There's a case to be made for a currency that facilitates illegal transactions, or transactions that corporations object to. Just because something is legal in your country doesn't mean it might not be unjustly restricted. Or could just be unjustly illegal in your country or another country. The problem of course is that distributed currency also facilitates things that should be illegal.

But WikiLeaks is a good example - their legacy is a little mixed now, but when they first came on the scene they were doing work which was a valuable service to the public. If you wanted to donate money to support wikileaks you couldn't because the credit card processors shut them off. Blockchain lets you get around that.

Likewise it's the combination of distance and direct - I can give $5 in cash to my local leaking consortium, but I can't give $5 to the leaking consortium on the other side of the world without relying on the knowledge and consent of third parties.

[–] Tehhund@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I agree there's something to be said for this — If you have a above-board business that credit card companies don't want to service because they think it makes them look bad, that should not shut you out of electronic payments yet that's basically where we are at least in the US.

This is a little hard to balance with the fact that the same things that let you circumvent gatekeepers like credit card companies also make it attractive for genuinely immoral things, but that's a trade-off. Every currency can be used for immoral things and just because cryptocurrency might make it a little easier doesn't mean it's inherently immoral.

[–] psud@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

You totally can give cash anywhere in the world. You post it as a letter

This was common before electronic transfer

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Mailing someone cash means you need to know their address, you have to wait however long for the mail to arrive, you can't prove they received the cash, it's possible the cash was stolen en route and anyone who might wish you harm like an adversary government can observe the transaction.

[–] nom345@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

With crypto you face similar problems. You need an address, waiting is shortr, rugpulls and other scams are one of the biggest use cases so getting crypto stolen seems common. You might be able to verify that crypto was revceved but as with any trustless paymet solutions the issue is that getting the item you ordered is the part where trust is needed the most. Good luck asking back money when you get an empty box.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're right about ordering goods and not having a recourse if they're not delivered. Of course in the case of supporting an organization that will be less of a consideration.

In the case of needing to know an address it's much different to give out an arbitrary string of numbers as an address than information which represents your physical location.

No disagreement that there are myriad examples of problematic uses for crypto. My first comment was in response to the question about what are valid use cases. It seems clear there are some, even if it's not as universal as some true believers claim.

[–] Wilshire@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 months ago

It will also get there faster.