Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If it's not the cause, then removing it can't remove the effect.

You’re confusing “root cause” with “causal”. Guns do “cause” murder insofar as they facilitate the act of killing. The same argument can be made for Bitcoin facilitating blackmail.

Whether or not banning either technology is a worthwhile trade off is debatable, but an effectively enforced ban is unambiguously effective.



Facilitating is not causing. These are two different things.

Just about any object can facilitate the act of killing. A car, a bowling ball, a swimming pool. Do these things cause murders too? That's not how causation works.

A car can facilitate going to the store. Does the car cause you to go to the store? Of course not. You go to buy the thing you needed. The car is just a means.


Facilitation is literally a mediator or moderator in an effect. It is not a root cause, but it is part of the causal chain. As such, acting upon it can reduce the effect.

Simply put: an effective crackdown on guns, cars, snowballs, scissors, and Bitcoin can absolutely reduce the associated downsides. The question isn’t “is it effective”. The question is “is it worth it”.


The question is absolutely "is it effective". There's a reason we do root-cause analysis and five-whys exercises. If the source of the problem is not corrected, the problem does not go away.

If your basement is flooding from a burst pipe, maybe you can "reduce the associated downsides" by bailing it out. This doesn't fix the problem though, does it? You're actually prolonging and exacerbating the issue by not turning off the water from the source.

Temporary band-aids that address the symptom rather than the disease are not effective in the long run. They also often come with secondary effects and unintended consequences that create additional problems.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: