Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#11

Post by johnvonneumann »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #8
dxhdr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably at 1 mil per coin it has become our defacto medium of exchange. Actual bitcoins become the new gold bars, sitting untouched in vaults and used as a reserve backing other more efficient means of crypto exchange.

Why would they be used to back anything? Why not just use a crypto-currency that isn't clogged by developers trying to make people use their proprietary service?

Please explain your statement in detail with sources and facts please, I'm sure I know what you're trying to insinuate so I'm going to ask you to back your claims up with some truth.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#12

Post by zitterbewegung »

nxsynonym wrote: post #9
Snackchez wrote: post #7

>“All it would take would be one terrorist incident in the U.S. funded by bitcoin for the U.S. regulator to much more seriously step in and take action, he said. “That’s a risk, an unquantifiable risk, bitcoin has that another currency doesn’t." You can't make this up... or maybe I'm not understanding something. So, what's currently funding terrorist attacks?

I don't understand the comment either. It's not like terrorist groups are currently un-funded. Cash is still king around illegal activities of all kinds. Why is using bitcoin for illegal activity any different than untraceable cash?

One of the big pluses to bitcoin is the fact that you can move large amounts of money relatively quickly instead of relying on banks.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#13

Post by iamthirsty »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #12
nxsynonym wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the comment either. It's not like terrorist groups are currently un-funded. Cash is still king around illegal activities of all kinds. Why is using bitcoin for illegal activity any different than untraceable cash?

One of the big pluses to bitcoin is the fact that you can move large amounts of money relatively quickly instead of relying on banks.

Illegal operations would obviously not rely on banks.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#14

Post by dajohnson89 »

nxsynonym wrote: post #9
Snackchez wrote: post #7

>“All it would take would be one terrorist incident in the U.S. funded by bitcoin for the U.S. regulator to much more seriously step in and take action, he said. “That’s a risk, an unquantifiable risk, bitcoin has that another currency doesn’t." You can't make this up... or maybe I'm not understanding something. So, what's currently funding terrorist attacks?

I don't understand the comment either. It's not like terrorist groups are currently un-funded. Cash is still king around illegal activities of all kinds. Why is using bitcoin for illegal activity any different than untraceable cash?

To play devil's advocate: cash (fiat in general) is often traceable to bank accounts, wire transfers, ATM CCTV, credit card records, marked bank notes, etc.

While it's still v possible to track a bitcoin transaction from recipient to sender, there are countermeasures with varying degrees of efficacy. At any rate, it's not the traceability of X per se that matters, but rather the stigma, and given how many billions of $ in illegal activity bitcoin has been used for, and the high-profile cases of Silk Road etc, it's very easy to see that scenario (i.e., the US Congress + interested lobbyists cracking down on Crypto) happening.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#15

Post by nxsynonym »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #12
nxsynonym wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the comment either. It's not like terrorist groups are currently un-funded. Cash is still king around illegal activities of all kinds. Why is using bitcoin for illegal activity any different than untraceable cash?

One of the big pluses to bitcoin is the fact that you can move large amounts of money relatively quickly instead of relying on banks.

is that different than cash - especially surrounding illegally obtained cash?

I'm not saying it's not a risk - I just don't see it as inherently more risky than currently viable currencies.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#16

Post by iamthirsty »

nxsynonym wrote: post #9
Snackchez wrote: post #7

>“All it would take would be one terrorist incident in the U.S. funded by bitcoin for the U.S. regulator to much more seriously step in and take action, he said. “That’s a risk, an unquantifiable risk, bitcoin has that another currency doesn’t." You can't make this up... or maybe I'm not understanding something. So, what's currently funding terrorist attacks?

I don't understand the comment either. It's not like terrorist groups are currently un-funded. Cash is still king around illegal activities of all kinds. Why is using bitcoin for illegal activity any different than untraceable cash?

Your points are valid, but I think you're misunderstanding his point. If a terrorist attack happened that was funded via Bitcoin, and could've only been funded via Bitcoin (including a false-flag) the governments would throw the book at it. This could be terrorist groups sending BTC to legit US citizens who purchase things (like weapons) legally and then use them in an attack, &c.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#17

Post by infecto »

iamthirsty wrote: post #13
zitterbewegung wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the big pluses to bitcoin is the fact that you can move large amounts of money relatively quickly instead of relying on banks.

Illegal operations would obviously not rely on banks.

I think you would surprise yourself with that comment. Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#18

Post by knz »

infecto wrote: post #17
iamthirsty wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal operations would obviously not rely on banks.

I think you would surprise yourself with that comment. Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks.

> Illegal operations do indeed rely heavily on banks.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ba...

As an example for anyone not familiar with these types of stories.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#19

Post by mikeash »

iamthirsty wrote: post #16
nxsynonym wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the comment either. It's not like terrorist groups are currently un-funded. Cash is still king around illegal activities of all kinds. Why is using bitcoin for illegal activity any different than untraceable cash?

Your points are valid, but I think you're misunderstanding his point. If a terrorist attack happened that was funded via Bitcoin, and could've only been funded via Bitcoin (including a false-flag) the governments would throw the book at it. This could be terrorist groups sending BTC to legit US citizens who purchase things (like weapons) legally and then use them in an attack, &c.

The "could've only been funded via Bitcoin" part isn't even necessary. The US government is kind of crazy when it comes to terrorism. Any connection between Bitcoin and terrorism that gets a lot of public attention is likely to result in major legal problems. It doesn't matter whether or not the fear is well founded or whether Bitcoin's role was incidental. Look at how much pressure there is to crack down on encryption in general, and that would have far wider-reaching consequences than regulating a cryptocurrency only a tiny percentage of people actually use.

Re: The World's Biggest Wealth Manager Won't Touch Bitcoin

#20

Post by jwilliams »

I'm glad to see this, but I don't think the content is particularly on point (or compelling really).

A large amount of Bitcoin reporting at the moment is grossly irresponsible. This "Bitcoin will be $1M each" is fueling bad decision making on the part of the ordinary punter.

Right now there is a major civil war in the Bitcoin camp (BTC vs BCH). It's playing out as we speak. Whatever your horse in that race, it's extremely volatile. Not only that, there are other tokens, shady ICOs, exchanges with suspect resilience.

It's also impossible that your on-the-street investor can be informed enough to make a good choice. This is really concerning.

Post reply on HN