анонимный вопрос

I don’t quite understand why we are talking about a statist-hoplophobe, and not a statist-guitarist, for example, if the subject is the control over cryptocurrency circulation.

By design, most cryptocurrencies do not require the participation of a trusted intermediary, let alone one necessarily authorized by the state. So, avoiding state regulation of cryptocurrency circulation is very simple, and banning it is pointless. The only thing the state can regulate more or less effectively is the conversion of crypto into fiat, meanwhile, money earned in cryptocurrency still has to be spent primarily in national fiat currencies.

So, a state wishing to regulate cryptocurrency circulation can act like the United States, which pressures crypto exchanges on its territory and demands they snitch on their clients, while crypto exchanges in the rest of the world have simply told these pushovers to get lost and require confirmation during registration that you are not a US citizen. Thus, it is not so easy for a US citizen to perform uncontrolled exchanges of crypto for fiat in significant amounts.

That is why unfortunate US citizens continue to buy drugs with good old cash dollars, and use cryptocurrency far less widely than they could. What does the need to buy drugs with physical cash mean? The need for personal contact with a pusher, additional security measures for everyone involved in the distribution chain—since they are easy targets for robbery—in short, blood, filth, and endless street clashes. Does the world become safer because crack-dealing gangs are dividing territory?

Compare this situation with peaceful and safe Russia, where the only danger for a “zakladchik” [dead-drop courier] and a drug user is the cops, while the level of street violence related to substance circulation has decreased considerably with the arrival of cryptocurrencies in this industry. Where would violence come from if the producer, the buyer, and the courier are physically separated and do not know each other?

It is completely irrelevant how you personally feel about psychoactive substances, but the fact that this market has switched to crypto has made the lives of ordinary, uninvolved people safer, whereas where the market has not switched, everything has remained as it was. Even this single consideration should be enough to convince a person who is truly concerned about their safety that crypto should not be regulated.

Now, if he—as is common among statists—is convinced that the state should regulate absolutely everything that can be somewhat shoehorned into the market of anything even slightly dangerous, because “control is needed, how can we do without control,” then conversation is useless; only personal experience will change his mind.