With all due respect, you don’t understand what you are talking about. In a sense, your arguments (and their complete disconnect from reality) just proves that monero is not a viable use case for value exchange in authoritarian countries (or even democratic countries).
Your monero for drugs for local cash idea is idiotic and that’s not how any of this works. Have you ever given an “under-the-table” payment for utilities? Of course not! You are just making shit up, I can’t put this in a more diplomatic manner.
Because of what I mentioned, I won’t go into an in-depth discussion around how you would be tracked (I trust you have sufficient common sense to think this through).
That being said I will point out two things:
I never challenged the technical merits of monero (vis a vis cash, bitcoin or drugs).
The world does not exist on the blockchain, you don’t have to break the monero protocol to enable tracking. That’s arguably the most inefficient way possible of getting what you need.
That’s some pretty big (rude) talk for someone who isn’t willing to back their opinions with any sort of argument. Saying things like “Your idea is idiotic”, “You don’t understand what you’re talking about”, “You are just making shit up” but then proceeding to say “Because of what I mentioned, I won’t go into an in-depth discussion around how you would be tracked” is a pretty cowardly stance in my opinion. “I will discredit your arguments with ridicule and no counter points”.
I for one do see the value in privacy protecting crypto currencies. I concede that they are not a viable option for utilitarian and common practices since the use of crypto is not common and does require specific know-how. However, they do have their usecases. Whistleblowers, for example. Regarding the second point you made: I guess you are implying the main vulnerability is the humans involved in the transaction. If that is the case, the responsibility on handling the transactions anonymously falls onto the interested party i.e. the one who is interested in keeping the transaction anonymous will also need to devise a scenario that is compatible with anonymity.
On the other hand, if anonymity isn’t imperative and the users just want a more privacy friendly solution to payment transactions, I think it also makes sense. You can prefer the banks not monitoring everything you do but also not need to live in anonymity and accept the fact that, if interested, the governing entities will most likely have the means to track down your transactions. But that is most likely only going to affect criminals, not privacy conscious citizens.
With all due respect, you don’t understand what you are talking about. In a sense, your arguments (and their complete disconnect from reality) just proves that monero is not a viable use case for value exchange in authoritarian countries (or even democratic countries).
Your monero for drugs for local cash idea is idiotic and that’s not how any of this works. Have you ever given an “under-the-table” payment for utilities? Of course not! You are just making shit up, I can’t put this in a more diplomatic manner.
Because of what I mentioned, I won’t go into an in-depth discussion around how you would be tracked (I trust you have sufficient common sense to think this through).
That being said I will point out two things:
Make of this what you will.
That’s some pretty big (rude) talk for someone who isn’t willing to back their opinions with any sort of argument. Saying things like “Your idea is idiotic”, “You don’t understand what you’re talking about”, “You are just making shit up” but then proceeding to say “Because of what I mentioned, I won’t go into an in-depth discussion around how you would be tracked” is a pretty cowardly stance in my opinion. “I will discredit your arguments with ridicule and no counter points”.
I for one do see the value in privacy protecting crypto currencies. I concede that they are not a viable option for utilitarian and common practices since the use of crypto is not common and does require specific know-how. However, they do have their usecases. Whistleblowers, for example. Regarding the second point you made: I guess you are implying the main vulnerability is the humans involved in the transaction. If that is the case, the responsibility on handling the transactions anonymously falls onto the interested party i.e. the one who is interested in keeping the transaction anonymous will also need to devise a scenario that is compatible with anonymity.
On the other hand, if anonymity isn’t imperative and the users just want a more privacy friendly solution to payment transactions, I think it also makes sense. You can prefer the banks not monitoring everything you do but also not need to live in anonymity and accept the fact that, if interested, the governing entities will most likely have the means to track down your transactions. But that is most likely only going to affect criminals, not privacy conscious citizens.