The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban • Hacker News Board

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#241

Post by lmilcin » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

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.

All of it is CO2. Let me explain.

When you burn energy for bitcoin mining, you don't just use capacity of your local energy producer, you are delaying removal of legacy power producers.

Before a particular power producer (for example burning coal) can be turned off, the capacity must be created from other sources (for example renewable). If you decide to start burning huge amount of energy, before those CO2 guzzlers can be turned off we will now have to build even more capacity -- exactly the amount you are burning to mine bitcoin, but it also means that while this is happening the CO2 is still being emitted.

This assumes that introduction of new renewable sources of energy is independent from bitcoin mining. As far as I know this is true.

Or in other words: if introduction of renewable sources of energy is independent of bitcoin mining, the energy production from these sources is the same regardless of whether the bitcoin mining exists or not. Logically what this means that what is changing is energy production from non-renewable sources and it could be explained that they are working at either higher capacity or their removal is delayed.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#242

Post by christiansakai » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

samvher wrote: post #210

christiansakai wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the world of cyptocurrency/blockchain research has many ground breaking papers and news are often real time, even crypto news aggregator can't keep up with it. HN crowd refuses to care about it because of bad taste of crypto in general.

Do you have recommendations on where to find this stuff? I agree that there seems to be a lot of interesting work going on and the ideas of decentralized finance have a lot of potential. At the moment it really is hard to cut through the noise though and from what I can find just searching for an afternoon it looks like a minefield. I'm hoping that the bad stuff will all fade away and something useful will remain.

You can join each crypto's subreddits/youtube/twitter to find more. This is basically what crypto news aggregator do. They just read articles/watch youtube videos all day.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#243

Post by tome » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #206

There are some good reasons for banning cryptocurrencies. "Speculative nature" certainly isn't a good reason.

Really? The SEC bans all sorts of securities issuances for exactly that reason.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#244

Post by tome » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

pmurt7 wrote: post #205

pmurt7 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think terrorist organisations use BTC ? Of course no, they are fine with USD. Should we ban USD too?

Do you really think The Islamic State use BTC to buy weapons on the Dark Web?

I guess you're replying to me. I have no idea, but that seems a non sequitur. Where's your evidence that no terrorist group uses BTC for any of their transactions?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#245

Post by agentultra » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

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…

If you want to reduce the number of wars and conflicts there are better, more effective ways.

Work towards ending racism; support young girls, women, and LGBTQ+ folks around the world; support environmental protections and projects that reduce food waste and increase water security; support fiscal policies that reduce wealth inequality; and topple authoritarian dictators and fascists.

In this techno-libertarian utopia when someone defrauds you and steals your crypto-coins your only recourse is to buy the justice you can afford. Exchanges have already done this to folks who've been defrauded and sought recourse.

Regulation and protections are in place to protect consumers just as much as they are there to limit damage from bad actors.

I don't buy this notion that the world would be better off without a central banking system.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#246

Post by hakesdev » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #214

hakesdev wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. 100%. Bitcoin (like gold since the gold standard ended) is just a "check" on Fiat currencies and can act as insulation from central banks that issue too much money too quickly. Fiats will continue to exist alongside bitcoin/cryptos, they'll just eventually have to "compete" a bit more (i.e., not be printed so readily by gov'ts) or else they'll become significantly less relevant.

Or governments will just ban the use of cryptocurrency and instantly marginalize its use. Lots of good reasons to do so, if only to prevent the democratic power over market regulation becoming "much less relevant".

It seems to me you've not thought through the game theory of banning cryptocurrency very much.

There's an immediate competitive advantage (in the form of increased business activity & tax revenue) to the first country to adopt clear, consistent rules regards CCs and their use. If a few big countries try to ban it, that competitive advantage becomes even stronger for any country willing to buck the trend.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#247

Post by tome » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #231

vkou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stocks are not coupled to fiat, fiat is just the common medium of exchange for them. Nobody will stop me from trading my GOOG share for a goat, or a baseball card, if I so choose. Stocks are coupled to the productive output of the firm the stock is issued by, which is coupled to it's real world productivity - which, again, for convenience is measured in a fiat currency.

> Nobody will stop me from trading my GOOG share for a goat, or a baseball card, if I so choose. Nitpick, but the SEC would object to that. That said, American securities regulation has a unique philosophy, i.e. every securities trade must be registered and follow a narrow book of rules unless specifically exempted. Your broader point, of financial and real assets being proven hedges against inflation, stands.

The transaction must be denominated in dollars, but must dollars actually change hands? I don't think so. Companies buy other companies with stock issues all the time.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#248

Post by kortilla » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

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…

The Bitcoin network depends on a global functioning Internet. That depends on all of the defense, government cooperation, etc to stay stable.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#249

Post by lamontcg » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

hakesdev wrote: post #169

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…

This. 100%. Bitcoin (like gold since the gold standard ended) is just a "check" on Fiat currencies and can act as insulation from central banks that issue too much money too quickly. Fiats will continue to exist alongside bitcoin/cryptos, they'll just eventually have to "compete" a bit more (i.e., not be printed so readily by gov'ts) or else they'll become significantly less relevant.

Bitcoin is like a decentralized banking system with no controls at all against a systemic bank run. No FDIC or Fed.

It has been small enough that a single Billionaire could bail it out when it got into trouble.

Once you hit the point where it'd take > $10B's to bail out Bitcoin it is going to unwind eventually in a bank run/panic.

This time is not different, and those who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it.

And its driven at this point by greed and "number go up".

And the reason why people like it is that they put $10 USD fiat in one day and draw out $100 USD fiat some time down the road, and its that ability to extract fiat from it that it is tied to. It isn't any kind of alternative. Everyone watches how much it climbs in USD denominated terms. Nobody remembers "1 BTC = 1 BTC" even as a joke any more.

Bitcoin is also extremely easy for the vast majority of the population to quit. You don't need it to buy groceries, you don't need it to pay your mortgage or your taxes. When the supply of $USD in the system goes to zero and the price collapses from a large enough height, there will not be any floor to it.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#250

Post by Kranar » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

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?

I absolutely do think it should be an investment and I think treating housing like an investment has substantially increased the quality of housing. A great deal of advances in materials, construction, electrical work, plumbing, you name it... is because housing is treated like an investment and people are willing to spend money to keep their asset in top shape.

Furthermore I believe that investing in real estate promotes those asset owners to contribute to the neighborhoods they've invested in. When you invest in something you are participating in its growth and you're attempting to align your well being with the well being of the asset you're invested in. That's a great thing.

The downside to real estate investment is that it could prevent future people from participation. The solution to that isn't to stop treating real estate as an investment, it's to allow more opportunities for building and to incentivize people to build entirely new communities instead of pigeon holing everyone into a handful of existing mega cities.