"it would be fairly trivial for the United States government to thus acquire a quite complete inventory of all of the blockchain assets of anyone using MetaMask"
It would be for anyone: it's fairly trivial for any individual to spin up an Ethereum node and establish which wallet owns what at any given time, considering all of that information is public anyway. What Metamask does not have, is the ability to match wallet addresses with people, which in the end is the whole point.
But wouldn't it be fairly trivial for the State to make crypto exchanges illegal and just forbid banks to work with them? You would still have the Ethereum network, but exchanging eth for $ would be illegal and a couple orders of magnitude more difficult (from mundane operation to mafia-level money laundry operation). Given that almost every commercial establishment in the world still operates on meatspace currency (and it would be trivial for the State to make illegal to operate with any other currency), would it really be important to still have an Ethereum network if it can't be used by ordinary people in practice?
Yes, but if you want to get money, you need to announce your address somehow and the government can forbid dealing with addresses that haven't announced themselves.
So, you can try to have an btc address, but you cannot announce it publically, nobody will be able to deal with you, and you won't be able to getthe money out. This will default to imperson dealings and understanding of trust just like before the blockchain.
Right, but that has nothing to do with Metamask. Second, I think at some point the question of "getting the money" out isn't right one. If you are a proponent of crypto and decentralized finance, it isn't necessarily to spend it in "meatspace" or convert it in fiat.
If the coins are not a legal tender, having them will mean nothing. In order to enjoy them, you will have to sell them. People won't be able to sell you goods and services, because of the tax man, so you'll be able to get for them only stuff that is as unfungible as the coins themselves from people who will be able to use them for other such items. This is much worse market to be in compared to the rather liquid and accepted currencies.
Many cryptocurrency enthusiasts agree that the technology will not disrupt nation states. But that does not mean they won't move the needle in the balance of power.
If cryptocurrency can provide citizens with more financial empowerment and privacy, then it can accomplish something meaningful in society without having to completely disrupt government control.
HN's favorite historian discusses blockchain and NFTs in relation to state power.
Best line for my money:
> "In this sense, any cryptocurrency faces the same problem all non-governmental actors face: the larger you become and the more you appear to threaten the state, the more the state becomes hostile"
8 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 29.2 ms ] threadAs it is a very interesting and relevant article for hacker news but it's title is unconnected to the content and there's no other source to link to.
So, you can try to have an btc address, but you cannot announce it publically, nobody will be able to deal with you, and you won't be able to getthe money out. This will default to imperson dealings and understanding of trust just like before the blockchain.
If cryptocurrency can provide citizens with more financial empowerment and privacy, then it can accomplish something meaningful in society without having to completely disrupt government control.
Best line for my money:
> "In this sense, any cryptocurrency faces the same problem all non-governmental actors face: the larger you become and the more you appear to threaten the state, the more the state becomes hostile"