151–160 of 189 posts
Can this framework be re-invented, perhaps on the blockchain, to be more efficient (less friction), more comprehensible, and machine checkable?
I think cryptocurrency has reached or has perhaps just passed the peak of inflated expectations on the hype cycle chart and is now decending into the trough of dissolutionment. There are some pretty wild claims out there - it does seem like lots of the rhetoric out there is that cryptocurrency and blockchain technology will solve ALL of the problems. But i think blockchain has a ways to go before we see which problem…
Bitcoin is an open, borderless distributed network with an economic and social system built on top of a data structure called a blockchain. The real innovation has very little to do with the 'blockchain' hype corporations are pushing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are we going after Big Vern when there are more pressing crimes to deeply investigate? This is a silly argument, it's not an either or situation, law enforcement can and should pursue all crimes. By your logic, why go after any financial crimes where there are still unsolved murder cases? Do you see how absurd you're being? > The coins were numbers to me, not dollars. What your feels tell you has no bearing on…
Bitcoin is a commodity of value, but WoW gold is not? Subjectively applying the law. I don't understand how you can't see this. Law enforcement and governments don't have unlimited resources. Frivolous crimes should not be pursued as vigorously as crimes of violence and physical/financial/corporate victimhood. Equifax executives are chilling in their house right now. Big Vern is wanted by the feds for loss of fiction…
They're both commodities. People get away with not reporting WoW gold because the mean holder probably holds less than the mean holder of Bitcoin. As you observe, law enforcement resources are limited. That said, counting on flying under the radar is a horrible tax policy.
(It does not help that there is a (a) history of successful prosecutions surrounding Bitcoin, (b) a vocal group of Bitcoin enthusiasts arguing they aren't subject to tax and (c) a veritable black market around Bitcoin.)
> Equifax executives are chilling in their house right now. Big Vern is wanted by the feds for loss of fictional assets
Due process, my friend. The Equifax executives are being investigated; they have not yet been found guilty or even charged. One might argue they should be. But that's a discussion about what the law should be, not what it is. (That said, the insider trading charges look promising.)
As others have repeatedly mentioned, any delineation between "fictional" and "non-fictional" assets is itself a fiction. Arguing that something shouldn't be prosecuted because it isn't as illegal as murder is ridiculous. Better strategy: understand it's illegal, follow the law and organize to lobby to amend it.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor a certified accountant. This is not tax, accounting, legal or any other sort of advice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are we going after Big Vern when there are more pressing crimes to deeply investigate? This is a silly argument, it's not an either or situation, law enforcement can and should pursue all crimes. By your logic, why go after any financial crimes where there are still unsolved murder cases? Do you see how absurd you're being? > The coins were numbers to me, not dollars. What your feels tell you has no bearing on…
Bitcoin is a commodity of value, but WoW gold is not? Subjectively applying the law. I don't understand how you can't see this. Law enforcement and governments don't have unlimited resources. Frivolous crimes should not be pursued as vigorously as crimes of violence and physical/financial/corporate victimhood. Equifax executives are chilling in their house right now. Big Vern is wanted by the feds for loss of fiction…
You're using the word subjectively incorrectly; the word you seek is selectively.
Bitcoin assets are not fictional, they translate to real dollars, Big Vern stole tens of millions of dollars of other people's assets. You are minimizing this for some reason that you don't make clear.
Equifax didn't commit a crime, having lax security is not illegal, getting hacked is not illegal. They may be been unethical about not disclosing shit soon enough, but there's no obvious crime to charge anyone with, yet; that may change after an investigation. Big Vern however stole people's money, that's a clear crime.
I think that the cryptocurrency/blockchain space is the next big thing in the world on-par with the internet. But it still has a long way to go. In the late 90s you could say "X on the internet" and get tons of investment. Now it's the same but with "X on the blockchain". We are going through growing pains now, and there definitely needs to be some regulation introduced to curb the many scams. My personal hope though…
> why do I need to make $1M/year in order to prove to the US government that I'm worthy of investing into a startup Bernie Madoff lost tens of billions of dollars of investors’ money [1] in a clear fraud. This is terrible, but nobody ended up destitute [2]. The systemic risk was contained. Contrast that with the savings and loan crisis [3]. This lost retail investors’ money. People ended up destitute. That, and lots…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I receive my salary in bitcoin based on spot price tied to USD Why would you want that? Why not just receive USD, and buy BTC each month if you like the price?
exchange fees, and a general dedication to cryptocurrency
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should take responsibility for their own actions. A lot of ICOs are fluff and high risk. People should be aware of that before they invest. If they don't do their research, they shouldn't blame lack of regulation for their laziness. How would regulation fix this? Who would enforce regulations? You would necessarily have to centralize things and hand over power to an authority. This would defeat the purpose of…
I'm very interested to see how far things can be decentralised. I have no real ideas what this would look like but I wonder if there are decentralised approaches to regulation that would work (community decides together who the bad actors are?)
The problem is that crypto people seem overly keen on decentralising without thinking whether or not there is an actual advantage in doing so, or whether the advantages might outweigh the disadvantages. There is an unfortunate viewpoint that decentralisation is just always a "good thing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm very interested to see how far things can be decentralised. a lot in theory very little in practice
That isn't a a very popular opinion to hold on HN, as you may have noticed. I think that there is a strong faith in decentralisation and removing rules by many who frequent HN, that have yet to be proven to work well, if the goal is a higher living standard for as many people as possible as well as limiting damaging externalities.
Are there any real decentralised systems out there that couldn't be controlled or overruled by a few well-placed individuals working together?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would love it. Anyone would love it. Especially if doing the work includes using technology. Buying your computer, phone or car now and getting it 10 years from now would be ideal for the seller.
I got confused by your previous claim. This doesn't "hurt the economy". Yes, 2027 tends to be more productive than 2017, but this requires an increase of investment, that implies savings. Holding money allows others to use their money to invest , so you actually facilitate productivity to increase. This is "in general", since you allow more good and services to be available to be consumed by others. edit: this animat…
That's not holding money in this context.
Hoarding money is keeping cash in your house or bitcoin in your purse. The money is separated from the economy.
Holding money normally means keeping it in the bank account or in cash like instruments. That's fine. Bank loans it to others who use it. You receive interest for contributing capital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People actually knowledgable in the crypto community would have told you literally years ago that the Chinese exchanges were shit. ChangPeng Zhao who now runs binance out of Hong Kong, made a reddit post (now deleted) stating exactly what was going on. The issue of exchanges "investing" client funds was known two years ago, and most people stayed away from these exchanges.
This such an annoying pattern. Something unflattering comes to light(for some greater measure of coming to light) and the predictable response always, "Geez... Everybody already knows this. It's in the wiki!" Not to mention the richness of implying chinese exchanges are somehow uniquely bad! Exchange shenanigans on the english speaking web are a central part of the bitcoin story to this point.
There are still people putting money into MMM, which is a long-running scam with its own Wikipedia article.[1]
The binary option industry, run out of Ramat Gan in Israel, was a whole industry of bucket shops pretending to be brokers. It got so big it was 40% of Israel's financial sector. About 95% of binary option investors lose their entire investment. Turns out it's legal in Israel to scam non-Israelis. Once that came out, it became a political embarrassment.[2] “Binary options is causing anti-Semitism around the world.” - a member of the Knesset.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company) [2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/unhappy-with-bill-israels-coal...