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

301–310 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#301

Post by kodah »

samvher wrote: post #188
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…

> But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally. How is it that someone can't steal your money? The bank makes sure. How is it the bank can be sure? The cops protect them. How is it the cops aren't overwhelmed? The military protects them. At first glance, I find this an interesting take and it makes me rethink some things. But I don't think I find it very convincing, or at least it's too ex…

It's a reasonable world view. Our currency is backed by "Trust". Trust in what? A system that is reinforced by all of those things, for stability's sake.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#302

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

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…

> But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally.

I don't like this meme. Fiat currency is backed by an entire democracy that includes a military, but the key piece here isn't the military, it's the democracy. Despite all the problems in the US and our economic system, the folks in charge of the currency generally have the right mandate (stable employment and stable prices).

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#303

Post by gher-shyu3i »

tome wrote: post #226
oleganza wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fiat currency allows the government to make its citizens pay for its usurious debts, by printing more money. This is not possible with gold or bitcoin.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#304

Post by ur-whale »

_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 the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane

I disagree.

The author of the article is the worst kind of statist there is, and many of his arguments fall in the "big brother ought to protect their poor defenseless citizens, whether they like it or not".

The CO2 emission argument is just the icing on the cake.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#305

Post by lvs »

Kranar wrote: post #289
lvs wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing you said that is true is in the last sentence. The basket of goods affecting inflation is heavily influenced by the cost of housing. All you care about when holding a store of value is how much of that denominated fungible asset can be exchanged for things you need to live.

Ah, so according to you my first sentence is false then? Let's see what a simple Google search yields: >Inflation is the decrease in the purchasing power of a currency. >Inflation is the decline of purchasing power of a given currency over time. >Inflation is a persistent rise in the average level of prices over time in a given currency. > Inflation occurs when prices rise, decreasing the purchasing power of your dol…

I think you're definitely learning more just reading Google. Enjoy!

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#306

Post by ur-whale »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39
thebean11 wrote: post #11

Even if you take the most cynical approach towards crypto, banning crypto is simply not the governments job. At best, this is equivalent to banning beanie babies (no real negative affects for society, but stupid and a big overreach). At worst, it's equivalent to banning the internet (sets the country behind decades as the rest of the world adopts the new technology and profits from it).

The government has regulatory authority over monetary policy and currency, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? You might take issue with their decision, but the authority is there. https://www.occ.treas.gov/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

The federal reserve is not the government.

As they will tell you a every opportunity they get, they're an "independent" agency.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#307

Post by jude- »

Just do the following:

* Implement a universal carbon tax. Make CO2-based mining unprofitable.

* Require KYC/AML checks and tax reporting from all exchanges, and prosecute/block those that don't.

Wholesale banning cryptocurrency is a fool's errand without a massive restriction on general-purpose computing and Internet usage. So, let's attack the problems they create instead, since we already have the tools and legal precedent for doing so.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#308

Post by toomuchtodo »

ur-whale wrote: post #306
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has regulatory authority over monetary policy and currency, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? You might take issue with their decision, but the authority is there. https://www.occ.treas.gov/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm

The federal reserve is not the government. As they will tell you a every opportunity they get, they're an "independent" agency.

They’re chartered by Congress and operate under US statute. They are a GSE for all intents and purposes (although I agree they attempt to keep monetary policy at arms length from politicians for obvious reasons), and they’re on the record that they won’t deploy a digital currency without specific legislation permitting it [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/business/jerome-powell-sa...

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#309

Post by ur-whale »

The level of gripe and sourness in this article is amazing.

He's basically raising the "evil that is crypto" to levels that would make you believe that a large number people's lives are being actively ruined by Bitcoin.

I wonder how someone can get so angry with something that abstract ... I wouldn't be surprised if his agenda wasn't motivated by something less than noble.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#310

Post by CynicusRex »

I don't understand why people can't see it's all one big pyramid scheme. The early 'adopters' pay small amounts of money for a big percentage of the total amount of 'coins', and the late 'adopters' pay large amounts of money for a small percentage of the total amount of 'coins'. And once people have it, they have every incentive to get as many people to buy it as well, because only then they profit.

A blanket ban is a good idea. This cancer deserves no place in the economy.

Post reply on HN