- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,634 (0.50/day)
System Name | TheReactor / HTPC |
---|---|
Processor | AMD 7800x3d 5050Mhz / Intel 10700kf (5.1ghz All Core) |
Motherboard | ASrock x670e Taichi / ROG Strix z490-e gaming |
Cooling | HeatKiller VI CPU/GPU Block -2xBlackIce GTX 360 Radiators - Swiftech MCP655 Pump |
Memory | 32GB G.Skill 6000Mhz DDR5 / 32GB G.Skill 3400Mhz DDR4 |
Video Card(s) | Nvidia 3090ti / Nvidia 2080ti |
Storage | Crucial T700 2TB Gen 5 / Samsung Evo 2Tb |
Display(s) | Acer Predator xb271hu - 2560x1440 @144hz |
Case | Corsiar 550 |
Audio Device(s) | on board |
Power Supply | Antec Quattro 1000W |
Mouse | Logitech G502 |
Keyboard | Corsair Gaming k70 |
Software | Windows 10 Pro 64bit |
Power brokers don't "hate crypto," they simply acknowledge the fact it has no value except whatever is given to it through speculation.
Which begs the question no one answers: when cash is created based on a cryptocurrency, what function enforces its off-the-grid status?
That's no different than the account number and routing number the banking system already uses.
The problem stems from the anonymity of all the members in the ledger. Every investigation would require figuring out who owns every wallet the individual did transactions with. That's a monumental task and would inevitably lead to law enforcement possessing databases of wallet affiliations. This leads to the same 4th amendment challenges that gun registries run into. At the end of the day, Bitcoin's scheme protects criminals and makes for a poor tool to bring them to justice.
How can it protect criminals yet not offer the privacy to the consumer?