Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

blog.evergreengavekal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 280 posts

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#91

Post by whoisjohnkid »

betterunix2 wrote: post #30
reedf1 wrote: post #7

The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization. I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.

The difference is that someone can safely collect a Bitcoin ransom far from the police and can use it far from the police (no way to freeze a wallet etc.). This is called the "perfect crime" in research on ecash dating back to the early 90s.

criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin because of how easy it is to track bitcoin transfers. If any of their bitcoin transfers ever touches a KYC wallet they are screwed; until taproot gets activated for bitcoin it requires a ton of work to truly stay anonymous

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#92

Post by maxqin1 »

SXX wrote: post #69
maxqin1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and yes. But, if Berkshire wanted to they could pump BTC to new heights and undoubtedly make a profit.

They are not Tesla. This would be very much against their risk profile.

It's against everything they stand for in terms of value investing.

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#93

Post by maxqin1 »

solveit wrote: post #78
DSingularity wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt they are rich enough to corner the BTC market if that is what you are suggesting.

All they have to do is invest a billion or so in bitcoin, announce it (as they are required to), then sell it. It would be relatively trivial.

Exactly. But these guys are too old for the short game at this point. They are about legacy. And that should make these statements hit that much harder.

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#95

Post by bob33212 »

reedf1 wrote: post #7

The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization. I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.

A major talking point of the pro bitcoin people is that it is "permissionless and decentralized". And it is a good way to bypass governmental interference. They usually talk about the FED in this capacity, but it also applies to drug and ransomware legal controls as well. I think that is what he is talking about here. He isn't saying that cartels don't deal in cash. I'm sure he understands that.

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#97

Post by Applejinx »

smt88 wrote: post #10

If you think of all investments as a bet, what are you betting on when you buy crypto? In my opinion, you're betting that crypto will be useful as an exchange of value, which means the people exchanging it are either: A) criminals or B) living in a failed state. Personally, if crypto becomes so widely used that it justifies its market caps, that means a lot of states have failed, and I don't want to live in (or bet o…

Scary but plausible. I never assume that the richest and most powerful of people are also the most moral, ethical, or even viable. Seems to me it's more likely to go the other way, and that the richest and most powerful of people are that way because they're incredibly toxic and to them, even that is not nearly enough.

To someone like that, the only question about bitcoin is 'can I gain something off this in some way no matter who or what it destroys in the process?'

Sounds like a natural match to me, and so I'm unsurprised that some of the richest and most powerful people are all in on bitcoin. It's just that they have no intention of bitcoin, or society, ending up viable. They see a way to game it.

Period.

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#98

Post by jl2718 »

maxqin1 wrote: post #22
KingOfCoders wrote: post #14

I'm not a fan of Bitcoin, but often "contrary to the interest of civilization" means "contrary to the interest of me".

Yes, and yes. But, if Berkshire wanted to they could pump BTC to new heights and undoubtedly make a profit.

Or they know they can’t, so they are moral grandstanding until they come up with a plan for the digital economy.

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#99

Post by dTal »

reedf1 wrote: post #7

The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization. I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.

The explicit purpose of bitcoin is to avoid government interference. In all other respects, it is inferior to standard government-backed currency, with slow transactions and huge amounts of wasted electricity. We should therefore expect BTC's primary use-case to be activity the government would interfere with, i.e. illegal activity.

Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’

#100

Post by frereubu »

sschueller wrote: post #5

"And I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth" You mean like cash? I'm sorry, I'm sure Warren is a nice guy but that picture reminds me of the Dukes in the movie Trading Places [1] with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places

The Proceeds of Crime Act in the UK makes it a duty for banks to know where large deposits come from. You walk into a bank where you haven't been depositing large sums of cash on a regular basis, with a clear rationale for having it (e.g. pre-Covid coffee shops), and you will very likely be asked to demonstrate where it came from. If you can't you're likely to have to forfeit the cash.
Post reply on HN