Does Bitcoin weaken the Wests ability to fight enemies of freedom?

[Cookdata]

..........

Allow me to explain what happened when the Naira's design was introduced in my country and what I learned about the deadline people were given to return the old money in circulation. People found themselves without the cash they were used to, and this is the freedom the government can take away at any time. The same thing happened in Russia and other western countries that didn't want any organization controlling their funding, which is why they turned to Bitcoin: it can't be controlled.

However, given how vehemently Russia has been attacking Ukraine, if the government, organization, and other countries want to follow that bitcoin with reliable analytical tools, they can do so because no respectable mixers will want to be associated with Russia once they learn about the massacre they have committed against innocent people in other countries but  Bitcoin will continue to operate as it does, and society must respect its inherent qualities.

[beerlover]

Given we are now moving back to the war portion of the war-peace geopolitical cycle, using the dollar and the traditional monetary network to sanction enemies is going to become more important. Does Bitcoin weaken the West's position? It's obvious to most people that the West has a growing number of enemies whose values are antithetical to freedom - mainly Russia, China and Iran. Therefore the problem Im outlining is going to become more into focus.

What's a good argument here, beyond "well the dollar-based sanctions weren't very effective anyway"?

Unfortunately there will always be some people who will try to white knight for governments and that's funny. First of all, lets face the reality that there are some organizations in the world who are actually enemies of the freedom, and also lets face that west is not that much in love with freedom neither.

Look at USA right now, they reversed abortion law, meaning you can't get abortion even if you wanted to in some states, is that the freedom you are talking about? Does it really sound like a freedom given to people? Some states allow weed and some don't, is that the freedom you are talking about? Just because some things are illegal in your own belief system, doesn't mean you have the right to stop others, and that's why west is as dictator as anywhere else.

[pooya87]

the funny parts are whilst the west are saying "hate the middle east, hate russia, hate china" we are now seeing how reliant the west is/was on the east. due to all the effects the east has had on the west

It is partially because of lack of resources in the West compared to the East and partially because the "West" is built based on colonization, and without colonizing it all falls apart. If you look at what each country did over the past year, you can see they haven't given up colonizing either. For instance France over the past year has been trying to rob other countries like those in Northern Africa and Yemen to get gas for themselves. They even fund/support the invasion of Yemen (while blaming Russia for invading another country)!

[kryptqnick]

When the full-scale war started, I've seen people in the Ukrainian human rights movement that wanted to suggest boycotting Bitcoin because it can be used by Russia to avoid sanctions. I successfully argued against it, saying that Bitcoin itself is a neutral technology that can't be blamed for how it's misused, can't be effectively banned and is also endorsed by both Ukrainian society and Ukrainian government. Even in the crypto area, there were cases of crypto exchanges following the international sanctions and thus restricting relevant Russian accounts from using the funds. And without big exchanges, it's hard to move a lot of funds around, especially if you have fiat and need to exchange it for Bitcon and then vice versa. I don't think Bitcoin should be a part of the conversation about undermining the Western impact on the enemies of freedom, and in the end I don't think Bitcoin played a major role helping Russia stay afloat and finance the war in practice.
As for arguments in support of Bitcoin, I'd emphasize the impracticability of trying to restrict its usage because it's decentralized and Russia can find ways anyway, and that Bitcoin also became a medium that brought lots of support to Ukraine in the form of donations (major funds, including "Come Back Alive" and the presidential "United24" accept cryptos, and there've been major news articles on how much money was gathered by Ukraine via crypto donations).

[zander1983]

When the full-scale war started, I've seen people in the Ukrainian human rights movement that wanted to suggest boycotting Bitcoin because it can be used by Russia to avoid sanctions. I successfully argued against it, saying that Bitcoin itself is a neutral technology that can't be blamed for how it's misused, can't be effectively banned and is also endorsed by both Ukrainian society and Ukrainian government. Even in the crypto area, there were cases of crypto exchanges following the international sanctions and thus restricting relevant Russian accounts from using the funds. And without big exchanges, it's hard to move a lot of funds around, especially if you have fiat and need to exchange it for Bitcon and then vice versa. I don't think Bitcoin should be a part of the conversation about undermining the Western impact on the enemies of freedom, and in the end I don't think Bitcoin played a major role helping Russia stay afloat and finance the war in practice.
As for arguments in support of Bitcoin, I'd emphasize the impracticability of trying to restrict its usage because it's decentralized and Russia can find ways anyway, and that Bitcoin also became a medium that brought lots of support to Ukraine in the form of donations (major funds, including "Come Back Alive" and the presidential "United24" accept cryptos, and there've been major news articles on how much money was gathered by Ukraine via crypto donations).

Good answer, and interesting about crypto exchanges following international sanctions.