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

221–230 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#221

Post by abakker »

seibelj wrote: post #201
abakker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the counter-inflation argument...most economists understand inflation is something to be managed, but it is far from proven that target inflation is bad. There are many useful economic properties of inflation. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has undergone such massive speculative appreciation that everything around it has deflated in comparison. As a result, bitcoin is spectacularly less useful than it would ha…

It has never been proven that deflation is bad - Keynesians claim this is the worst thing in the world, but I still have never had it explained to me coherently way deflation is inherently a bad thing.

the Keynesian wisdom was that Inflation is good for borrowers and that deflation is good for lenders. Most governments are managing for borrowers since borrowers tend to be investing and it has been a long-held economic axiom that investment is good.

Deflation decreases the value of work you have already done.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#222

Post by Luker88 »

DickingAround wrote: post #53

This 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…

> clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally

just 2 points:

* using crypto will not make the military stop existing

* switching to Proof Of Stake would solve almost all bitcoin problems

...but bitcoin will not even consider keeping PoW and switching to argon2, since the investment of miners in dedicated hardware is too great

So I think honestly the bitcoin community is stuck. It will not change, not even when there are options that would only improve the technology underneath. Still stuck at less than 10 transactions/sec, I see.

As a tech enthusiast, bitcoin has lost all its value to me. As an investor, the quick value fluctuations and overall value increase are a great thing.

To me, the conclusion is that bitcoin is not anymore about tech (the project is completely static at this point), it's not about anonymity (it never was anonymous), it's not about distributed stuff (dedicated hardware and search for cheaper power are concentrating mining). It's just about quick investment that gets you money. Everything else feels like a lie.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#223

Post by agentultra »

_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 part of the problem with believing that "at some undetermined point in the future, it will improve," is not a compelling argument against turning off crypto-currencies. From an emissions perspective Ethereum has been clinging to the belief that Proof-of-Stake is better, in theory, and is perennially, "just around the corner." In the mean time it has been and continues to run on Proof-of-Work and contributes in no small part to the environmental impact these crypto-coins have.

Internal combustion engines are already really close to their peak efficiency vs emissions output and they still contribute a huge and growing amount to overall CO2 emissions. We need to design cities to curb the need for cars, replace as many as we can with electric, and design better, more accessible public transportation. Not seek more efficient internal combustion engines and promote their use.

Crypto-currencies account for an abysmally small number of financial transactions in the world. Literally inconsequential. And they chewed up an astounding amount of energy in order to process them. To scale that up to a world where everyone buys their bread and milk and candy bars with crypto-coins is... well not feasible would be the polite way to put it if you still understand physics and the laws of thermodynamics.

I think there are plenty of other reasons to ban crypto-currencies when we get to regulation and protecting consumers.

It wouldn't take much for the governments of the world to shut the whole enterprise down and I think they should.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#224

Post by tome »

oxymoran wrote: post #213
tome wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation I'm extremely confused by this argument that I see again and again. If you want to avoid your assets losing value to inflation that you can buy assets that are resistant to inflation, such as stocks, real estate, land, gold, inflation-adjusted bonds ... I just don't see that cryptocurrencies are particularly useful f…

A)I don’t have $150k+ To just go invest in land or real estate that I’m not going to reside in. B)Are stocks and bonds inflation resistant if they are priced in the inflating currency? Not just normal year over year inflation but the type of inflation that happens when you debase a currency. Regardless, I already own these, the first rule of investing is diversification. C)gold is inflation resistant and tangible so…

A) REITs exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust

B) Yes, stocks are not directly affected by the currency in which they are nominally denominated! Yes, inflation-adjusted bonds are not affected by inflation in the currency in which they are denominated, assuming you believe RPI to be a good measure of inflation.

C) You can buy gold without having to store it yourself! For example SGLN or https://www.bullionvault.com/ (no connection other than being a happy customer)

> Bitcoin, in my opinion, is a hedge on the hegemony of the US dollar which I see weakening going forward

If you really wanted a hedge on the US dollar you could buy oil, gold, JPY, EUR, CHF, GBP. Buying the hugely volatile asset called bitcoin doesn't seem like a good way to hedge USD.

> Gold and paper only has value because we imagine that they have value

No, gold has value because of demand in industrial process and jewellry. "Paper" has value because governments can demand you to pay it to them in return for participating in economic activity within their borders.

If these arguments are really what bitcoin supporters believe about the value of bitcoin then the whole bitcoin enterprise is in for a big shock.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#225

Post by api »

louwrentius wrote: post #111
api wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not whataboutism. It's hypocrisy. It's deeply hypocritical to attack cryptocurrency when we have a massive parasitic financial industry that does far more damage than anything cryptocurrency has ever done.

For just one example, look at how hedge fund and foreign capital speculation in housing is making a home unaffordable for millions upon millions of people and contributing to middle class decline and homelessness.

It's a bit like making pot illegal when hard liquor and cigarettes are legal. What it really amounts to is the existing parasitic financial industry using the state to remove a competitor to its own gambling and destructive speculation operation.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#226

Post by tome »

oleganza wrote: post #212
tome wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything in the reference that you provide that elaborates on "start a war". Perhaps you could provide the elaboration?

Wars are inherently destructive and can only be funded for prolonged periods of time with mountains of debt. Especially if you can extract taxes backing this debt relatively painlessly. Extracting Bitcoin from individual wallets is no small feat, and Bitcoin-backed (fractionally, of course) notes would not have the same advantage as paper bills over gold coins. Bitcoin is divisible, storable and transferrable well en…

None of this explains why fiat currency leads to starting a war.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#227

Post by frockington1 »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #202
Kranar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes real estate investments a good defense against inflation. A good defense against inflation are assets whose price increases at a rate higher than the rate of inflation. A bad defense would be an asset whose price increases at a rate lower than that of inflation.

Do you really believe real estate should be an investment, rather than a place to live?

Why not be both?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#229

Post by uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh »

seibelj wrote: post #201
abakker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the counter-inflation argument...most economists understand inflation is something to be managed, but it is far from proven that target inflation is bad. There are many useful economic properties of inflation. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has undergone such massive speculative appreciation that everything around it has deflated in comparison. As a result, bitcoin is spectacularly less useful than it would ha…

It has never been proven that deflation is bad - Keynesians claim this is the worst thing in the world, but I still have never had it explained to me coherently way deflation is inherently a bad thing.

As the universe expands, so too must our money supply.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#230

Post by whytaka »

seibelj wrote: post #201
abakker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the counter-inflation argument...most economists understand inflation is something to be managed, but it is far from proven that target inflation is bad. There are many useful economic properties of inflation. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has undergone such massive speculative appreciation that everything around it has deflated in comparison. As a result, bitcoin is spectacularly less useful than it would ha…

It has never been proven that deflation is bad - Keynesians claim this is the worst thing in the world, but I still have never had it explained to me coherently way deflation is inherently a bad thing.

Because deflation means less jobs and less jobs means less people being able to buy food, and starving people are dangerous.

Deflation seems good if you're sitting on wealth. You'd be happy to wait things out just buying the basics and let the economy kind of reset from necessities upwards. But lots of other people are starving by that point.

Post reply on HN