First, by writing “just one person’s cash”, it is automatic to infer you consider this representative. I assert that it is not, and furthermore that if it were even close then the criminal economy would vastly exceed the non-criminal one.
Second, look at the date on that and tell me, with a straight face, that they didn’t use any cryptocurrencies. If they really did have $22bn, perhaps even if they only had $22m, I expected they used a dozen forms of currency they couldn’t even name.
I am not saying “worse”, I am saying “superset”. On the basis that all crimes that can occur with cash have an equivalent that can happen with cryptocurrencies but not vice versa — you cannot force someon else’s computer to forge coins for you, and high-value transactions have rules against cash in places that don’t have rules against cryptocurrencies.
I do not understand how you consider you response to be relevant, however.
It’s just occurred to me I have been ambiguous. I am talking about sets and classes, but you are responding as if I meant individual crimes (for which the 300,000 transactions per day limit provides a plausible upper ceiling, iff they only used bitcoin).
Let me rephrase: how many categories of crime occurred on Silk Road et al, and how many are not — based on current law enforcement — plausible to get away with when involving cash?
Do you seriously compare the total amounts of something HUGE and something tiny? The size of the cash universe still is orders of magnitude larger than Silkroad ever was - and you compare the totals? Seriously?
No I am comparing the utility of cash with the utility of crypto.
The claim was made that crypto is bad because it can be used for crime to which i responded like cash.
You claimed it's not at all like cash but you haven't actually provided any argument for how it's not. Instead you have looked at a few obvious differences which doesn't take anything away from the original claim that cash and crypto can be used for the same things and in fact are being used for the same thing.
