News Dominant Crypto Platforms Reluctant to Ban Russian Users

[watzupken]

I don’t know man. Isn’t this openness what crypto supporters wanted in the first place? There is secret that sanction countries/ people, criminals, super rich are using crypto to do all sorts of ”funny things” under the RADAR. Yet, supporters of cryptocurrencies accepted it. This also applies to countries that accepted cryptocurrencies, officially or unofficially. So now they want to limit cryptocurrencies now and crying foul because the exchanges are not playing ball? You reap what you sow. This fact never change.

 

[watzupken]

Crypto platforms who still want to deal with people guilty in causing war at middle of Europe in 21th century, are dealing with blood money. If they still want to deal with these people, they must be banned and closed. The owners and other guilty staff of these platforms must be tried for supporting war criminals and nuclear terrorists.

I see, pro-Kremlin trolls and useful id**ts already arrived. Comrade Endymio ticked both boxes. Admin - close answering to this thread.

Whether its cryptocurrency or fiat money, there is ”blood” on them regardless. I hope you are not that naive to think that cryptocurrencies have only been used by the “good“ people. Criminals and terrorists have likely been using it since its inception since the currency itself is largely unregulated and harder to trace.

 

[Colif]

Crypto was set up specifically to be decentralised so trying to control it, is essentially working against how it was designed to operate.

 

[digitalgriffin]

We're talking about billionaires. It doesn't matter what we do, they aren't going to be worrying about covering their electric bill or the price of gas as long as they live.

Actually it does. While material possessions will retain value, raw money and stocks are hit hard. Russia's markets are crashing so hard they froze the markets and there's a run on the banks as people pull rubles amid massive inflation. If you say that doesn't affect billionaires, you would be wrong. A bank collapse hurts everyone. A market collapse hurts everyone.

 

[digitalgriffin]

The government to which you refer was Poroshenko's government -- which overthrew the previously elected president (Yanukovich) in the 2014 military coup. Poroshenko immediately placed bans on speaking the Russian language, banned ethnic Russians from serving in many government positions, and began engaging in reprisals against ethnic Russians in the East, acts which earned him the title of the "Butcher of Donbas". That was the actual impetus for the civil war that's wracked the "peaceful" nation of Ukraine for the last eight years. Poroshenko is currently rotting in a Ukrainian prison now, and Zelensky is far more moderate -- but once a fire is lit, it's difficult to put out ... especially when you have organizations like Ukraine's neo-Nazi "Azov Brigade" (sanctioned by the US Congress in 2015 for their acts of violence against ethnic Russians) roaming the East. Russia is supporting the separatists in Donbas -- but the US has funded, supported, and even enforced separatist movements in nations from Kosovo to East Timor -- the US support for the separation of South Sudan from Sudan alone caused the largest humanitarian crisis in modern-day Africa. Do the people of Donbas have the right to self-determination no less than anyone else in the world?

Yanukovich was a Russian puppet. Poroshenko was a western puppet. And Russia today is authoritarian, but not communist -- their economy is far more free-market than most of Western Europe.

NATO was organized to fight Russia -- and it gave assurances in the early 1990s that it would never expand eastward. When NATO stated its mission had changed to "stabilizing Europe" and broke those promises with eastward expansion, Russia itself attempted to join the organization. NATO said no to Russia -- but yes to Russia's immediate neighbors, all of whom hate Russia and may very well be willing to manufacture a casus belli in response.

But all the above is moot. Russia will not allow NATO bases in Ukraine, and it's willing to fight a major war -- potentially a nuclear war -- to prevent it. Given that, it would have been far better for all parties involved to acknowledge that reality. Russian troops spent 11 months on the Ukrainian border while Putin attempted to extract a commitment from NATO. The current US administration repeatedly stated emphatically that any such statement was "off the table". In retrospect, it was a severe policy failure.

While we see history from two sides there are several things to remember:

Ukrainians overwhelmingly chose to be independent of Russia. Just about all Eastern block countries if the Warsaw pact made the same decision. That should tell you something.

Putin is jailing protestors and blocking the news. The vast majority of the world is against him. And it's not like Putin would kill opposition right? Oh wait...

But let's say you are right...that maybe Ukraine is part of Russia and that all the oil and gas and lands belong to them. And somehow Russia needed to be protected from some unknown threat and needed Ukraine as a buffer. (Not like a boomer couldn't nuke DC in 5 minutes...oh wait.) Not like someone could smuggle a briefcase nuke into Moscow...oh wait....

So will it stop there? What's next Poland? "If NATO defends Poland I'll use nukes.". Putin has been salami slicing lands for years. Give a mouse a cookie....Putin's demands and past actions proves he will not stop unless the free people of the world tell him "No"

Here's the problem with nukes, NOBODY wins. The second you threaten to use them you are officially a mad man. Not only NATO, USA, and Russia die in a nuclear winter, but so does China, Australia, south america, penguins, deer, eagles, snakes, bears, horses, fish. EVERYTHING dies. If you are threatening to kill every thing because you lose a war that you started, then you are nuts and should be removed. And if we allow such nut jobs to be our leaders then maybe we are all better off dead.

Again nobody cares about Russia. Why would anybody want to force anything in Russia? The only time we care is when they threaten to destabilize the world. They can have their land. We would have welcomed them as friends and traded openly with them. We started to, with not just energy, but also tech. All that is down the tubes now. It could be decades before that returns to normal provided this crisis winds down. We don't hate Russians, we hate senseless violence. In fact one of my best friends at work is Russian and I respect her and love her to death.

It seems months ago, Russia had already made up its mind to invade. The government was preparing for a black swan event (when their market crashes). It's almost like they knew there would be serious consequences ahead of time and they didn't care.

 

[spongiemaster]

Actually it does. While material possessions will retain value, raw money and stocks are hit hard. Russia's markets are crashing so hard they froze the markets and there's a run on the banks as people pull rubles amid massive inflation. If you say that doesn't affect billionaires, you would be wrong. A bank collapse hurts everyone. A market collapse hurts everyone.

If the Russian economy collapses, it's the general public that will suffer the most. If you're worth $10 billion, and you lose 90% of your net worth, you're still worth a billion dollars. Losing $9 billion sucks, but the only thing really hurt is your ego. You're still going to be able to afford extra cheese on your Whopper.

 

[-Fran-]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE


Regards.

 

[Endymio]

Ukrainians overwhelmingly chose to be independent of Russia. ...But let's say you are right...that maybe Ukraine is part of Russia and that all the oil and gas and lands belong to them.

The Ukrainians in the western two thirds of the nation, yes. The Ukrainians in the East have been fighting a civil war for most of the past decade to rejoin Russia. A civil war, by the way, that has killed over 14,000 people -- the majority of them civilians.

Russia isn't looking for Ukraine's "oil and gas" -- of which it has very little, compared to Russia. Russia put those troops on the Ukrainian border last April, then began demanding assurances that NATO wouldn't expand into the country. The US stated that option is "off the table". So Russia invaded -- just like it did Georgia in 2008, two months after that nation declared its intent to join NATO, and just like it took Crimea in 2014, one month after Ukraine had a military coup, which installed a new government that immediately announced a desire for a NATO base in Crimea. I also note that Russia has held two rounds of peace talks with Ukraine -- their primary demand to stop the war being just this assurance. So far, Zelenski refuses to give ground.

But this is irrelevant in the sphere of pragmatic geopolitique. Russia is willing to fight a war --even a nuclear war -- to keep NATO out of Ukraine. Are you willing to fight a nuclear war to have them join?

And somehow Russia needed to be protected from some unknown threat and needed Ukraine as a buffer.

Russia sees NATO as a threat. Is it? When the US attempted -- and failed -- to win UN support for an attack on Serbia in 1999, it instead used NATO for that end. The ostensible reason? To stop Serb attacks on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo -- the identical reason Russia gives for invading Ukraine, to stop the attacks on ethnic Russians in Donbas. NATO's official policy up to the 1990s was something they usually referred to as the "Anaconda" .... ring Russia with NATO bases, to marginalize and limit its options. NATO says that policy is defunct ... yet NATO broke its promise to not expand into Poland and the Baltics, and is still trying to ring Russia with NATO members.

Again nobody cares about Russia ... We would have welcomed them as friends and traded openly with them.

Odd. When NATO stated its mission was no longer to defeat Russia, but to "stabilize Europe", Russia asked to join the organization. NATO refused -- yet admits nations bordering Russia, nations which have a long-standing hatred for Russia and would openly rejoice to see it defeated. Would one of those nations manufacture a casus belli to entangle NATO into direct conflict with Russia? Much, much less improbable events have occurred in world history.

 

[Endymio]

If the Russian economy collapses, it's the general public that will suffer the most. If you're worth $10 billion, and you lose 90% of your net worth, you're still worth a billion dollars.

What @digitalgriffin fails to understand is that many of these oligarchs will actually benefit from a collapsing ruble. The majority of their assets are in hard currency outside the nation. If the ruble loses 90% of its value, those assets can be exchanged back into ten times as many rubles, allowing them to snap up Russian real estate and other assets at fire sale prices. They may lose a few yachts and planes-- but that's a trifle compared to their well-hidden primary accounts.

 

[Krotow]

@Endymio , you are reported.

 

[USAFRet]

People...

This is a tech site, not a political discussion site.
You may all have different thoughts and beliefs, but personally, I don't care who lights your wick.

Go elsewhere to have this discussion.

 

[david germain]

The government to which you refer was Poroshenko's government -- which overthrew the previously elected president (Yanukovich) in the 2014 military coup. Poroshenko immediately placed bans on speaking the Russian language, banned ethnic Russians from serving in many government positions, and began engaging in reprisals against ethnic Russians in the East, acts which earned him the title of the "Butcher of Donbas". That was the actual impetus for the civil war that's wracked the "peaceful" nation of Ukraine for the last eight years. Poroshenko is currently rotting in a Ukrainian prison now, and Zelensky is far more moderate -- but once a fire is lit, it's difficult to put out ... especially when you have organizations like Ukraine's neo-Nazi "Azov Brigade" (sanctioned by the US Congress in 2015 for their acts of violence against ethnic Russians) roaming the East. Russia is supporting the separatists in Donbas -- but the US has funded, supported, and even enforced separatist movements in nations from Kosovo to East Timor -- the US support for the separation of South Sudan from Sudan alone caused the largest humanitarian crisis in modern-day Africa. Do the people of Donbas have the right to self-determination no less than anyone else in the world?

Yanukovich was a Russian puppet. Poroshenko was a western puppet. And Russia today is authoritarian, but not communist -- their economy is far more free-market than most of Western Europe.

NATO was organized to fight Russia -- and it gave assurances in the early 1990s that it would never expand eastward. When NATO stated its mission had changed to "stabilizing Europe" and broke those promises with eastward expansion, Russia itself attempted to join the organization. NATO said no to Russia -- but yes to Russia's immediate neighbors, all of whom hate Russia and may very well be willing to manufacture a casus belli in response.

But all the above is moot. Russia will not allow NATO bases in Ukraine, and it's willing to fight a major war -- potentially a nuclear war -- to prevent it. Given that, it would have been far better for all parties involved to acknowledge that reality. Russian troops spent 11 months on the Ukrainian border while Putin attempted to extract a commitment from NATO. The current US administration repeatedly stated emphatically that any such statement was "off the table". In retrospect, it was a severe policy failure.

finally some sense, this is a rare island of real. many upvotes to you sir.

 

[digitalgriffin]

In related news: (I called it)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/white-house-review-cryptocurrencies

 

[digitalgriffin]

And there it is:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/bitcoin-price-3-9-2022

There has been concern about Russia's use of cryptocurrencies to get around Western sanctions that have cut Russia off from large portions of the global economy.

Said it once, I'll say it again, "governments loathe what they can't control."

Before anyone judges me I get my mainstream news sources from six different sites. Some are liberal and others conservative. Helps me cut through the fud and spin.

 

[InvalidError]

Said it once, I'll say it again, "governments loathe what they can't control."

And the inability to enforce sanctions on rogue despots leveraging crypto to evade them is a very legitimate reason to want some degree of control. I'm really curious to see how far off the mark the US congress' crypto report is going to be.

 

[-Fran-]

Why is people shocked an economic blockade is also involving Crypto?

I think people needs some basic economy classes here and learn how currencies work around the globe. I had a more comprehensive idea in mind to write, but I'm too lazy this time of the day, lol. TL;DR: it is not surprising and whatever you want to use as "money" needs to have legal institutions backing, per country, and support to be used and no matter what prompted the cryptos to exist, that fact will not change. This is the same with Banks and how every single business on Earth operates. Cryptos don't really attack that angle, so...

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

Cryptos don't really attack that angle, so...

It does to a limited extent: most block chains were designed so peer-to-peer transactions require nothing more than the two wallet IDs with the payer signing the transaction with its private key before it gets sent on the block chain. Governments have absolutely zero control over that. The next best thing they can do is tighten controls over commercial transactions so companies, banks, exchanges, etc. have to enforce the rules that aren't feasible to enforce at the peer-to-peer level.

Quite similar to how governments have little to no visibility into how people use physical cash between the time a bank note leaves the bank and some other person deposits it back, except you don't have to physically carry thousands of dollars in your wallet.

 

[-Fran-]

It does to a limited extent: most block chains were designed so peer-to-peer transactions require nothing more than the two wallet IDs with the payer signing the transaction with its private key before it gets sent on the block chain. Governments have absolutely zero control over that. The next best thing they can do is tighten controls over commercial transactions so companies, banks, exchanges, etc. have to enforce the rules that aren't feasible to enforce at the peer-to-peer level.

Quite similar to how governments have little to no visibility into how people use physical cash between the time a bank note leaves the bank and some other person deposits it back, except you don't have to physically carry thousands of dollars in your wallet.

They do, to a certain extent. Where are you going to host the validation side? If a Govt wants to take control over the transactions, they absolutely can.

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

They do, to a certain extent. Where are you going to host the validation side? If a Govt wants to take control over the transactions, they absolutely can.

On PoW block chains, anyone can issue a transaction to the block chain and validation is done by block miners. No government control is possible there unless governments decide to take control of 51+% of crypto mining capacity. For proof-of-stake crypto, anyone can issue a transaction and validation is done by the stakers, no government control there either unless governments own most of the staked crypto.

 

[jacob249358]

why do people go nuts and try to debunk and explain what holds the world together when politics come up? Like seriously I think we can all agree that Zullensky is awesome and Putin should be stopped. Why argue about what happens to Russian billionaires? They will always be rich no matter what. Stop going ham and gather some sense.

 

[-Fran-]

On PoW block chains, anyone can issue a transaction to the block chain and validation is done by block miners. No government control is possible there unless governments decide to take control of 51+% of crypto mining capacity. For proof-of-stake crypto, anyone can issue a transaction and validation is done by the stakers, no government control there either unless governments own most of the staked crypto.

ISPs can block whatever type of request they want. They just need a good reason. It is done here in the UK at least; remember the "pron ban"?

You can mask requests, but as it is a decentralized system, you would need to coordinate the big mass of people. That's why they can also track online file sharing systems which work encrypted and so on.

Like it or not, the Internet is not anonymous and there's absolutely nothing going over it that cannot be tracked and identified.

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

ISPs can block whatever type of request they want.

China has been trying that for years and still hasn't succeeded at preventing its people from accessing external news sources and services. If you are globally connected, there are ways to get around just about any government controls. Even if China physically cut off all internet connectivity outside China, people would still be able to connect outside via satellite networks if they really wanted to and can spare the money.

 

[-Fran-]

China has been trying that for years and still hasn't succeeded at preventing its people from accessing external news sources and services. If you are globally connected, there are ways to get around just about any government controls. Even if China physically cut off all internet connectivity outside China, people would still be able to connect outside via satellite networks if they really wanted to and can spare the money.

Correct, but then it becomes a matter of "is it worth the effort?". Looking for ways to escape censorship/blocks, I'd be willing to say, are a different type of beast compared to trying to validate a crypto-transaction to, say, buy a meal. Practicality and availability are important for this context.

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

Correct, but then it becomes a matter of "is it worth the effort?". Looking for ways to escape censorship/blocks, I'd be willing to say, are a different type of beast compared to trying to validate a crypto-transaction to, say, buy a meal. Practicality and availability are important for this context.

As far as crypto evading any attempts at government controls, most techniques that can be used to evade geo-blocking, IP bans, traffic filtering, etc. for web traffic can be used for crypto too and if you live in a country where having to use proxies, VPNs and other mechanisms to bypass government censorship for online services, you are already setup to use the same for crypto.

 

[-Fran-]

As far as crypto evading any attempts at government controls, most techniques that can be used to evade geo-blocking, IP bans, traffic filtering, etc. for web traffic can be used for crypto too and if you live in a country where having to use proxies, VPNs and other mechanisms to bypass government censorship for online services, you are already setup to use the same for crypto.

I've put the main point in bold letters. I mean, that's exactly the point here: Govts can just deny you access to those in order to ban crypto and other "shady" stuff at their own discretion. If even 10 countries do it out of the ~130 there are, it means you just can't use crypto in those and there's nothing you can do, no matter what the crypto-bros want you to think.

Regards.