It doesn't really matter what use cases cryptocurrencies were supposed to have — their actual use cases turned out to be scams and speculation. We can wax philosophic about the failed promise, but to a rounding error scams and speculation have always been their only use cases.
Which makes it very understandable that crypto companies became subject to KYC laws as they tried to scale up to serve the American public! Online gambling and securities trading are already subject to KYC. The rest of the activity is the scams and crime that (despite your cynical reading) KYC was intended to fight in the first place.
Careening at 90 miles per hour through a school zone crosswalk as kids dive out of the way: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Yawn. If that were truly analogous to the current topic, rather than a gross exaggeration, the analogy would be unnecessary.
Replace "Careening at 90 miles per hour through a school zone crosswalk as kids dive out of the way" with the actual topic of "Spending your money on legal things without government tracking and control".
Your point is understood that you personally prefer one thing to another, compared to another person preferring the opposite.
And if you were truly able to attack my position on its merits you wouldn't need to keep stripping out all specifics to build a straw man, but here we are!
(Also, the analogy would only be necessary if it were… not analogous to the topic at hand? That makes no sense.)
Why would I attack your position? Your position is totally reasonable given a particular set of pretty common preferences ("this" over "that"). Besides, you never asked me to try to change your mind, so why would I assume you wanted me to spend my time & effort doing that work?
What's more, your "position" (opinion) is no more or less defensible than the opposite opinion held by a different person, or any opinion in general, and other people are no more obliged to "attack" yours than you are theirs (is "attacking" really a good conversation anyways?)
I'm just a third party elucidating that this is 2 people disagreeing based on their own personal preferences, which are based on their own personal opinions, and doesn't need to be a referendum on either person.
You know, I really don't appreciate this coy "I'm not attacking your position, I'm just simplifying it to a tradeoff between liberty and safety and what's that quote about liberty vs. safety again? Ah well, the reader can draw their own conclusions." Your whole "all opinions are valid, who can truly say which is more defensible?" schtick is the last refuge of people who are unable to defend their views.
It's pretty obvious what you're trying to say here, man. Don't piss on my leg and tell me that it's raining.
I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my "position" of "not arguing with your opinion, because you never asked anyone to help you change your opinion, and because you don't seem interested in changing it anyways if someone tried".
It sounds like you just want to fight rather than understand why different people have different views. Even after someone politely tells you that your opinions are common and your conclusions are reasonable given those opinions, you're still trying to find something to fight them on.
I'm more interested in the latter (understanding) than the former (fighting), so I'll pass, but luckily you'll have no trouble finding someone else on the internet who just wants to fight and doesn't seek understanding.
Yep, I agree with you that it is! Note that I fixed your "translation" of my quote here, which I'm sure was just an honest mistake on your part.
You see, I realize that you have different opinions than me and others, but that's no reason for you to be rude and disrespectful to others on HN. Your link there is a good example of how to behave instead.
That said, I already told you I'm not interested in a fight about opinions with someone who isn't interested in changing theirs, so if you're leaving because I didn't provide you with such a fight... bye?
> It doesn't really matter what use cases cryptocurrencies were supposed to have — their actual use cases turned out to be scams and speculation.
I'm going to translate what you said here out of your obscene level of privilege:
"It doesn't really matter what use cases cryptocurrencies were supposed to have - even if their actual use cases did address those concerns, not all of them did, and what's more important to me, and other hypercapitalists like myself, is to maintain my privilege."
It turns out, it is actually you "translating" views. Here you are "translating" and "stripping out all specifics to build a straw man", as you put it:
Is that because, as you adroitly put it, you couldn't respond to the actual views on their merits?
Is there a reason you can't be civilized and simply say "I personally believe that government tracking and control of individual spending on legal stuff is okay if [insert your preferred benefits here] are realized, but I respect those who don't agree with me on that"? Here, let me lead by example:
I personally believe that crimes which harm others are bad, but not enough to justify government tracking and control of individual spending on legal things. I also respect people who feel differently (including you), because their opinions here are no more or less valid than mine.
Which makes it very understandable that crypto companies became subject to KYC laws as they tried to scale up to serve the American public! Online gambling and securities trading are already subject to KYC. The rest of the activity is the scams and crime that (despite your cynical reading) KYC was intended to fight in the first place.