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

Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

cointelegraph.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#191

Post by afiori »

keymone wrote: post #174
afiori wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is pretty much the same thing as saying that "guns kills people" is nonsensical because there are many non equivalent ways a gun could be involved in killing someone

wow, it's amazing how you got that completely backwards. saying "guns kill people" is exactly the same as saying "bitcoin uses energy" - it's a way to shift blame from the real perpetrator to the instrument. perpetrator in this case being people who want to secure their assets via energy expenditure. if bitcoin disappears - exactly the same amount of energy will be used because the cat is out of the bag - satoshi sho…

That is perfectly a way to look at it but saying that "guns kills people is nonsensical" is making a straw-man of the argument.

The statement is essentially "guns are bad, more guns means more death, less guns means less death" which is far from nonsensical independently with how much you agree with it or not.

Bitcoin transaction use energy. The proof is that if no more transaction happened no energy would be spent in bitcoins.

saying that it is the security requirements that waste energy is like saying that bullets are the real culprits not guns: they go hand in hand. Bitcoin without security is no bitcoin at all.

It is technically feasible to have bitcoin with no security just like you can have an army with rifles and no bullets.

In both cases obviously the root cause is people, we still haven't found out neither our lucertoloid overlords nor the simulators to blame, so it is lapalissian: "people are the cause of people's action" but it is not a particularly useful rebuttal to many arguments.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#192

Post by luma »

Taek wrote: post #132
pharmakom wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin isn’t ready for that yet.

Probably more ready than you expect. The logistics behind actually banning Bitcoin are pretty convoluted. Anyone can just run a node, anyone can just transact, you can trade btc for cash OTC, there are literally satellites that beam the blockchain updates to every populated corner of the earth, and so on. Bitcoin has been preparing to be banned at a government level for a long time.

Bitcoin can work without government, but eventually somebody is going to want to have their coins turned into fiat. Bitcoin has no solution for this problem, if governments make turning your bitcoins back into their own currency difficult/impossible, then the value of your coin holdings is strictly theoretical.

Unless you can pay your rent in Bitcoin, you're going to face this problem.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#193

Post by luma »

tomcooks wrote: post #64
Shadonototro wrote: post #48

bitcoins show the nasty nature of the people all about profits, nobody care about solving problems, they just want the price to grow to make profit from their investment

Bitcoins show the same aspects in those who've been charging you 1-4% for the pleasure of doing what bitcoin achieves

Allright, let's say I want to send you $5 using bitcoin to cover a coffee. How much of a fee can I expect to spend on this simple transaction? How long will that transaction take?

Currently, the answer is a little over $6: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... That number has been over $50 on occasion.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#194

Post by snypher »

cmh89 wrote: post #67
snypher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we should ban options trading also.

Options trading has far more structure to try and keep you from hurting yourself than crypto does.

It sure does, I just have to click 'next' on a bunch of Robinhood screens. As an unsophisticated investor, at least with crypto I can 'just' lose all my money, and not be under the impression I owe someone $100k+.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#195

Post by jaredklewis »

rawtxapp wrote: post #134
kypro wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a meme in the Bitcoin community that mocks how some Bitcoin believers argue almost every event, no matter how bad it seems on the surface, is actually good for Bitcoin. https://www.google.com/search?q="this+is+good+for+bitcoin" I understand what you're saying, but I find it hard to believe making Bitcoin illegal worldwide would be good for those who invest or simply believe in the future of Bitcoin.

You can argue that so far they have been right, in that no bad news has really "killed" Bitcoin and there have been lots of "Bitcoin is Dead" predictions[1]. 1: https://www.bitcoinisdead.org/

It’s not a very strong argument. Whether the fall of Mt. Gox or China’s latest pronouncement was “good” for Bitcoin is fundamentally unknowable. Perhaps Bitcoin price and adoption would be even higher now if not for these events, we just don’t know. But we can’t just claim they were all good for Bitcoin just because none of them killed Bitcoin.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#196

Post by swebs »

camgunz wrote: post #175
swebs wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>nobody care about solving problems It solves the problem of corporate censorship. Visa for example is notorious for refusing to do business with people they don't like (porn companies, 4chan, etc). If the US government wants more people to use the dollar and less to use Bitcoin, they can come out with a public, first-amendment-protected payment system.

Protected classes aside, you can't tell a business whom they have to do business with. That's freedom of association and also in the First Amendment. For example, you couldn't force someone to sell a Coke to a Neo-Nazi.

Yes, that's my point. Read the parent comment again.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#197

Post by dadoge »

imtringued wrote: post #176
dadoge wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

22% of their GDP is remittance based. The US treats them like shit since they have the USD as currency. God forbid a country wants more independence 70% of the country has no bank, for Bitcoin all you need is the internet and a simple wallet app.

I'd like to mention that remittances are great. For a poor country to catch up with a rich country there has to be a technology/skill/money transfer. Either the rich people are coming to the poor country (export oriented economy) or the poor people are coming to the rich country (remittance oriented economy). If your economy is suffering from high inflation then remittances are a balancing force that is fighting agai…

A better solution for countries suffering high inflation is to not have high inflation.

One option is Bitcoin

El Salvador doesn’t have too much inflation since it uses USD. In their case, independence from USD is also a goal

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#198

Post by keymone »

danaw wrote: post #187
keymone wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, nothing but ad hominems, people with your level of ignorance don't have much else.

I can't tell if you're just trolling or you're trying to make a point that Bitcoin actually uses no energy which, unless you do some crazy mental gymnastics, is quite a bizarre perspective to hold. And please explain how my question is ignorant but the stance you're taking isn't?

Well, your question assumes that bitcoin is using energy and anybody thinking differently must be ridiculed.

Bitcoin isn’t using any energy, bitcoin is a marketplace where security of financial asset is represented in terms of energy expenditure.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#199

Post by rawtxapp »

jaredklewis wrote: post #195
rawtxapp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue that so far they have been right, in that no bad news has really "killed" Bitcoin and there have been lots of "Bitcoin is Dead" predictions[1]. 1: https://www.bitcoinisdead.org/

It’s not a very strong argument. Whether the fall of Mt. Gox or China’s latest pronouncement was “good” for Bitcoin is fundamentally unknowable. Perhaps Bitcoin price and adoption would be even higher now if not for these events, we just don’t know. But we can’t just claim they were all good for Bitcoin just because none of them killed Bitcoin.

MtGox really hammered home the "not your keys, not your coins". China bans and unbans it every other week, people learn to ignore it.

It's difficult to know what would have happened in a counterfactual world, but most bad news also had silver linings so far.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#200

Post by keymone »

afiori wrote: post #191
keymone wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, it's amazing how you got that completely backwards. saying "guns kill people" is exactly the same as saying "bitcoin uses energy" - it's a way to shift blame from the real perpetrator to the instrument. perpetrator in this case being people who want to secure their assets via energy expenditure. if bitcoin disappears - exactly the same amount of energy will be used because the cat is out of the bag - satoshi sho…

That is perfectly a way to look at it but saying that "guns kills people is nonsensical" is making a straw-man of the argument. The statement is essentially "guns are bad, more guns means more death, less guns means less death" which is far from nonsensical independently with how much you agree with it or not. Bitcoin transaction use energy. The proof is that if no more transaction happened no energy would be spent i…

> Bitcoin transaction use energy. The proof is that if no more transaction happened no energy would be spent in bitcoins.

That is not proof that bitcoin uses energy, in fact bitcoin only does about 2k on chain settlements every 10 minutes, and it has been like that for a decade, but energy usage has grown multiple orders of magnitude over that time period. Obviously energy is used for something other than transactions.

Post reply on HN