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

91–100 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#91

Post by throwawayfire »

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-adjacent reasons are: it's difficult to tax in a fair way (what proportion the capital gains due on crypto have been paid?), and has potential to be used as a front for organised money laundering.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#93

Post by toomuchtodo »

thebean11 wrote: post #68
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're free to your opinion, but I see little benefit in a technology for your average constituent that is more expensive than instant payments to move funds, has a highly volatile value (which is an anti pattern of a currency), and provides little to no recourse in the event there is fraud or theft (again, an anti-pattern crypto proponents champion as some sort of feature). One person's authoritarianism is another's properly functioning regulatory environment. If crypto is instead treated as a commodity (Bitcoin), than that and similar crypto tech can be regulated as a commodity by government (which the CFTC and IRS does today).

The US government has the authority to regulate crypto's use as a currency and absolutely should exert that regulatory power.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#94

Post by rybosworld »

namdnay wrote: post #55
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…

The thing is, Im not sure Brave really needs a cryptocurrency. It seems that a centralized DB would be enough.

Sure it might work with a database, just as you don't need a blockchain to do what Visa does. But Brave is really one of the best showcases for what crypto can achieve imo.

They've tied anonymity, opt-in advertisements, and micropayments into one thing. I think it would actually be more difficult to do this without a cryptocurrency.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#95

Post by kibleopard »

javert wrote: post #28

This ignores the positive arguments for bitcoin. Bitcoin is objective, hard, honest money. Many view that as a very good thing, myself included. Governments steal inordinate amounts of energy from the populace with their money printing. The Pharaohs built the pyramids using slave labor. This was a monstrous, immoral waste of human energy. Modern governments accomplish the same thing with money printing. That is the s…

> Bitcoin is objective, hard, honest money

Yes, definitely makes sense when the main usage of it is money laundering and mindless speculation

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#96

Post by hervature »

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…

The problem with governments creating welfare states is that other citizens (and the government) become responsible for the financial implosion of individuals which incentivizes stupid behavior. I don't believe gambling should be banned but should taxpayers be liable for the healthcare of someone who used their health insurance money to speculate on cryptocurrency? This is actually the main division between conservatives and liberals (I mean small government vs. big government) that conservatives are so bad at articulating. Once the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens, it has weird effects like banning cryptocurrency because they don't want to be left holding the bag.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#97

Post by scoofy »

jayd16 wrote: post #85
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...

I, obviously, bring it up because the author is making statements of fact that they can't possibly know to be true. This should be a reasonable criticism of the author. Don't talk nonsense if you're trying to write a serious argument.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#98

Post by BitwiseFool »

tshaddox wrote: post #67
BitwiseFool wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In my personal experience most people think of cryptocurrencies as a Ponzi scheme, some kind of money laundering operation, a tremendous waste of energy, or some combination of those three. In light of that, I think a cryptocurrency ban would be easy for politicians to sell to the public using those terms.

How effective the ban would be is another question, but I am mainly talking about how I think the politicians would justify the ban.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#99

Post by einpoklum »

jtolds wrote: post #16
_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 came here to say this exact same thing. There is seriously interesting and useful real work being done under the umbrella term "decentralized finance" or DeFi. It is hard to cut through the noise of get rich quick schemes, but at the core, the DeFi stuff, built on top of green cryptocurrency (proof of stake), along with quickly improving zero-knowledge proof tech, is actually useful and groundbreaking. Bitcoin and…

I'm not sure. Do these DeFi schemes involve currencies which cannot be cancelled or created in large amounts by political decision (e.g. democratic)? If the answer is "yes", then these may be just another form of pyramid scheme, perhaps less taxing on the environment.
Post reply on HN