The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

I think cryptocurrencies are idiotic, but this essay just does not make a case for a blanket ban at all, nor do I think one is necessary.

The environmental impact should be regulated, but other than that, governments should just stay out of it and let the cryptocurrency landscape be the wild frontier its proponents want it to be. May the best obfuscated smart contract code win, until no one wants to play anymore.

Bitcoins energy usage might be it‘s most important property as an asset. Blatanly discrediting it because of „energy usage“ is the simple route. I prefer to dig deeper for the truth. Maybe PoS is part of the solution, but I‘m not convinced of a purely virtual system without a physical anchor.

An overview of counter-argumebtd to the main bitcoin criticisms: https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/

Regarding energy usage some arguments are: using stranded energy (exists very much), stabilizing energy nets (especially with renewables), incentivizing renewable research.

I think the "how" part is the most interesting question here, both in terms of political justification (people who bought $100 of BTC on their coinbase app won't be very pleased) and practical enforcement. Of authors suggested measures, I think only the first would be necessary to result in a de-facto ban.

"Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges.

Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets.

Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists.

Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by classifying them as securities investment contracts moving forward."

From the article: "The United States is a deeply economically unequal society and the proliferation of get-rich-quick schemes taps into a deep weakness in the American mindset."

When has the United States not been this way? The first explorers came over here hoping to find a trove of far East spices or gold, and make a killing. The Spanish did make a killing on gold for quite some years, even as they destroyed entire civilizations. Some American pioneers just wanted a piece of land on which to raise a family and support themselves away from tyranny. But many others were looking for gold or other quick riches. The history of our stock exchanges has been one pump-and-dump after another.

Diehl's other criticism, that crypto mining is environmentally destructive, has some merit, but is that a reason to ban an entire industry? What about people fortunate enough to be near hydroelectric plants, or people with solar electric or nuclear? Building extra coal-fired plants in China to power crypto operations does sound bad, but even China is moving away from polluting sources; they have a desperate need to clean up their environment and they are working hard on nuclear and solar alternatives, not to mention that they are developing cheap, affordable electric vehicles.

Every currency system is built on trust. The U.S. dollar, which is the world's reference currency, is increasingly shaky; last year the Treasury created more dollars in a single year than in all years previously. A lot of people are very worried that a currency collapse from excessive debt and a weak economy is coming in the not-too-distant future.

Crypto currency is an interesting and powerful new technology that may actually save us from monetary collapse; I wouldn't dismiss it as a dangerous boondoggle just yet.

At any rate, I don't see how Mr. Diehl's prescription for banning crypto could possibly be implemented; private companies have the right to create products for sale or trade as long as they are not dangerous. Even tobacco and guns, both known to potentially kill people, are still huge profitable industries albeit highly regulated.

You guys are all dissecting his points like academics. I think the real thing is that the environmental piece is a strong enough weakness to make an emotional argument to build support within the non-hardcore communities with the cloaked motivation (as always) being one of control or financial power. The no-cryptos are betting on a growing swell of anti-anti-environmental ideas in general with this one.

Currency/whatever crypto is, is just a system of trust. Logic is likely to have little to do with the downfall if it comes. Scrolling through the comments the Crypto-religious right is out in full effect and tbh, I understand it. For many people they have moved up many brackets of the wealth ladder and they probably should reject anyone coming for their system with vigor.

I think the downside of the crypto religious complex is going to be, that if any of these emotional arguments (coming to kill crypto) become mainstream and compelling, the tenor of arguments is going to push the crypto and no-crypto sides apart cartoonishly (think modern dems and republicans) and the choices of resolution will have to be loud and final.

Make no mistake, crypto is much closer to a political religious sect than it is a science.