conclusion based on a gut feeling, and are constructing arguments to back your viewpoint. This hints that you might not be interacting with this topic with the necessary objectivity and investigative spirit to truly understand it.

Yeah it's also not circumventing banking regulations to mail a beanie baby. What's your point?

Everyone seems to hate bitcoin in el salvador: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bitcoin+el+salv...

Billions per day is basically wash trading by quants. What % of that is actual merchant transactions for goods or services?? Almost 0%

Bitcoin isn't money, and adoption by merchants has never been lower. I was talking about the original vision.

The law doesn't care whether it solves their problem. It doesn't make it lawful to circumvent banking regulations. Governments have bills to pay and it's illegal to disobey.

A "financial institution" is just an entity that is legally allowed to engage in sending money from one party to another. So the vision is just "let's make something illegal"?

Why would they prefer crypto? What's the lawful utility of it?

That's because it's either illegal or legally too expensive to give them banking services. You're not describing a tech problem. Banking tech exists. You don't get to decide what random countries want to do with their monetary policy or financial service regulations.

So why don't you simply explain a few lawful use cases that are impossible with an ordinary database? Just do that and case closed, you win.

You didn't give an example of sending money. You gave an example of database transaction of an exchange traded token. Sending IOUs that need to be changed into money isn't the same thing as sending money.

> The regulatory hurdles to send and receive money from a legacy payment system ...

=> Become a policy maker and change the regulation. You're not allowed to just evade regulations with crypto tech just because it's your opinion that democratic law was improperly legislated. That's crazy talk.

Why do you think Moneygram is expensive? Ever thought maybe it's due to legal compliance? You're not allowed to evade that.

Can you explain the lawful utility of crypto?

It's a prerequisite for the vast majority of law abiding people. Not everyone is a fringe crypto activist willing to take legal risks.

Well AI has actual utility and new functionality. Unlike crypto.

Are you under the impression that governments lack the technology necessary not to print money? They're in charge, you don't get to disagree unilaterally. That's not an option.

Are you running for elected office? If not, then you're suffering from delusions of grandeur.

My "hand" is expressing that nobody has successfully been able to explain the lawful utility of crypto. Whatever you're doing now is certainly no exception. It's not my fault that you can't explain, but you simultaneously have strong feelings about it.

Inventing tech to circumvent law is obviously "unlawful"

This is the jurisdiction of courts, not some shady blockchain

Just observation

I thought you said the problem was bad monetary policy. Why not focus on improving that? That's not a tech problem, it's a policy problem.

So you're saying the only value of crypto is some fringe act of civil disobedience that has so far been futile and riddled with fraud. Cool

The freelancers I hire in third world countries want to be paid with Upwork. Not crypto.

It's also not unlawful for you to flush it down the toilet. What's your point? We're looking for a use case that can't be done with a regular database.

Why are you selecting litecoin as your example, out of curiosity? What's the difference?

This is the standard Web3 type delusions of grandeur that hypes everyone up. Developers don't have a say in such matters. They're not policymakers. Wrong profession.

The value of crypto has always been some fringe act of futile civil disobedience? Yikes

How does crypto help change the law to become fair? As opposed to just facilitating unlawful activity.