This does not make sense.
What you’re saying is that it’s impossible to buy porn/erotica online without monero. This is clearly wrong.
You most definitely could do that before blockchains were a thing.
Comment on Crypto mogul Do Kwon, known as ‘the cryptocurrency king,’ pleads guilty to fraud charges
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 14 hours agoYou would use real currencies for everything except the transfer. The consumer only sees USD. The provider swaps back to Fiat as soon as necessary.
The use case is enabling payment over the Internet while avoiding traditional, censoring providers.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
What you’re saying is that it’s impossible to buy porn/erotica online without monero
I haven’t said anything like that.
I’m saying crypto is an additional, uncensored payment channel.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
And why exactly is it a use case if you can already buy erotica/porn via specialized payment services without monero?
What’s the benefit here? Be clear and specific. Don’t randomly bring terms like “privacy”, “uncensored” and “freedums”.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
It’s called a use case because you can use it.
What’s the benefit here?
An additional vector to avoid censorship.
hark@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Couldn’t those transactions be cut off at those swapping points to fiat? I assume if a bank doesn’t support a business directly transferring funds for a particular purpose then they’d take issue with indirectly transferring funds for the same purpose and would work to close those accounts.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
It can happen. That would involved cutting off access to all crypto for that individual. It’s not common.
Even on the token side there are often blacklist addresses (e.g. USDC) that perform a similar function. Usually for hacks rather than terrorism.