Remix.run Logo
lordofgibbons 4 days ago

Bitcoin maximalists are learning that having a non-fungible and fully traceable ledger might be a problem. Even Satoshi called this out! As is, BTC is somewhat of a privacy nightmare. All of your transactions are on the public ledger for anyone with basic knowledge of statistics to correlate and see all of your transactions. Blockchain Analytics is big business!

All the things the Treasury is considering to be "suspicious activity" simply can't be tracked with something that's non-fungible and untracable like Monero. This suspicious activity - aka privacy - is just how all monero transactions are done.

tchock23 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That assumes Bitcoin maximalists ultimately see it as a means of transaction. The ones I come across in the wild are purely maximalists for speculative purposes and couldn’t care less about the “practical” use cases for it.

lawn 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is an interesting thing to try out:

Replace "store of value" and "protection against inflation" with "investment" or "number go up" and see what it does to most of discourse around Bitcoin.

swinglock 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being able to transact is the point of it all. If practical use is not possible that makes it useless and that makes it worthless.

teiferer 4 days ago | parent [-]

This has never been the main use outside an unrealistic dream world. Its main purposes are speculation and ponzi-like scams.

fluoridation 4 days ago | parent [-]

There are two components to price: what the thing is worth, and what you might be willing to convince someone else to buy it from you in the future for. The latter is the speculative component. The former must be related to some intrinsic property of the thing. For example, an orange has some minimum price, because if nothing else it's composed of matter and so can weight things down. If bitcoin is useless to transact, then its intrinsic worth is zero, so its price is 100% speculative. That's not so much a bubble as just air being pressurized by no container.

derangedHorse 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> what the thing is worth

This is subjective. Value is subjective. This is taught in many introductory economics classes.

> an orange has some minimum price, because if nothing else it's composed of matter and so can weight things down

You talk as if "minimum price" is objective. The "minimum price" you're referring to here is the most useless, but valued, property of the object for you. For other people, having weight can be a burden.

> If bitcoin is useless to transact, then its intrinsic worth is zero, so its price is 100% speculative

Again you speak as if as if everyone assumes the same value system as you, but differ only in a penchant for gambling in the form of price speculation.

fluoridation 4 days ago | parent [-]

>You talk as if "minimum price" is objective. The "minimum price" you're referring to here is the most useless, but valued, property of the object for you. For other people, having weight can be a burden.

It doesn't matter. The things oranges are good for are known, even if they're not applicable to you personally. Those applications are objective. It is objectively true that oranges are edible, even if you subjectively don't like them. It is objectively true that an orange can weight paper down, even if you can't carry even a single orange more right now.

Of course, sometimes there's an asymmetry of information where someone might price something incorrectly (e.g. someone doesn't know that oranges can now be used as fusion fuel, so he sells it for less). But the fact that we can say that the price is "incorrect" means there is a correct price.

>Again you speak as if as if everyone assumes the same value system as you, but differ only in a penchant for gambling in the form of price speculation.

I don't see you giving any examples of what Bitcoin is good for.

Fade_Dance 3 days ago | parent [-]

Store of Value. Digital gold, with the added utility of being able to teleport across jurisdictions and being able to plug directly into the next wave of smart contracts and decentralized securitization. It's no more complicated than that.

(No, gold does not primarily derive its value from practical applications).

These tools have practical application within the financial system. Speaking as a portfolio manager, gold has drawbacks. For example there was turmoil in the gold market from the recent Trump tariffs because of Swiss refining. It's a physical product that has to be stored, which means it has negative carry/costs money to hold, and if you get it through futures you have to deal with the futures term structure. Crypto also has rich volatility to work with (useful for many classes of trader), and it can even be relative value traded against peers. With Gold you end up going to industrial metals or to Silver (which is frankly an awful asset to manage in a portfolio or trade, outright worse than some of these alt-coins).

Simply put, it's a new asset with many highly unique characteristics, that has a good mix of store-of-value and speculative elements. It's also highly liquidity sensitive (vs Gold which has a much slower impulse, because it is heavily influenced by Central Bank Reserve activity, which isn't great to have to deal as the driving factor in an asset price because it's so opaque), and cleanly embeds risk-off/risk-on animal spirits.

Let's see you are a fund manager and are looking to add persistent alphas like Trend and Volatility Risk Premium to a portfolio. Crypto can be a good addition to these systematic trading programs because it's uncorrelated with other asset classes.

Granted, I'm no "Bitcoin Maxi" (despite living offshore with the tax-dodging crypto crowd for a year, I only did my first crypto trade this year), and will be the first to admit that the majority of the space is rank speculation and wretched excess, to quote Munger, but I'm begrudgingly admitting that it's a neat asset, although I think some of the ones like ethereum that are built more around the utility aspects of distributed computing and smart contracts have more use cases. BTC is primarily the gold equivalent in the crypto universe.

Step back one more level and I'd argue there's some deeper evolution going on as well in regards to money as technology. This isn't a process that anyone totally controls. The modern Eurodollar system (Eurodollars as in offshore dollars and derivatives, 20 trillion in size, not the currency Euro) that underpins the global financial system spawned out of the ether of many would argue petrodollars, and we didn't fully get a practical or theoretical handle on it until things like the Asian financial Crisis decades later. I'll immediately say that in no way am I saying "Bitcoin is the future of money", but the recent securitization wave in the crypto space does smell to me like the system pushing into new meaningful directions. Stablecoins that can be re-hypothecated across borders without regulation and frictionlessly lever up seems like the next obvious step that will naturally take hold. Right now the Eurodollar system and thus the global financial system is tied together with a huge hedge-fund driven basis trade which propagates out fed policy via an arbitrage. It's pretty obvious that this isn't always going to be the case and eventually that link is going to be severed. Likewise with the repo market and Tbills which is where systemic leverage originates - this is another pretty arbitrary thing that has been concocted, and don't be surprised if new strange things develop.

teiferer 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> being able to teleport across jurisdictions

"Teleporting" doesn't need a blockchain. In fact, a central database is much faster than a distributed ledger.

The "across jurisdictions" part only works as long as the jurisdictions allow you. As soon as you are a serious contender, your tech gets just as much regulated as everybody else.

It's similar to saying "I use Uber, it's so much easier to order than a cab". How you order a taxi is unrelated to the employment structure of the particular transportation business you are using. That's why we're seeing cabs and neo cabs (uber, lyft, etc) converge in term uf UX.

fluoridation 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Store of Value.

LOL. You're about seven years behind on the narrative. Nobody "stores value" in Bitcoin by deliberate choice. Anyone who does either doesn't know what they're doing or can't sell off their holdings. Volatility is an awful property for a store of value.

>being able to plug directly into the next wave of smart contracts and decentralized securitization

That's just meaningless drivel.

Fade_Dance 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Edit:

Just to button up that bottom part, since it sounds a bit wonky. It looks like there's a new sort of Eurodollar system developing, which is more accessible and more democratized. That's pretty cool.

Ex: Tether was a 7th largest purchaser of US debt in 2024, ahead of South Korea and Germany.

Instead of EuroDollars (offshore dollar denominated deposits in non-us regulated institutions - say two non-us countries denominate alone in US dollars, they have spawned additions to the global dollar liquidity system without US involvement) you have stablecoins. Some of these stable coins are backed by hard US assets (just like foreign banks May hold hard dollars or TBills to cover their exposure), but some will inevitably not be and there will be a spectrum of risk and creditworthiness that will naturally arise. Likewise, these stable coins are passed around, lent and re-lent, which originates leverage in the crypto space, much like how we use Repo markets in the "real" financial system.

To dig into the history a bit more, after the GFC things like Repo and bank reserve requirements were tightened up quite a bit. No more sending off your dubious credit default swaps to repo to originate leverage every day if you are Bear Sterns, for example. Within developed was what we know as Shadow banking (which really isn't a descriptive term for it), and to me all of this crypto stuff is really just part of that offshoot Shadow banking narrative since the GFC.

History also has a tendency to repeat itself which crypto seems to be rapidly doing. Let's look back a few years ago with the banking crisis in the US, that was really a repeat of the savings and loan crisis from 40 to 50 years ago. So in a sense we're sort of on track for the new crop of humans to repeat some of the narratives that came after that are we not? Let's take that hard data point that tether, a stable coin, is now a huge holder of US debt. There's a reason why we have entities like the FED that step in to backstop these markets (like in 2020). Let's see the crypto market keeps developing, and is highly automated and mechanized as expected. Let's say something like a security flaw in one of the major backbones with regards to quantum computing starts a bank run in the space, and these stable coins start having to liquidate their treasury holdings aggressively and mechanistically. Well there's a classic reflexive loop that in the regulated financial system regulators would step into stop. Now because it's US debt to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in real supply, this could be an actual, perhaps even mid-sized financial crisis! At the end of the day this sort of thing is exactly what I expect us to keep doing occasionally, after all humanity needs to relearn its lessons within new frameworks!

As for Bitcoin, it's the gold equivalent in this parallel shadow liquidity complex.

So yes, wonkish, but imo all of this stuff is pretty interesting and maybe even under discussed. Probably more useful to think about than stock price going up or stock price going down...

And then a note on why traditional financial participants seem to be getting on board with crypto, even people who may have initially been against it. I think it has something to do with how liquidity sensitive this stuff is. We live in a world where liquidity is ever more dominant a factor in financial markets, yet a bit paradoxically it's harder than ever to measure it. Let's take something like levels of reserves in the banking system, that thing which if it gets too low spikes repo rates and can cause an overnight crisis. Even the FED doesn't exactly know how to measure this and is largely guessing. There was an interesting research paper a little while back that proposes a new measuring system where they hook into bank transactions and measure if payments are a little late, like "did this bank pay their bill at 10am or 11:30". Believe it or not, that sounded like a large improvement over the higher frequency stuff we have! LIBOR was also replaced with SOFR, so the embedded overnight lending risk between financial institutions is not as viewable as it once was (granted LIBOR was manipulated, so at least that's better...) I've increasingly seen crypto used as a liquidity monitor. Ex: if Bitcoin explodes higher and diverges from the S&P, people will take that data point with sometimes even medium seriousness. That alone may be adding a chunk of legitimacy to the thing, and it may be self-reinforcing. Compared to the current insights we have the true nature of liquidity, maybe it isn't even that crazy an idea.

kjkjadksj 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Much like baseball cards and beanie babies.

psychlops 3 days ago | parent [-]

Companies can make more baseball cards and beanie babies. Enforced scarcity gives bitcoin value.

pezezin 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The scarcity of Bitcoin is just a single line of code, not some magical mathematical property.

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No they can’t. Collectors value certain production runs. It is enforced scarcity.

oofbey 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not saying anything new here, but at the core there are only a few key reasons for using bitcoin: investment, hiding your finances, and the idealism of de-centralization.

The intrinsic value of decentralization is the ability to operate outside any fiat system of laws or government. So that one lines up a lot with the criminal side of hiding your finances. The investment aspect sure is enticing to lots of folks, but without a real core underlying value it's just bubbles and rug-pulls. So all this has the effect, wittingly or not, of lining up the incentives of all BTC users with money launderers.

Sure there are TONS of perfectly legal reasons not to want people to track your finances. Many of them are even moral. But obviously many are neither moral nor legal. (The edge case of moral but illegal sure gets people fired up, but it's a vanishing minority of actual use.) So when the regulators come looking for criminals, we unsurprisingly get lots of sound and fury about how there are lots of perfectly valid reasons why good people will want to act in ways that make them look like criminals. Uh huh. Yes, there sure are.

rocqua 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But with Monero, you see that it is effectively shut off from the Fiat ecosystem entirely. The proposal here clearly lays out how bad Bitcoin is for privacy. But it's not like the more private alternatives are actually allowed to be viable alternatives.

sterlind 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

ironically, the inconvenience of exchanging Monero for fiat helps Monero be used as an actual currency. rather than exchanging Monero for cash and then buying things with cash, Monero is exchanged for the things itself.

drozycki 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this true? Kraken and Bitfinex both seem to support XMR <-> USD

weberer 3 days ago | parent [-]

They don't support it for EU customers since 2024 due to new EU regulations. It sucks.

ibejoeb 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah. I understand the excitement over the past two decades about the possibility of cryptocurrencies, but it came with a lot of naivete. After the fight to create sovereign central banks, did anyone seriously think that they were just going to give it up? Sure, maybe they can't stop you technologically, but it's very easy to simply make it unlawful, and then the men (and robots) with guns call.

SubiculumCode 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Very true. In my opinion, and strictly from an American-centric view, privacy should only extend to transactions within borders between citizens. As soon as it involves transactions from outside our borders, then it is a national security concern. We know, right now, that both Russia and China are fueling internal political tension via massive and sophisticated disinformation/influence campaigns, a certain part of which involves paying influencers, extremists, shady media outlets, maybe a Representative or three in America to push their agendas, foment discontent aiming to destabilize and control the United States. Monero is definitely being used in this information warfare. I am pro-privacy, pro- individual rights, but we have to resolve this central tension of these things and the very real hyper connected world we live in which very real nation-state enemies. I am at the point where I think restricting the internet to allied countries might actually be a good idea, as currently we are leaving citizens unprotected from every nation-state actor who wishes to manipulate us with targeted, data-analytic, bot- and ai-empowered campaign against us. It is out of control, and as long as a monetary instrument like crypto enables that attack surface, it will be hard for me to support crypto-maxamialism.

beambot 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> a certain part of which involves paying influencers, extremists, shady media outlets, maybe a Representative or three in America to push their agendas, foment discontent aiming to destabilize and control the United States.

Doesn't this describe every political party and megacorp in the US too...?

xp84 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you don’t like those guys, you really won’t like the guys who will be in charge when the nation actually does descend into chaos.

le-mark 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Political parties and mega corps don’t strive to undermine the fabric of democracy itself though.

a4isms 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

"Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Political parties and mega corps don’t strive to undermine the fabric of democracy itself."

"Oh? who's being naïve, Kay?"

krapp 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you sure about that?

IAmGraydon 4 days ago | parent [-]

So edgy.

IAmGraydon 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the biggest platforms this happens through is Reddit, and they intentionally leave it wide open. You don’t even have to have an email address to register and start posting. Bots make these platforms a fortune, and they’re happy to sell out their country to foreign influence for a dime.

So yes, and I’ve been saying this since it started really getting bad in 2020, we need to completely cut enemies of the US off from our internet. There will obviously be attempts to proxy through western countries, so it needs to be strictly enforced, possibly with an identity requirement for participants.

For those against this, imagine a physical country where anyone can spawn thousands of faceless, nameless drones disguised as real people which are free to do whatever they want in society with zero risk of consequences. What would happen to that country? It would fall. As digital societies have now become larger than countries themselves, this is the very situation we’re dealing with. It’s not the utopia we hoped for, but it will be a dystopia unless action is taken.

SubiculumCode 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I used to be against the real ID moves of early social media platforms, and now I wonder. How would information spread if social media users on X, for example, were clearly identified as 1 to 1 associated with a named person? Sore they might spread something, but unless that guy in Russia has an American ID, then he's not posting.

The current, put as many bots as you want on, approach is pure war.

IAmGraydon 4 days ago | parent [-]

Exactly. The basis of the problem is an unlinking of actions and real world consequences. People wil do whatever they want when consequences no longer exist.

donkeybeer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Post your name, address, various licenses right now or stop posting immediately.

juanani 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

thrance 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If Monero ever came close to Bitcoin's popularity, it would be outlawed. Plain as that. You can't get freedom through technology.

nunobrito 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

4 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
user34283 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

fatchan 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Freedom with crypto means I can pay bills without unjust barriers, and no individual and especially no "financial institution" (ultimately the governments) decides if my transaction goes through or can confiscate the money without confiscating me.

With Paypal, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, and all the payment gateways and controlled entities in between, you will be banned for a "trade secret" reason which they have no legal obligation to reveal. Example 1: https://kiwifarms.st/threads/payment-processor-censorship-vi... (You may discredit the source and ignore factual information and numerous examples at your own discretion)

When you lost the ability to pay for things, you can be starved, of food and more importantly your principles and dignity.

Like many other issues that I consider political, what is important to me and what I believe to be actually righteous in the end is more important than the issues of e.g. personal responsibility from being scammed, or criminal and money laundering transactions. Remember where the term "money laundering" came from.

palmfacehn 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

user34283 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 days ago | parent [-]

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.

user34283 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Property rights exist within a legal framework defined by the people, through law.

What you're talking about here with self-ownership and the state "infringing" upon property rights when you're taxed and can't transact privately, it seems less than "reasonable".

It seems like you're trying to paint routine and widely accepted functions of democratic governments as if they were unreasonable, authoritarian overreach.

roenxi 4 days ago | parent [-]

Authoritarian overreach is itself a routine and widely accepted aspect of democratic governments. Authoritarians get 1 vote/person, same as everyone else. They're allowed to advocate for policies and score the occasional outrageous political win, just like everyone else. There are a lot of them out there and they are a significant political force.

Something being routine and done democratically is no defence at all of it being liberal or in line with the principle of property rights. Or even of it being legal in a lot of instances, democratic governments lose legal challenges quite regularly.

And in this case, attacks on private transactions are absolutely unreasonable authoritarian overreach. The government doesn't need to surveil people when they have no reason to suspect those people of wrongdoing.

palmfacehn 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Voters generally seem willing to embrace authoritarian solutions when it is applied to the things they dislike. The political classes have multiple incentives to appeal to those voters. Outside of a few outliers, neither group generally concerns themselves with the underlying principles of civil liberties until their favored causes are attacked. Hypocrisy abounds. Reasoning from first principles is dismissed as ideological extremism.

From here it is easy to see how the incentives of a democratic-regulatory-state work against property rights, free speech, privacy rights and other civil liberties.

user34283 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolute financial privacy is not a liberal principle.

It's a fantasy cooked up by crypto enthusiasts and anti-government ideologues. You cannot enforce sanctions, prevent money laundering, protect consumers, or collect taxes if transactions are private.

It's just not going to work.

palmfacehn 4 days ago | parent [-]

It may come as a surprise, but there were periods where taxes were contributed voluntarily or sworn under oath that they were accurate tabulations. Early Hamburg is a strong example here. There was an honor associated with paying taxes for wealthy merchants.

Alternatively, without those positive incentives towards payment, we might consider the comparative value of evading taxes and taking upon risk vs. paying a less onerous tax. From these exclusively negative consequences, the taxpayer compares the burden of compliance with the effort required and the risks of non-compliance. This is well known in the modern era as The Laffer Curve.

So I have to disagree once again. Empirically, we can see that is possible to collect taxes when there the perceived value of the services provided by the state is a net win for the tax payer. Taxes can also be collected when the burden of payment is less than the cost of evasion.

When states fail to deliver value taxpayers understandably become dissatisfied. When compliance is onerous and rates high, authoritarian enforcement measures become necessary. From this point it is easy to see how cryptocurrencies provide the kind of utility you disparage.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks", this is Satoshi's inscription on the BTC genesis block. It may suggest that mismanagement by (arguably authoritarian) central planners gave rise to the popularity of cryptocurrencies. Perhaps the reason cryptocurrencies exist is because of the incompetence or authoritarian means of the state.

There's room in the middle to disagree, but the extreme case you've made here reads as authoritarian. Especially in the context of the article.

user34283 4 days ago | parent [-]

Ah, I've made an "extreme case" now? That's rich. I essentially argued for the necessity of basic financial enforcement that every functioning democracy relies on.

I guess you consider it authoritarian when you don't get to bypass those controls by using crypto.

The honors-based tax system that worked in a small oligarchic city-state of 25k is hardly going to scale to modern democracies with millions of taxpayers.

immibis 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Both should be limited. Almost everything should be limited. Deciding the limits is called politics.

palmfacehn 4 days ago | parent [-]

Political solutions are often messy and complex. Pragmatic fixes are rarely obvious and overreaches are common. Reforms are ongoing. Conversely, absolutists have no use for nuance.

The war on cash is a good example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

https://ij.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-convenience-s...

Arainach 4 days ago | parent [-]

Something being imperfect doesn't mean that getting rid of it is an improvement.

Should civil forfeiture be heavily reformed, and is it being obviously abused? Yes. Is the ability to use cryptocurrency to bypass sanctions, fund oppressive regimes, drive criminal empires, and power a new generation of scams a much worse problem? Absolutely.

Proponents of a system explicitly designed to enable financial fraud shocked when governments apply fraud rules to them, news at 11.

immibis 4 days ago | parent [-]

The ability of money to deice criminal empires is a problem. Abolish money.

lokar 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

mindslight 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

1gn15 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

Mouvelie 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

GeoAtreides 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

immibis 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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)

ranger_danger 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Monero is outlawed in the EU.

Source: