Your point is not invalid, just more nuanced or complex perhaps that your direct point suggests.
Note that societies have actually come a long way in the last decade or two, current setbacks notwithstanding. With all the noise the certainly not perfect US political system produces, it's easy to overlook how many things actually work quite well, both in the US and in other democratic countries.
Other crimes that cryptocurrencies may be useful for are obviously tax evasion, and any sort of money landing from all sorts of schemes. I really don't see a reason why we should rethink the basic principle of fair taxation, or, in general, why we should abandon the current system based on law for one where might is right.
In fact, the most impressive advancements have been in protecting people from the "tyranny of the majority". Things like due process even for terrorists, or presidents, or pedophiles would probably not get a majority.
Think about it: the system based on majority-rule happens to be the best if you're generally hated by everyone. If people like you, Russia doesn't actually feel that different :)
This is the best explanation I have seen. Morality is a completely artificial construct. There is no such thing as something being provably evil or good. It's not a math equation, but rather the consensus of your peers.
I love crypocurrency as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy the happiness I get from living in a law abiding community.
Most things aren't math equations. All distinctions in the real world are messy, seemingly arbitrary at some level. Can you define what it means for something to be alive or dead? I seriously doubt it. Yet we do not dispute the existence of such distinctions. The concept of life improves our understanding of the world despite its slipperyness.
IMO, moral truth exists as much as scientific truth we just interact with/discover it differently. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start if the topic interests you:
I agree based on lots of personal experience with and research on people who talked utilitarian but acted different when the law's enforcers were focused on them. I fought with myself over this in many situations balancing the struggle between my own survival/well-being vs supporting principles. Takes discipline and sacrifice to practice utilitarianism. What it took me led me to be suspicious of people who preach it who spontaneously do what benefits them esp at others' expense even in small ways.
Great idea. Why bother ever trying to improve things where you live when you can just move to fantasy-land where the laws are in perfect agreement with your beliefs?
This argument makes even less sense in the US since the government makes you get permission, provide years of tax records, and pay them a huge amount of money (over $2000 plus some large percentage of your holdings) to renounce your citizenship. You can't "just leave".
Those two ideas aren't inherently contradictory. It's pretty easy to ground metaethics by asserting something like "human genetics encodes an instinctual preference function for social mores into human brains." Then, "morality" is an objective fact: an objective fact about what actions are acceptable to (neurotypical) humans.
Special speech for special occasions
You want to define that?
* Toys, playthings
* Death rituals, mourning
* Feasting
* Body adornment
* Hairstyles
* Art
It's a good thing toys and art are culturally universal, but they don't say a thing about morals. It's just that it's hard to think of many things that are actually universally accepted as moral. Even lying is acceptable in various religions in different contexts. We as societies can't even agree on what is and isn't murder or if it's acceptable.
What then?
It's good hygeine to repeal or amend laws that we aren't willing to enforce, but it doesn't always happen. If it does happen, it's almost always after, not before, doing what the law prohibits becomes widespread and socially acceptable.
It might be morally necessary to abstain from behaviors your community finds unacceptable. It might also be morally necessary for the executive branch to enforce the laws exactly as written, no matter how poorly they track moral consensus, until the laws are changed.
It doesn't follow that it's morally obligatory to follow the law just because it's the law.
Make that the consensus of your peers' so called representatives in Congress, because we're not direct democracies like ancient Greece. Politicians took care to subvert the power from the people to line up their pockets.
Edit: not sure how to interpret the replies to my post ("currency enables crime"). Yes the dollar/euro/pound/cryptocurrency enable crime. Should we ban them all? No. Both government-controlled currencies and cryptocurrencies enable economic activity, hence create wealth, and are a net benefit to society. Besides more illegal activity is conducted (in absolute and relative numbers) in fiat than in cryptocurrency so that's even less of a reason to ban cryptocurrency.
in fact I'd go as far as to say that it's a driving force for Crime...
(emphasis mine)
I'm honestly surprised by that. (Especially after it's seems to be the go-to method of payment for ransomware which should lead to huge amounts of illegal activity.)
Could you link some sources?
We already have currency, and it works much better than any cryptocurrency. The specific problem cryptocurrency solves is vulnerability to law enforcement (i.e. central control).
I would also be concerned if someone started selling weapons whose defining feature was their resistance to homicide investigators.
There is no we that comprises a coherent tech community.
People with malicious intent are also able to write code and assemble hardware.
I've never heard of prepaid Visa cards being called a "tumbler of digital currency", which the bill specifically deals with. It seems clear whoever wrote this knows about Bitcoin etc.
> I keep my wallets in a private cloud. I don't see how a border agent could know they exist.
It's well documented that they're poking around on social media for information on folks. You've posted that you have one on an account whose profile mentions your employer's name. I wouldn't be shocked if they could connect the dots pretty trivially.
>A prepaid access program is an arrangement through which one or more persons acting together provide access to funds or the value of funds that have been paid in advance and can be retrieved or transferred at some point in the future through an electronic device or vehicle, such as a card, code, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or personal identification number.
https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2011/bull...
So basically, the grandparent is asserting that the main thrust of the bill is the amendments that make prepaid cards covered.
"Do you have a private cloud? Do you own cryptocurrency?"
Watch your reaction while you realise that you've likely committed an offence if you deny it, etc.
One day in the near future, they likely have algorithms giving them a likelihood that you fit the type, and that will suggest their line of questioning - whether it's about data storage or propensity to work while on a tourist visa, or whatever else.
In the short term I imagine it will work, but I don't think it will work forever.
How can there be any doubt in your mind that the answer is yes? The whole ransomware industry is only viable because bitcoin has succeeded.
I suspect that most murder-for-hire offers have either been scams or entrapment. And regarding child porn, I can't imagine why anyone would pay for it. There's so much out there for free, after all.
Governments do whatever governments do. But so do people.
But I believe that "being a win for freedom and being a win for crime" necessarily overlap. Maybe entirely. Because anything that allows some authorities to curtail crime necessarily allows other authorities to curtail freedom.
Sorry. It means we agree.
When you exchange over $10k in cryptocurrency to actual cash, the exchange will have the obligation if reporting it. Also don't even think of breaking the exchange into 10 transactions of $1k because that too is covered by the law.
all currency does this.
There are, as near as I recall, certain other specific lies that are in the State's jurisdiction, such as giving the police a fake name. Something like 15 years ago, SCOTUS also ruled against a guy who refused to give the police his name when he was questioned.
For the most part, you can tell a regular cop all sorts of lies, with some exceptions like your name. Lying to the FBI is against the law, if you're being questioned in regards to a criminal matter - I am unsure about civil matters. You sure as hell can't lie on the forms you sign when you cross the border. No, they will be right pissed if you do that.
I am not a lawyer, but I have spent some time in court, dated a lawyer, and taken a few electives on the subject. So, this isn't legal advice but I'm pretty sure this is reasonably accurate.
Sort of off topic, they pick students to hold mock trials, hearings, etc., and do this in a mock courtroom at many universities. If you audit the right course, you can volunteer and you can learn all sorts of neat things. You can also just go sit in the courtroom at your local court. It's open to the public, most of the time. It's a great way to learn more about procedure.
Anyhow, like always, consult a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction, should you need legal advice.
If digital currencies really take off (i.e. beyond just a niche group of speculators and early adopters), expect customs forms to include a question on it, then.
You already have to promise not to be a member of Al Qaeda on some immigration forms.
I keep my wallets in a private cloud. I don't see how a border agent could know they exist.
I think the bigger question is 'does dark money enable crime?'. If the answer is yes, then we as a tech community need to consider the impact of legitimizing cryptocurrent and enabling unfettered criminal enterprise.