extra risks; like permenentally giving up the ability to have two party value transfers.
Your short sighted reasoning is easily applied to the war on crypto, general purpose computing and ultimately marking humans to buy and sell.
Your short sighted reasoning is easily applied to the war on crypto, general purpose computing and ultimately marking humans to buy and sell.
They shut down the third-wave c-list-celebrity-endorsed token scams, yes. And when it became possible to do 6-figure money transfers with limited traceability and across borders, they forced exchanges to follow KYC laws. To the surprise of absolutely no one except people saying "taxation is theft" and thinking they are very clever, laws do apply online.
But a "war" it wasn't. The failure of cryptocurrencies to have any meaningful impact on the real world not measurable in cubic feet and degrees Celsius is to be found in its inability to be actually useful. Because the problems it was trying to solve never were problems: nobody needs a zero-trust payment solution because people do trust the banking system, to some degree. Nobody wants a currency completely separate from politics because the decisions of democratically legitimised institutions filled with PhDs tend to be at least slightly better than the arbitrarily set parameters of some algorithm that cannot be changed, or the feudalism of leaving all power in the hands of whoever has the most GPUs.
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/03/fed-announces-program...
I'll take the disinterested algorithm please.
I’d still object to the overused “war on..” phrasing for what’s a standard disagreement on policy. But substantively it’s obviously hard to deny that at least the US government is working against encryption.
This is how we end up with schools in NYC kept open, flights continuing way too long, people mocked for wearing masks, and other stupid behaviors from agendas overriding caution.
Banning people doing things is not a great option. Providing information and encouraging them to do things is reasonable.
You're right that providing information is reasonable, suggesting that people not be given the ability to be private, or force them to essentially have a bank account is not.
It would be surprising if all the businessmen started turning away customers because they didn't pay by card, even with a government recommendation.