Cash, Bitcoin, and encryption are neutral technologies that can be used in negative ways.
> Weak analogy
> Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
> Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.
In this case the distinction between cash and Bitcoin is exactly what enables criminals to benefit from their crimes.
> The latest development in the brave new post-Bitcoin world is crypto-equity. At this point I’ve gone from wanting to praise these inventors as bold libertarian heroes to wanting to drag them in front of a blackboard and making them write a hundred times “I WILL NOT CALL UP THAT WHICH I CANNOT PUT DOWN”
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Fortunately, Scott is wrong on this. Crypto does not only subvert old forms of coordination, it also allows new forms of coordination. Whether this will is a net win remains to be seen.
Technology isn't neutral. The world is too complicated to hide behind that argument. We must think about the consequences of the things we build.