When you spend it and at the connection to tangible assets which just means a shift in the weighting of how taxes are collected. Taxation is a deep and ancient art and crypto currency doesn’t create that much of a redlight zone. Also crypto tech doesn’t just reduce the capacity for reporting it also increases it in some ways with with indelible ledgers and much stronger anonymity.
This might be true of blockchain cryptocurrencies like bitcoin but not of safecoin which doesn’t have a blockchain, ie indelible ledgers. And while SAFE might grant people anon communication it won’t stop them from making logical deductions: If you tell only a select few you’re are, how or where you are skimmming taxes OR the difference thereof or some such thing, or pretty much anything else you want to remain restricted information, and that info gets leaked then there’s a limit of the number of people that could have leaked it. It doesn’t matter if they have anon communication because there’s only so many who could have known. Therefore keeping informaion secret rather than just anonymous becomes important.
I was reading the other day that BitTorrent downloads had fallen by a third over the year and video on demand services had increased to take the lions share of bandwidth.
This tells us two things, IMO. Firstly, people want to download videos and secondly, they are prepared to pay a reasonable price for it.
There is little to stop people watching a rip, but the convenience and quality of a pay to view service seems to be winning out.
Absolutely. It is standard economic theory in action - remove barriers to entry and people will trade their goods/services readily.
Nice. And that’s not even with micro payments which to me makes more sense. The less it cost the more who will be willing to pay it evens out for the creator or perhaps the distributor ick
@Blindsite2k not really because you’re still stuck with at least 50/50 odds on who made corruption more transparent. Also its organizational secrecy that is more the concern, and more billionaires or trillionaires that are at issue. It restructing the greater abuse of money as power.
1 Like
Would you mind elaborating on what you mean (in a clear and consise manner)?
Also what do you mean by this?
Its not private family dealing at issue, but back room dealing and the ordinary mining of the public interest with conspiracy and situational ethics.
And in the process of organizational secrecy it is not a serial chain or some launch code situation. No it trusting people plural, two or more. So when the murderous rage and retribution come its blunted into the possibility of injury to an innocent party. As more minds are involved even long after the fact where the reporting party is working on nothing but induction- well the trail of retribution gets lost. But even the reporting of culled hunchs is enough to start a fire in minds and hence the disuasive effect.
Then isn’t this more reason to replace so called “political parties” with trustless decentralized DOAs that have clearly defined objectives and parameters? If you want to do something privately behind closed doors that’s fine but you can’t really do both as holding office will become an obsolete term. If you want to distribute funds publically one would use a DAO and not require trust from the public to do so. There would be no public offices to be held. If you are saying that those trusted with power are inherently corruptable then simply replace positions of power with DAOs that do not require trust and cannot be corrupted.