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

271–280 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#271

Post by MrMan »

tome wrote: post #196
einpoklum wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the political structure that keeps it in use? 1. False equivalence, since the environmental concern is about the generation of cryptocurrency not its social implications vs a crypto-currency-free world. 2. You've expanded this question so much that it is not possible to answer. The political structure that keeps money is use is basically the political structure of almost all world states, and capitalist/money-b…

> > and the political structure that keeps it in use? > 1. False equivalence It's additionally a false equivalence because those political structures also keep in place the things you want to buy with bitcoin, such as shops, factories, and things you produce bitcoin with, such as power stations and computers.

And indeed all those structures provide the support system for crypto itself. It is not outside the existing system. The rhetoric makes it seem like an independent and autonomous system but it is part of the existing technical and financial system. It will not replace the rest of the system, evidenced by recent cooptation by Visa and PayPal, the creation of exchanges, taxation and KYC rules. The real world exists and crypto is not an escape.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#272

Post by hervature »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #217
smeej wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're setting up your own strawperson at the end there. 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.

That's actually not a strawperson. I didn't set up an argument and knock it down. But go ahead and avoid my criticism of your point, it speaks volumes.

I think you thought the post you commented on (mine) made that response (I did not), but the only thing that it speaks volumes of is your eagerness to personally insult the opposing side by insinuating they can't engage in constructive debate. In my analogy, I tried to reflect an example of a typical decision available to a US citizen as that's the main audience here. The argument holds for any government service that people in financial ruin benefit from. In this case, the most applicable would be: should individuals who lose all their money speculating be able to file for bankruptcy? Bankruptcy is a social benefit that gives people a chance at a restart. Should we give that privilege to people who intentionally use it as a call option? Perhaps I should have used this example, but the other is a real monthly expense for many Americans and so I thought fit the narrative better.

And yes, your last comment is a strawman because any libertarian who believes in individual choice and consequence also believes the same for businesses and rich people. You're attacking a group of people who exist but that I wouldn't call libertarians.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#273

Post by caeril »

smeej wrote: post #146
tome wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin seems to benefit disproportionately from inflation Does it? On what basis would one know that? Why should it benefit from inflation more than gold, say?

Nobody knows how much gold is in the earth, much less in not-so-distant asteroids. The supply of gold might, technically, be "fixed" in the sense that no more of it is being created, but more of it could be discovered at any time. Bitcoin's supply is mathematically demonstrably fixed. Nobody's ever going to discover a new vein of Bitcoin in the earth's crust, or on an asteroid.

We know to a pretty good approximation how much gold is in the earth, and where it is. That's not even a minor consideration for mining geologists and engineers anymore.

The primary limitation as of now is ore quality, which directly dictates how much energy is required for smelting, and we have a good idea of the decline curve thereof. We know roughly when it will be economically profitable to extract the stuff from seawater, which isn't too far off. In the end, it's a question of energy. Very similar to proof-of-work tokens like BTC, in that regard.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#274

Post by abakker »

caeril wrote: post #262
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 is far from proven that target inflation is bad Target inflation is specifically intended to promote consumption. Consumption, particularly in the form of atoms, not bits, is approximately 90% correlated with greenhouse gas emissions, despite all our efforts to roll out renewables. Setting the "inflation is good" argument alongside an article decrying the climate impact of inflation-resistant currencies is . . .…

This is valid, but not quite the same. Inflation encourages consumption of Goods. Bitcoin encourages the consumption of goods too. To just maintain bitcoin takes a lot of energy. It is a bigger stretch to blame environmental degradation on the math of inflation than it is to look at the direct environmental costs of actually maintaining the bitcoin network.

inflation encourages investment in renewables. the deflationary nature of bitcoin appreciation means owners of bitcoin are going to defer current investment in renewables because the future value of bitcoin is greater than the present value of clean energy.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#275

Post by djoldman »

There is a horrific waste of resources devastating the environment that has gone on for far too long without detection.

Hundreds of thousands of computer servers running almost 24/7, hundreds of thousands of people driving to work, burning energy on their development machines. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on making products (and wasting energy) to support this industry, which then must be transported, wasting more energy.

We must ban this scourge: entertainment!

This entertainment industry (TV shows, movies, podcasts, video games, etc. used primarily for entertainment) adds nothing and is unproductive.

/s

But not totally sarcasm. Maybe bitcoin isn't truly solving all the problems we hoped it could. Perhaps those problems will be solved by a better version, maybe Ethereum or some other cryptocurrency.

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that energy isn't wasted in other parts of the economy. What's a "legitimate" use of energy? I think most Americans, generally protective of individual rights, would say let the market decide.

If Americans want to pay for TV shows, let the entertainment industry burn energy to give it to them.

If Americans want to buy/sell/transfer Bitcoin, whether to watch their "investment" go up and down in value, or for some other reason, let them.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#276

Post by keiferski »

einpoklum wrote: post #149
keiferski wrote: post #125

The hullabaloo over Bitcoin’s environmental cost is a classic example of people focusing on things that are easily visible and being totally oblivious to ones that are unseen or not obvious. What is the energy cost of the current currency system and the political structure that keeps it in use? I’m going to guess that it is significantly higher than Bitcoin. That’s not even mentioning Proof of Stake, which will essen…

> and the political structure that keeps it in use? 1. False equivalence, since the environmental concern is about the generation of cryptocurrency not its social implications vs a crypto-currency-free world. 2. You've expanded this question so much that it is not possible to answer. The political structure that keeps money is use is basically the political structure of almost all world states, and capitalist/money-b…

I meant more the actual nuts-and-bolts of fiat currency, not the entire political structure of capitalism. Obviously this is an unanswerable question, but ultimately the point is that the current currency system no doubt consumes a huge amount of energy. If the predominant currency of the world were a Proof of Stake crypto, it seems logical to assume that actual energy costs would go way down.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#278

Post by dclaw »

I'm really getting sick of this argument that bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is using some ridiculous/insane amount of electricity while completely ignoring the costs of running the entire existing financial system. There are companies literally tunnelling through mountains to lay fiber so that they can make thousandths of a cent on stock trades and that's not worse? Come on.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#279

Post by Sanzig »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #155

>> "Bitcoin is the textbook speculative mania for our time" This misses the point of bitcoin entirely. People need to understand Bitcoin solves a problem: a very big problem. This problem was caused by the gov and fed defaulting on it's obligation to maintain a stable currency. As a result, cash can no longer be used as a store of value. And by artificially suppressing interest rates, the fed/gov has eliminated yet a…

> Real estate, there's no easy way to invest in it in a scalable way.

Of course there is. It's called a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). If you want even more diversification, you can buy ETFs and mutual funds which hold multiple REITs in multiple market segments. You don't need to physically own a property to get real estate exposure...

> So, what are you going to do put ALL your money in Equities? with no diversification. People desperately need a store of value, they can't just work until their 120 year old.

You can buy bonds specifically indexed to inflation. In the United States, these are referred to as TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities). There are plenty of places to get exposure to these on the secondary market, eg: via ETFs.

I find it a bit silly to claim that you're interested in a store of value while holding a highly volatile asset like Bitcoin. By definition, a store of value should have low volatility and basically track inflation. Bitcoin has behaved far more like a speculative investment: yes, it's substantially trended upwards, but it's also been highly volatile. How do you reconcile accepting Bitcoin but rejecting equities, which have historically outpaced inflation by a significant margin?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#280

Post by thirtythree »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #218
rybosworld wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really not a solid argument. Bitcoin doesn't depend on drugs to have value, anymore than the US dollar does.

Bitcoin does seem to depend to a large degree on money laundering and speculation on money laundering. You might not like it, but that is definitely the reality. Other kinds of currency and investment are a few times more useful as long as you are doing legitimate business.

Source?
Post reply on HN