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

111–120 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#111

Post by louwrentius »

api wrote: post #51
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…

Most cryptocurrency activity is speculation, but so is a huge proportion of what happens on Wall St. Are we going to ban hedge funds? What about casinos or even worse state-backed lotteries? It's the same sort of hypocrisy as deplatforming Parler. While I did not weep for Parler, YouTube and Facebook are the largest platforms for alt-right/fascist propaganda. YouTube's "rabbit hole algorithm" is by far the most power…

I think whataboutism is actually the real shitty thing here.

Yes, I think there is a lot wrong within ‘Wall Street’. But those wrongs don’t justify the existence of cryptocurrencies in any way.

And most of all: it doesn’t absolve cryptocurrencies in any way of their terrible impact on our world.

Just the facilating of cryprolocker attacks alone are enough to justify a ban in my view.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#112

Post by runarberg »

brigandish wrote: post #78
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…

Gold definitely has value: - it's rare but not too rare - malleable - doesn't rust or tarnish - non toxic - doesn't need the tech that platinum, the only other possible choice that satisfies the rest of the list, would need for it to become money instead Useful and scarce == valuable. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/why-gold-is-money-a-periodi...

Also one of the best conductors found in the natural world.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#113

Post by je_bailey »

superkuh wrote: post #79
_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"…

>This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban". I don't see the difference between that and "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban". The outcome is the same. Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale. If it does that will be great. But it's no certain thing and it'll probably mean more Eth forks like Eth classic. Most other cryptocurrencies are tied…

To say that "Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale" is true but means not a whole lot. Since it implies other's haven't. Cardano, as an example, will be 100% decentralized Proof of Stake within the next few hours. I see no reason at this point for bitcoins existence but the technology that's being built on top of blockchains is fascinating and shouldn't be condemned for something that bitcoin can't do.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#114

Post by frankbreetz »

cryptochamorro wrote: post #41

No one blames fiat for the destruction of entire countries and assassinations of leaders who tried to get away from being beholden to X financial system. Money drives people to do insane things. Governments only care about the environment insofar as to stay in power and to keep their citizens from interrupting their gravy train. Look at the numerous examples politicians using “green” initiatives to line their own poc…

>>Governments only care about the environment insofar as to stay in power

If the people care about the environment and will vote people out of office who don't take care of the environment, that seems like a system that works. If a small number people are allowed to destroy the environment, that takes away the people's right to a livable planet.

>>Look at the numerous examples politicians using “green” initiatives to line their own pockets.

One can make money and help the environment it doesn't have to be one or the other

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#115

Post by golemotron »

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.

The article neglects the best argument for crypto. It will force us to do more energy research and put more money into hydroelectric, solar, and nuclear. We shouldn't let concerns about the environmental problems of current energy sources lead us to destroy an incentive structure that can lead us away from them. Harness the tiger, don't put it down.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#116

Post by musesum »

A shift in perspective for BTC is underway, from transaction platform (Yellen on the Con side) to a trans-national asset class (Saylor & Musk on the Pro side). So, now the discussion is on the energy spent on mining: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencewintermeyer/2021/03/10/...

IMO, currency is a belief system backed by Joules.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#117

Post by pmurt7 »

hpoe wrote: post #12
_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"…

Wasn't that posted like 2 days ago on HN already?

Yeah the guy regularly posts his agenda on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=stephendiehl.com

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#118

Post by tachyonbeam »

tome wrote: post #61
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.

I don't like the way bitcoin mining wastes energy, but mining gold certainly has an environmental impact. Most of the machinery is currently powered by fossil fuels, and most of the gold isn't used for useful applications AFAIK.

I'm glad some cryptos are moving to proof of stake, and I wonder if bitcoin will be able to make that transition too, or if the miners have too much to lose to let that happen?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#119

Post by quickthrower2 »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #101

You can't really frame a ban as a way of protecting the little guy if your ban causes everyone who "invested" so far to immediately lose everything. You'd almost certainly be sued and end up paying compensation. Even a partial ban restricting who can invest would be open to accusations of elitism and politically difficult. I suspect that a politician who thinks the crypto market is going to crash will wait for that t…

A carbon tax/price might work assuming you could get that through. Then tax a percentage on Bitcoin purchases via exchanges to aloe for the carbon emissions.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#120

Post by ggreer »

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 know of any place requiring different rates and metering for certain uses, but many power companies offer such things as an option. For example: In California, PG&E offers different metering plans for electric vehicles.[1] These plans make it much more expensive to charge your vehicle during peak hours (daytime) and significantly cheaper to charge during the night. Though once you are on separate meters, you're at risk of PG&E unilaterally jacking up your rates for charging your car.[2]

I didn't notice the difference in rates until just now, but California's cheapest off-peak rate of 14 cents per kWh is almost twice what I pay for electricity in Washington (8 cents per kWh). It currently costs me $6 to fully charge my car. If I had to pay California rates, charging would cost $11-38 depending on the time of day.

1. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-o...

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/11/19/pge-ra...

Post reply on HN