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

571–580 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#571

Post by lolthishuman »

beardedetim wrote: post #510
lottin wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fighter jets and nukes primarily protect physical property and institutions, not cash. This is basically it. I don't know how bitcoin advocates expect property rights (in fact, any right) to be upheld in the absence of a coercive state. They have become so removed from reality that they don't see the most obvious things.

Do you think that it is only through a coercive State that I can have the right to food or housing? Put another way, do you believe the only way to ensure others have things is by coercion? I totally admit that a State is needed to ensure safety. There’s always a boogie man. Not sure if that’s true for all rights though. What do you think?

Fear of retaliation probably yes.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#572

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#573

Post by emptysongglass »

abrahamepton wrote: post #425
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 is pretty damn incoherent. > the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime. > Law and order stands on the backs of a lot of stuff and CO2. Bitcoin is an example of one little piece of this not needing all that stuff. Ok...? This is nonsensical. > Instead it's protected by this mining fleet. And if yo…

I don't think GP's comments were either incoherent or nonsensical. And you don't expand on your cheap hits, you just casually toss them out as unkind words on the internet. Try to be nice, please. And please develop your criticisms if you find it necessary to be so thoughtlessly hard on others.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#574

Post by mclightning »

ur-whale wrote: post #321
edouard-harris wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is America Note that the author of the post is based in London, UK: https://www.stephendiehl.com/

> Note that the author of the post is based in London But clearly positions himself as as USian.

Yeah, I found it weird too around when he used the phrase "We, in the US".

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#575

Post by prohobo »

CerealFounder wrote: post #110
slibhb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main premise of the article is that cryptocurrencies are "speculation for speculation’s sake," i.e. gambling, and that's bad. Also, the article claims that they contribute to inequality. The green stuff is basically a side note. I don't think it's a terribly strong case but I suppose it depends on whether you agree that crypto is gambling and if you think gambling should banned. Anyway, I think lots of people stu…

You guys are all dissecting his points like academics. I think the real thing is that the environmental piece is a strong enough weakness to make an emotional argument to build support within the non-hardcore communities with the cloaked motivation (as always) being one of control or financial power. The no-cryptos are betting on a growing swell of anti-anti-environmental ideas in general with this one. Currency/what…

True, it's an emotional plea that has little value in terms of rational decision making. As for the "Crypto-religious right", I think the term you're looking for is "Crypto Evangelism".

The environmental cost of this - globally decentralized - system is to put it bluntly... negligible. That doesn't matter though, as long as people can be convinced into thinking it's a major issue.

What also doesn't matter is: anyone's opinion. Hegemonic systems will do whatever they need to do to maintain power, and that includes the possibility of banning crypto - even if everyone absolutely loves it.

The only thing Crypto Evangelists should be doing is building the tech and making it ban-proof. Let the nay-sayers bemoan the loss of their crumbling infrastructure, they'll still need a way to function in the modern world.

"BuH GloBaL WaRmInG" - as if any of these people actually give a shit about the environmental impact of industry as they write their AWS Lambdas, get the newest iPhone, order plastic wrapped take out, and buy a new car to make their commutes to the office "nicer". Even if Bitcoin was considered greener than fiat (and it should be, since it's essentially an improvement in EFFICIENCY and therefore LESS WORK to operate), they'd still hate it for one reason or another.

But again, the poorly thought out narratives don't matter. What matters is the conflict between alternative tech and hegemonic tech.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#576

Post by p_l »

nbardy wrote: post #388
agentultra wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 utopi…

> and topple authoritarian dictators and fascists. This makes the violence worse every time the Americans stumble in and think they know how to fix a country by instilling new leadership.

Most cases are about installing a new dictator that supports US economic interests

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#577

Post by smeej »

splistud wrote: post #540
smeej wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We certainly think we know. But we've thought an awful lot of things as a human species that turned out not to be true. Gold is presumably scarce. Bitcoin is provably scarce.

You are wrong about gold, either learn or drop that, its not central to your argument. A lot of things are scarce. Some of those things are valued. Bitcoins may or may not be valued in the future, and if they are it is unknown at what price point they might be valued. Scarcity is only part of the equation.

Alright. I tried to do this. I'm certainly open to learning.

But it looks like I'm actually going to need citations from you because everything I'm finding so far confirms that we do NOT know how much gold exists in the earth, or where it might be found, or whether it will become economically feasible to extract it. All we know is that discoveries are slowing down.[0][1][2][3]

I've tried to read a variety of sources, from a scientific journal to a metals dealer to a mainstream news outlet to an industry-focused site. By all means, though, if you have citations for your confident claims that you're willing to provide, I'll be happy to read them too.

[0] Earthquakes are still forming new veins: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1759

[1] There may or may not be large undiscovered veins left, especially under the ocean and in Antarctica (and we don't know whether new technology will make them easier to discover and mine): https://www.providentmetals.com/knowledge-center/precious-me...

[2] New technologies are gaining adoption that could reveal veins that were undiscoverable before: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54230737

[3] There's no reason to believe the discovery of large gold mines is nearing its end: https://www.mining.com/web/were-a-long-long-way-from-running...

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#579

Post by voxic11 »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #419
grawprog wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is cryptocurrency different than all the other non-real digital goods that have become valuable over the years? Games like second life and Eve did the digital currency thing way before bitcoin. How is a pretend coin you can trade for money different than a pretend game currency you can trade for money? Because one is traded on the stock market and increasingly accepted in real world transactions? There was and li…

In EVE Online, the only permitted flow is as follows: you buy subscription time for real money from CCP Games. Others can then buy subscription time from you for in-game currency. In-game currency can only be spent in-game. It doesn't really seem very similar to cryptocurrency to me; could you explain some more about how you think it's the same?

That may be the only flow permitted by ccp games but it's far from the only flow possible.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#580

Post by moralsupply »

I love how much the HN community is invested in demonizing Bitcoin for its energy consumption. I wish for you bashing Bitcoin to keep all your wealth allocated in assets associated with fiat currencies.

I also wish that you spend lots of time running political narratives in order to stop a decentralized piece of technology from growing.

Good luck trying to reach out the Bitcoin CEO in order to ask him to shut down his "environmentally damaging operations".

In 5 years time, however, once the US dollar has lost 50% of its purchase power, you'll be begging your employer to pay you in Bitcoin.

By that time you'll conveniently forget the narrative about energy consumption.

You'll even claim that Bitcoin is one of the most important technologies ever invented, and that you always believed in it.

Post reply on HN