pull down to refresh
175 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 28 Mar
This is dark.
This means that, using the same arguments, one could attack Bitcoin itself. Just remove the privacy part and replace it with pseudonymus and think of Bitcoin as the way it was intended (no custodial intermediaries), it will be permissionless and it will be used by criminals. Anyone building tools to facilitate this process, such as Phoenix, could be prosecuted, no?
At least, that's what I get from it based on my limited understanding.
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 28 Mar
I don't think it has gone quite that far, but it is a pretty bad trend. Not good for privacy tools or tech.
reply
45 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 28 Mar
Well, seems I'm not the only one making this reasoning.
It hasn't gone that far, indeed, but that's what Sjors is highlighting... depending on the outcome of the trial, this could serve as a really bad precedent.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Muuny 28 Mar
you guys are so scared of your own shadow, laws are only as good as enforcement.
reply
59 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 28 Mar
Either way, you might be jailed. Hopefully the court understands the dillemaa. If it doesn't, other places would also come with their own attacks.
reply