Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
171–180 of 630 posts
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 conservat…
> healthcare of someone who used their health insurance money to speculate on cryptocurrency? You've got it backwards. You are making health insurance profit-driven, when it should be a government service. So then there would be no "individual's health insurance money" to quibble about. > Once the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens, it has weird effects like banning cryptocurrency Wow, that'…
The kind of libertarian who's excited about Bitcoin is the kind that, with Satoshi in Bitcoin's genesis block, criticizes the bailout of banks and thinks they should have been allowed to fail, because that's what would keep them in check and prevent their walking all over regular people.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#173No, some people think scarcity and trustlessness make it a good store of value. This is not even addressed in the article.
> Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory.
I don't see any good evidence for this, the goal of many DeFi projects is to increase access.
Overall an unfair and needlessly inflammatory evaluation. The idea that all cryptocurrency is a scam that "masses of dumb money investors" buy into is overbearingly pretentious, and a non-starter for legitimate criticism IMO.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#174Earlier 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…
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…
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#175>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…
>It's easy to steal. >It only takes one 0-day wipe you out, irreversibly, and completely. My bank could get hacked, but we, as a society, can just decide that I still have the assets I had before, the paper stocks and coupons are in a drawer somewhere. The loan contracts are in a filing cabinet (or they should be). I get my bank statements every month. There's some cash and some gold in a vault. A breach is, at least…
n = How many 0-days are out the there that could topple the systems in control of the BTC I own.
p = The probability that said exploit is used on me and my wallet and not someone else.
n * p = my risk of losing everything
p is very small, but n is very, VERY... big
With tradition assets, they are backed with contracts that can make potential thefts unwound or made whole in some other way. With crypto, every ocean's 11-style cat-burglar in the world has access to every bank in the world... and that can't be unwound.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#176Most 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…
Beaver pelts or cars wear down over time though unlike gold, and the amount of crypto one holds is hard to display ostentatiously, at least for now. BAT, Steemit or crypto.com's card colors based on staking amounts seem to be ideas heading in that direction though.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#177This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…
If we are Saying fiat is backed by fighter jets then Bitcoin is backed by selling dangerous fake MDMA. That’s if we are getting into that way of arguing which hopefully we are not.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#178Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#179Instead of banning Bitcoin completely, just make it illegal for individuals to run cryptocurrency nodes or perform mining operations. In it's place, each government can then run their own cluster of nodes for the general public to use as a cryptocurrency.
This way, the general population has access to cryptocurrency, but government can monitor and control all of the transactions that take place to ensure that no illegal activity arises. In addition, governments could also control the issuance of private and public keys, which means that funds can be easily confiscated in the event of fraudulent behaviour.
Of course, the main issue with this setup is that the nodes will be centralized, and therefore are at a greater risk of physical attack. This can be solved through physical force, which will consume energy in itself, but will be far more efficient than using a globally distributed proof-of-work mechanism for protecting the transaction history of the currency.
Furthermore, in the event that a nation state scale attack takes place to try and undermine the transaction history of the government-run nodes, the force required to protect these ledgers can be scaled up to match it (e.g. war). However, I believe this to be an unlikely scenario, and so the overall cost involved with protecting the cryptocurrency would be less than what is currently consumed by proof-of-work.
In short; instead of using electrical energy to protect the integrity of the currency, we use physical force instead (which will be far more energy-efficient).
To me, this quite clearly solves the energy consumption, without having to perform an outright ban on the technology. This way, everyone benefits.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#180This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…
Cryptocurrency is very niche tech at best, that most people will have zero use for - but it should nonetheless be available. The OP article does not account for this at all, and is thus extremely misguided.