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

The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#61

Post by tome »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #23

Most of the article's arguments work if you replace the word "Gold" for the word cryptocurrency. Gold itself is just a yellow metal, it is valuable largely for the human belief that it has value, though admittedly it is somewhat pretty, a good conductor of electrons, and has historical value due to its ease of work and use in numerous ancient artifacts. Still, as a currency or value holder, gold is simply a metal tha…

> Most of the article's arguments work if you replace the word "Gold" for the word cryptocurrency

I don't see it. Doesn't seem to apply to ponzi scheme, or facilitating cyber attacks, or the environmental impact. Perhaps you could give some explicit examples.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#62

Post by rocqua »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #40

Is "Electricity Neutrality" a concept? Does the government have any control over how I use the electricity that I pay for? This is a genuine question and I'm not trying to be snarky.

I don't think it is. If you want a big enough electrical cable, you need a deal with the local energy supplier. They can add whatever clause they want.

Personally, I don't see much of a reason for Electricity neutrality. It's not like the power companies could use their discretion to disadvantage their competition. Nor does the contention for power lead to large barriers for entry.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#63

Post by nwienert »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39
thebean11 wrote: post #11

Even if you take the most cynical approach towards crypto, banning crypto is simply not the governments job. At best, this is equivalent to banning beanie babies (no real negative affects for society, but stupid and a big overreach). At worst, it's equivalent to banning the internet (sets the country behind decades as the rest of the world adopts the new technology and profits from it).

The government has regulatory authority over monetary policy and currency, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? You might take issue with their decision, but the authority is there. https://www.occ.treas.gov/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

Many seem to argue the coins aren't currency but securities, including SEC.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#64

Post by luxuryballs »

slibhb wrote: post #32
_nckn wrote: post #5

I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane, especially Bitcoin, which I agree (I don't hold Bitcoin for this exact reason). But there are many other crypto that uses Proof of Stake, way way greener than Proof of Work, such as Cardano. Even Ethereum is transitioning to Proof of Stake. This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban"…

The main premise of the article is that cryptocurrencies are "speculation for speculation’s sake," i.e. gambling, and that's bad. Also, the article claims that they contribute to inequality. The green stuff is basically a side note. I don't think it's a terribly strong case but I suppose it depends on whether you agree that crypto is gambling and if you think gambling should banned. Anyway, I think lots of people stu…

I wonder how many people who got into crypto and found something they clicked with and were able to make something of compared with a dead end job would feel about this whole “contributes to inequality” nonsense. Not everything is for everyone, and that’s OK, but there’s something out there for everyone.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#65

Post by djschnei »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #18

In addition to the shortcomings mentioned in the article a major problem of cryptocurrencies is the inability of local goverments to issue bonds that fund critical community projects like schools, safety and roads.

How do crypto currencies diminish the ability of governments to issue bonds?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#66

Post by iujjkfjdkkdkf »

slibhb wrote: post #32
_nckn wrote: post #5

I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane, especially Bitcoin, which I agree (I don't hold Bitcoin for this exact reason). But there are many other crypto that uses Proof of Stake, way way greener than Proof of Work, such as Cardano. Even Ethereum is transitioning to Proof of Stake. This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban"…

The main premise of the article is that cryptocurrencies are "speculation for speculation’s sake," i.e. gambling, and that's bad. Also, the article claims that they contribute to inequality. The green stuff is basically a side note. I don't think it's a terribly strong case but I suppose it depends on whether you agree that crypto is gambling and if you think gambling should banned. Anyway, I think lots of people stu…

Gambling, e.g. casino or sports betting is different because for some it's a fun pastime and participants are (more or less) aware of what it's about.

"Crypto" - not the underlying tech which is potentially interesting and may have merit in some incarnation - but buying or trading "assets" grounded in the tech, is essentially a quasi-legal pump and dump scheme right now. There is a rich history of securities law that is designed to thwart predatory investment schemes, and all of that has been circumvented by allowing people to trade in these assets.

I generally agree that adults should be able to do what they want, but I don't think we have found a way to balance that with what right now is effectively one big fraud.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#67

Post by tshaddox »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #48
thebean11 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning crypto is a gigantic overreach when the government won't even try the obvious solutions like carbon taxes (which would indirectly discourage crypto mining).

I see the situation in the exact opposite way. Passing a Carbon Tax, while sensible, would run in major opposition because it would basically effect every citizen. But banning cryptocurrency would be much easier since the majority of the population doesn't own any and it can be framed in very positive terms.

> But banning cryptocurrency would be much easier since the majority of the population doesn't own any and it can be framed in very positive terms.

Sounds unrealistic. Remember the war on drugs?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#68

Post by thebean11 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39
thebean11 wrote: post #11

Even if you take the most cynical approach towards crypto, banning crypto is simply not the governments job. At best, this is equivalent to banning beanie babies (no real negative affects for society, but stupid and a big overreach). At worst, it's equivalent to banning the internet (sets the country behind decades as the rest of the world adopts the new technology and profits from it).

The government has regulatory authority over monetary policy and currency, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? You might take issue with their decision, but the authority is there. https://www.occ.treas.gov/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

I think there's a bit more nuance to this than a binary "does" or "does not" have authority. I'm not claiming it's unconstitutional to ban crypto, or that they literally don't have the authority.

I'm claiming it's a bad, authoritarian move that isn't in the interest of their constituents, and is not in the spirit of US laws.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#69

Post by jamal-kumar »

ggreer wrote: post #27

I find it funny that the environmental arguments have come out again. Major news companies were making the same argument about the Internet back in the 90s.[1] Pretty much any activity has some effect on the environment, so the argument tends to be used when few other criticisms can stick. 1. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0531/6311070a.html

If my computer was spewing out clouds of black smoke, I might start to care
Post reply on HN