That's not true. Most money laundering is in USD and then stablecoins (USDT, etc). NFTs are a thing of the past and the big majority was not on bitcoin anyway. So no, bitcoin is not a major player.
If you would completely eradicate bitcoin (which is not possible), you would solve (I'm guesstimating) 0.3% of money laundering.
I like DOSBox pure, because that allows you to put the full games into a single zip file and so you then essentially have the equivalent of per-game file on consoles.
I want to do that. Last week there was an article from a person that vibed their whole system in assembly and it was super fast and it did exactly what the person wanted and nothing else. That was eye opening.
This will probably finally push me to migrate away from Bitwarden. Somehow over the years the UI was getting worse and worse too. It's more steps to add custom hidden fields than it used to, etc.
It's also couple percent cheaper to send money internationally using bitcoin as the "rails" when compared to e.g. Wise. Even for sending money from classical bank in one country to a classical bank in another country. On bigger amounts you can save quite a lot of money.
I think it depends if you pay them money. If you do, then you should indeed have strong expectations towards them and hold them accountable. If they provide a free service to you, then it's still reasonable to feel upset, but at the same time you get what you pay for.
Does this logic still applies if the company is getting other benefits from having me as a user? (Genuine question, I can see arguments for both sides)
For example, if I am using the free tier of a service and "paying" by seeing ads, should I have similar expectations?
I'm not saying that's how users pay for github - in that case it's more subtle, for example by giving up control of some of their stack and bolstering github already near monopolistic network effect.
reply