> main usecases of cryptocurrency are to bet on them as a speculative asset or to use them for various forms of crime. Someone will probably tell me about some theoretical situation where it is a positive force
When you don't agree with the laws that are being broken in a particular case.
So if 57% in a country agree with a law, the remaining 43% should be allowed to circumvent that law through these means?
Of course, the opposite argument is "what about north korea", but it's a package deal is my point.
Pretty much, yeah.
If almost half of the population disagree with something then it’s probably a stupid restriction to begin with.
But most laws in democracies pass with just about majority. The president in america was selected with just-about majority. Do you suggest changing elections so that we keep doing them until the vote skews to 100%? 90%? What's the threshold?
I suggest not having laws that 50% of people disagree with, e.g. if 49% of people like raspberry jam then the 51% who like strawberry shouldn’t ban it regardless of whether they are in control.
Basically, generally, live and let live.
What would be the threshold beyond which you would be OK with a ban? Because there would always be some people OK just about every single practice.
That’s kind of my point.
There is a difference between not being interested or disliking something, and wanting it to literally be illegal.
Generally speaking you shouldn't be able to impose your will on others
Sure, but in every democracy most laws pass with such just-about majorities.