nunobrito 17 hours ago

Monero has already been delisted from relevant exchanges last year because "reasons".

The main website that matched people to trade fiat for monero (localmonero) got closed recently because "reasons".

It is pretty popular and outlawed since a while. Basically the only relevant crypto currency used for purchases on the street since several years now. You can look up the number of daily on-chain transactions and tends to be on top every day.

You likely would only notice this if you need to donate money for someone with the wrong opinions or live at a non-aligned country.

  • [removed] 14 hours ago
    [deleted]
user34283 17 hours ago

Freedom here means transacting without:

--

anti-money laundering safeguards

sanctions enforcement

consumer protection

tax enforcement

fraud prevention systems

--

It is very true that technology won't get you this freedom from sensible legal requirements we impose on financial transactions.

That's obviously a good thing, but I guess people who are in crypto would disagree.

  • palmfacehn 16 hours ago

    Conversely, property rights are also a good thing. I don't agree that it is as simple as you present it. Even if you believe that the state has a right to confiscate, regulate or inflate away value for a "greater collective good", reasonable people might also recognize the potential for abuse.

    So no, it isn't obviously a "good thing", unless you reject these nuances in favor of an all powerful state.

    • user34283 16 hours ago

      Talk about rejecting nuance, but now the state is "all powerful" because you can't transact privately.

      Yes, the state has control of finance and transactions. It always does.

      Democracies are build on principles like Popular sovereignty, political equality, or the rule of law.

      Private transactions or tax-free property isn't a democratic feature. Yes, it's that obvious.

      • palmfacehn 16 hours ago

        Even if you accept those premises, reasonable people would expect limits on the power of the state to infringe upon property rights, even when backed by a popular majority. Furthermore, the principle of individual self-ownership is a key starting point for modern, liberal ideas of law. Of course you are free to reject those premises, but I would characterize that as authoritarian rather than obvious.

    • lokar 16 hours ago

      In an organized society there is no absolute right to personal property, there never has been and there never will be.

Mouvelie 16 hours ago

Which, I believe, would make it even more prevalent. It would be the confession that they cannot control it, and while most people would be deterred by this, I can see a shadow economy growing because (or thanks ?) to this.

1gn15 17 hours ago

It's not so black and white. Obviously social and political change is the goal. But in the meantime technology can help if you're living under repression.

Take VPNs and Tor helping people jump the Great Firewall of China for example. Obviously, yes, this is a political problem; the GFW shouldn't exist. But it would be foolish to dismiss the technology as a vital part of fighting back against the state.

GeoAtreides 17 hours ago

You are being downvoted, but you are correct. I am east european and I know how hard the fist of the State hits. Sometimes I think westerners see technology like some special moves that you can quickly combo so you can defeat the evil boss at the end. No, there are no special moves, just a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.

mindslight 16 hours ago

> You can't get freedom through technology

I'd argue the opposite - if Bitcoin had been created with secure private transactions (untraceability) it would be in the same popular position it is today, but the attacks on it (chain analysis etc) would be failing instead of inevitably marching forward.

Your argument seems to rely on an assumption that the insecurity of Bitcoin has been legible and apparent to the [greater] government for most of Bitcoin's life, and so the government allowed it to gain popularity knowing those insecurities would eventually make it succumb to government control. But in general government sees any lack of identification/data as a problem to be rectified, and the popular wisdom for quite some time has been that Bitcoin is "anonymous". so I'd say the government acted as quick as it would have regardless of the actual security properties. It feels like any holding off had more to do with financial lucrativeness rather than an understanding of its long term security flaws.

Now that we're here though, Bitcoin does seem like a very strong inoculation against financial privacy technology. Government is now well aware that software/cryptography can be used for money, and the first question asked is why isn't your new niche system grokkable to chain analysis?

immibis 15 hours ago

Monero is outlawed in the EU. It's not illegal to possess, but no business is allowed to touch it.

Which proves that it does what it says. (Much like when the police suspect someone of being a drug dealer for using GrapheneOS)