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

Google bans cryptocurrency ads

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 379 posts

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#341

Post by jadedhacker »

chx wrote: post #31
robotbikes wrote: post #14

I was listening to terrestrial radio the other day and was surprised to hear a radio advertisement beckoning retirees to cash in their 401ks to join the cryptocurrency future of Bitcoin and Ethereum. The bubble is too big for Google to slow it down and it has grown beyond the realm of tech savvy geeks into something fueled by hype and hubris.

From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm pleased to see that now that the price has fallen, the tone of BTC discussions in general has taken on a more sober tone amid the endless recriminations.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#342

Post by richardw »

Waterluvian wrote: post #317
dpc_pw wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> always been a community made up of shady folks That's not fair. Shady folks are just getting more publicity. Noone talks about people who created stuff that works and doesn't scam people. And there's a lot of such stuff. This space is growing because of such people, despite the shady folks.

I would love to see a list of CONCRETE examples of cryptocoins that are doing good, productive things TODAY.

Not a list but:

"UN’s World Food Programme Builds on Ethereum Blockchain Money Transfers"

https://www.ccn.com/banks-begone-uns-world-food-programme-bu...

"The pilot alone is said to save the agency $150,000 a month while eliminating a staggering 98% of bank-related transfer fees, according to Munich WFP innovation lab chief Bernhard Kowatsch."

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#343

Post by smt88 »

shitgoose wrote: post #328
admax88q wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because at the end of the day an share of AMZ means you own a small percentage of that company. That includes a small percentage of all their physical assets, servers, real estate, cash on hand etc. So yeah there is some intrinsic value.

can you go to amazon headquarters and exchange an AMZ share for an office chair? as a physical asset? i have a feeling that security will escort you from the building before you finish the transaction. the only intrinsic value will be the bruises on your wrists. edit: the value of the share (in the old good days) is the discounted cash flow. you invest in a business, then business pays you the share of the profits (h…

Just because something is illiquid or can't be returned doesn't mean it has no value.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#344

Post by CryptoPunk »

acdha wrote: post #334
CryptoPunk wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is something that paints anyone who has legitimate concerns about financial censorship and mass surveillance a "paranoid dork", one of the best tweet storms ever? It's exactly this kind of crude tribalism that prevents constructive civil discourse and encourages ideological narrow-mindedness and conformity.

If you care about surveillance, bitcoin is the last thing you want to be involved with: you’re creating a permanent non-repudiable record and gift-wrapping it for them!

My point is that the Tweet implies that being motivated by concerns over the government's control over our financial transactions is objectionable. It makes someone a "paranoid dork". That's a terribly derisive attitude toward something that can be an extremely reasonable concern.

And since we're on the subject, Bitcoin allowed individuals to get around the financial blockade against Wikileaks a few years ago. It has also allowed Venezuelans, who have been driven to abject poverty by their government, to get their capital out of the country and the reach of their government.

As for privacy, there are other cryptocurrencies, like Monero (ring signatures) and Ethereum (potential to create ring signatures, and since the Byzantium hard fork, zk-SNARK proofs), that open the door to significant privacy.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#345

Post by pharrington »

lambda wrote: post #294
fancyfacebook wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know who got into crypto has the same story: for some silly reason they all bought like 5-10 different coins and it would be inordinately complicated and expensive to sell them all. I'm pretty sure whatever "newbie guides" exist out there purposely lead people to this awful state.

"Crypto" is short for "cryptography" (or related words like "cryptographic"). Using "crypto" to abbreviate "cryptocurrency" causes a lot of confusion, as the "crypto" in "cryptocurrency" was already an abbreviation; "cryptocurrency" is short for "cryptographic currency." People who know nothing about cryptography or even that cryptocurrency uses cryptography get confused if they are looking for information about cryp…

OK, so the new abbreviation is "₡oin".

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#346

Post by warent »

mancerayder wrote: post #325

Did Google ban all scam ads out there? Is predatory lending banned? How about magical thinking supplements, systems, and other scams? Also, wallets? What did the crypto wallet makers do wrong? This, my friends, is monopoly capitalism at its finest; when corporate interests are threatened they come down on information exchange, which means they can disappear products. And since it's privately owned and not state owned…

Are you proposing that an ad for a placebo is as damaging as an ad encouraging people to gamble their life savings (bonus: on what may be nothing more than a pump and dump scheme)?

As an aside, I'm not sure what drug discussion or hate speech has to do with this at all.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#347

Post by forapurpose »

wyager wrote: post #206
RightMillennial wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competent physician, like a competent programmer, doesn't need to have a every drug or library memorized. He needs adequate knowledge to know what to look for and where to find it.

Again, most physicians aren’t that competent. There’s an entire set of literature based around getting your doctor to think critically, because most of them have just done the professional equivalent of memorizing a bunch of flash cards. This is cheap and works for 90% of cases, but the result is that doctors don’t actually know (and don’t care to find out) about all the latest research relevant to the particular con…

> There’s an entire set of literature based around getting your doctor to think critically

Sounds interesting; could you recommend something?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#348

Post by forapurpose »

jessaustin wrote: post #96
rastaaaaaa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the USA apparently.

USA drug purchases fund most global drug research. That money comes from somewhere. It's fine for us to question whether this is the best way for drugs to be marketed in our nation, but for the rest of the world to do so seems a bit ungrateful?

> USA drug purchases fund most global drug research

The drug industry likes to say that, but could someone back it up?

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#349

Post by jhwang5 »

nym wrote: post #287

Facebook: Hey everyone! No more cryptocurrency ads. Google: We're banning them too. Big Pharma: But not us right? Google: No, we appreciate your business... Facebook: How much are you looking to spend??

Dumb comparison. At least medicine heals people.

Re: Google bans cryptocurrency ads

#350

Post by kurthr »

pjmlp wrote: post #50
kurthr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first percussion cap for a cartridge wasn't patented until 1807, not in common use until 1825-30 when the bolt action arrived, and not popularized until the Colt revolver in 1835. Rapid firing guns of more than ~6 shots didn't arrive in the US until the civil war.

If you prefer to be pedantic regarding English sentence construction, instead of the actual problem that costs lives every single year, > Like carrying guns as if we were still in the 19th century.

Actually, it was a point about what the writers of the constitution considered arms in the meaning of the second amendment... they were muskets, not even revolvers much less semi-automatic weapons. I happen to be quite aware of the "actual problem", and I'd like to work with all people to solve it, since I know people who have been killed by fire arms... even if I am a pedant. What is your damage?
Post reply on HN