This is a logical fallacy when applied to BCH since it assumes that a state is some how forced to use a crypto that is hostile to it's financing of covert illegal actions.
It also has never been the case historically since state corruption predates the existence of bitcoin and does not require it. Look up the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) as an example.
So anonymity in a crypto currency provides possibly the only option for remittance to individuals without the resources a state or criminal organization have.
So anyone attempting to make this argument is naive or just outright attempting to deceive you into abandoning privacy features for crypto systems.
[link] [comments]
from Bitcoin - The Internet of Money https://ift.tt/3erUBwg
No comments:
Post a Comment
We have received your message and would like to thank you for writing to us, we will reply by email as soon as possible.
Talk to you soon,
[Pakcoin Worker]
[Pakcoin Global]