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

291–300 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#291

Post by gher-shyu3i »

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…

Good points. There's also the argument that some of us want nothing to do with interest and usury. And fiat currencies by definition are usurious currencies due to how the government runs its finances.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#292

Post by gher-shyu3i »

tome wrote: post #224
oxymoran wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 http…

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

Are there REITs that don't deal with interest?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#293

Post by djoldman »

lmilcin wrote: post #290
djoldman wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, it's difficult to imagine the scale. Let's also look at something else: the US department of defense: "...The U.S. military also produced more greenhouse gases than Morocco, Peru, Hungary, Finland, New Zealand and Norway. According to the research from Brown University, the Pentagon would be the world's 55th largest CO2 emitter if it was a country..." [0] I think reasonable people could disagree…

If you think bitcoin will cause military to go away you are naive in the extreme. Military is there because we don't know how to do better. Just like democracy is a shit show of inefficiency but we just have not figured out better system of government yet. But we know how to transfer money without burning huge amount of energy and that is the point.

I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will cause militaries to go away.

>Military is there because we don't know how to do better.

This is exactly my point. Many people think we *do* know how to do better: stop spending so much of our resources and energy on militarization.

If we want to say that Bitcoin is a waste of energy, let's also point out all the other things people think are a waste of energy.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#294

Post by ur-whale »

firmnoodle wrote: post #154
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?

The argument is that Bitcoin not only has a provable total fixed supply & rate of future supply and that it has more utility than gold because it's easier to transfer and harder to fake.

> harder to fake

Also harder to take.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#295

Post by jude- »

Luker88 wrote: post #222
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 hardw…

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

This will also create a very severe problem: it makes it so the means of coin production exist solely in the hands of the coin owners today. Those coin owners won't ever sell you enough coins for you to be a competitive staker. At least with PoW, I can make more coins through extrinsic means -- i.e. better mining hardware.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#296

Post by ur-whale »

tome wrote: post #164
rybosworld wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument would be it's the only thing on that list of inflation hedges that has a fixed supply. Lot's of gold is mined each year. Houses are built. Stock is issued, etc. Bitcoin has a well-established upper limit.

> [Bitcoin is] the only thing on that list of inflation hedges that has a fixed supply. Aha! That brings me to my next question. In what sense does bitcoin actually have a fixed supply? Sure, a loose coalition of people agree for it to have a fixed supply at the moment, but if enough of the miners, core developers, etc. agree they can change the rules arbitrarily, viz. hard forks. Why should we believe that bitcoin r…

Every single thing you said applies to the greenback.

Therein lies your answer: if a large enough number of people place faith into something, it "takes".

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#297

Post by gher-shyu3i »

Ensorceled wrote: post #122
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 has been valuable for centuries. There is no BitGold network that, if it went under, would cause your gold to simply evaporate. Once mined and processed, gold is incredibly stable, 2000 year old gold coins can be dug up and sold as antiques. All currencies have value, not because "humans" value them, but because some organization of humans said "this piece of paper is legal tender". They lose their value when th…

> There is no BitGold network that, if it went under, would cause your gold to simply evaporate.

However, if a government does go down, then its currency evaporates.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#298

Post by lmilcin »

djoldman wrote: post #293
lmilcin wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think bitcoin will cause military to go away you are naive in the extreme. Military is there because we don't know how to do better. Just like democracy is a shit show of inefficiency but we just have not figured out better system of government yet. But we know how to transfer money without burning huge amount of energy and that is the point.

I didn't mean to imply that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will cause militaries to go away. >Military is there because we don't know how to do better. This is exactly my point. Many people think we *do* know how to do better: stop spending so much of our resources and energy on militarization. If we want to say that Bitcoin is a waste of energy, let's also point out all the other things people think are a waste…

You can't get rid of military unless you want to become completely defenseless and open to conquer.

Peace is a temporary equilibrium where nobody profits from starting hostilities. Nobody profits from starting hostilities because they know it is going to cost them.

If you are not being robbed or beaten or raped that is because there is police and government that can ensure anybody doing this faces good chance of paying high price for this.

Between governments this is done with a prospect of war but that prospect only exists if there is military to back it up.

Just go and ask China or Russia to reduce their military efforts. See what comes out of it.

You need to read some history, man.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#299

Post by Bluestein »

musesum wrote: post #116

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.

> currency is a belief system backed by Joules.

That is a very insightful definition ...

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#300

Post by jude- »

tome wrote: post #236
smeej wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an underappreciated point. U.S. dollars are backed by violence. Bitcoin is backed by math. I don't know what you want backing your money in the world you hope to leave for future generations, but I know what I want backing mine.

What math prevents a big enough group of miners and users rolling back the blockchain?

I'd rather that happen to my country's wealth than have it bombed out of existence.
Post reply on HN