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

81–90 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#81

Post by Luker88 »

So yesterday in HN there was a link to a medium post on the same thing, but limited to Proof of Work instead of the whole cryptocoins. Got flagged pretty quickly, but there was a link to a petition inside with links to various problems of proof of work: https://www.change.org/StopBurncoins

IMHO the problem is not cryptocoins themselves as is suggested here, but just proof of work.

A total ban would barely work anyway, as the system is completely decentralized, and to fully ban it we would need basically all countries to agree on the ban.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#82

Post by louwrentius »

_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"…

I think personally that proof of stake and proof of work both don’t matter in the end.

I believe that all cryptocurrencies are at their heart scams.

Proof of stake doesn’t change this dynamic.

As I see it, cryptocurrencies doesn’t actually solve any real, significant problems we face as a (global) society.

And to pick one important thing: they exclusively enable crypolocker randsomeware, and we know their devastating impact.

Dollars are abused too, but the dollar gives so much back, our societies are based on it.

I see no benefit to society of cryptocurrencies and I would really like to see them go.

Nothing good has come from them. Zero.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#83

Post by einpoklum »

luxuryballs wrote: post #64
slibhb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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

For every one of these people who bought cryptocurrency and "made something", there is someone - for the sake of discussion, another poor sap with a dead end job - who just bought cryptocurrency and hasn't made anything. And lots more from the second group who have made a tiny minority of crypto owners rich.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#84

Post by washedup »

What a terrible article. Crypto is a new technology that will likely have many uses, to advocate banning it nationally is dangerous and would quickly put us behind the rest of the world.

There are easier ways around the "energy use dilemma": carbon tax. If your energy used for mining comes from renewable resources, then there is no issue.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#85

Post by jayd16 »

scoofy wrote: post #80

>Bitcoin is the textbook speculative mania for our time. This is either false or unknowable, there are plenty of reasons why bitcoin speculation is happening, and it's because it has been a very long time since there has been a new desirable commodity. >The largest elephant in the room is the environmental damage done by bitcoin mining. This is very true, i don't think it's the largest elephant though. >Cryptocurrenc…

>This is either false or unknowable

Alright well that means it could also be true...

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#87

Post by nightski »

rybosworld wrote: post #36

Seems to me that Stephen is not well informed on crypto in general. This article is really only relevant to Bitcoin. Take a project like Brave for instance which is disrupting the online advertising model: https://brave.com/ (I am completely unaffiliated, just a fan of the project) Can you look at this project and tell me with a straight face it is bad for the environment and should be banned by government? Because t…

I used to have a lot of respect for him, he's very intelligent and a great hacker. But man he's really gone down the rabbit hole basically on the edge of consipiracy theorist lately. It's sad. His viewpoints are naive and he never proposes viable solutions.

It's easy to say ban "X" when that is never going to happen. If he was really interested in a solution he would acknowledge the benefits that people are getting out of Bitcoin and provide alternative solutions.

But meanwhile people will continue to complain about Bitcoin while it's market cap will continue to rise and it will keep on growing in usage.

All major banks are now planning serious efforts in the crypto space with massive investments. This isn't going to go away with magical thinking.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#88

Post by louwrentius »

luxuryballs wrote: post #64
slibhb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn’t seem to justify the environmental impact to me.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#89

Post by djschnei »

purple_ferret wrote: post #44
_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"…

There are many problems with Proof of Stake (inflation, centralization, etc). Cardano mainnet doesn't even exist yet. Smoke and mirrors.

Cardano mainnet doesn't exist? What?...

The Mainnet has 2,289 active stake pool operators, which comes out to >99% decentralized, with 71.09% of the total ADA in circulation being actively staked on those pools ($26.83b/$37.7b). It has an incredibly active and healthy mainnet...

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#90

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN