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

China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

dailybusinessgroup.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 699 posts

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#81

Post by Loughla »

mettamage wrote: post #45
1cvmask wrote: post #10

This seems to me the same as their old pronouncements. Nothing new as in newsworthy. Maybe they are doing this as a reminder of their older announcements? Sort of like "I told you so!"

A friend of mine that works in the industry as a business developer for Chinese blockchain firms since 2017 said the exact same thing! My market perspective: "Everything is priced in." Apparently, not in the crypto markets. Old news is new news, apparently. Policy perspective: The more DeFi becomes a thing, the less a policy like this will matter. It will still matter a lot, but it will pack less of a punch due to de…

>If crypto still feels as speculative (in terms of trading crypto) 10 years later, then I feel the experiment to find a good use-case has ran for long enough.

Maybe I'm taking this to a place you didn't intend, or maybe this is an ignorant question but. . . .

What is the US market now, compared to 10 years ago. My experience is that 10 years ago Bitcoin was used to either buy drugs, or as a bet made by college kids that they could make easy money.

And. Well. It seems still pretty much the same in terms of existing primarily as a speculative tool.

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#83

Post by tuesdayrain »

tromp wrote: post #70
noxer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only PoW cryptos need extensive electricity and hardware. Dont make crypto just bitcoins. If you really want to help make a dent in the energy consumption then people need to move away from PoW coins not from crypto in general.

Only PoW cryptocurrencies can be fairly distributed and avoid wealth concentration (although many fail to do so by concentrating most of emission in just the first few years).

Fair distribution is not only completely subjective, but also meaningless. Given enough time, any valuable asset's distribution will be heavily concentrated in the hands of the rich.

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#84

Post by jhgb »

ddorian43 wrote: post #73
hacknews20 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Nothing more volatile…” erm energy prices in the UK just jumped 70% and it’s not to do with crypto, co2 supply shrank to levels never seen before again nothing to do with crypto both of which affect whole populations. Try to avoid crypto hyperbole. Lastly, I don’t know anybody invested in crypto that hasn’t made money, so anecdotally that indicates the number is much higher than 5%.

> Lastly, I don’t know anybody invested in crypto that hasn’t made money, so anecdotally that indicates the number is much higher than 5%. You make money when you exit and sell the asset for cash. Have they sold ?

I thought this "asset" was supposed to replace cash. Why would you "sell it for cash"? Other than an equivalent for selling US dollars for Euros.

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#85

Post by avianlyric »

Loughla wrote: post #76
dougmwne wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a country rounding up a whole population of a religious minority and sending them to reeducation camps. A country that mobilized over a billion people to almost completely control covid. You are vastly underestimating the CCP, as most Westerns continue to do.

I've noticed this quite a bit, and I don't understand it. People keep writing articles and saying things amounting to 'it just won't last forever'. But the reason is, because it just won't, totalitarian governments don't last. Why wouldn't it? Strong central government. Clear economic and social goals with the ends justifying whatever unethical means. A complacent middle and upper class satiated by enough new wealth…

Nothing wrong with the fundamentals of your argument, but growth can’t be unlimited. Eventually it’s starts slowing down, then those complacent middle class will start being less complacent and start demanding more freedom.

I think it’s reasonable to say the CCP will keep their grip on power for as long as they can continue delivering wealth to the middle class, and lifting those in poverty into the middle class. What’s not clear is how long the CCP can continue delivering that wealth.

The ongoing crisis with Everglade is showing that the CCP power and ability to generate wealth is not unlimited. I doubt it’s the beginning of the end, but it does shine a light on the long term structural flaws of their strategy. It’ll be interesting to see how the CCP deals with this over the next 10 to 20 years, maybe they’ll find a new strategy to maintain power, or maybe they’ll start a slow and gentle transition into democracy, allowing them to placate the middle class who won’t be seeing outsized wealth growth anymore.

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#86

Post by arnold_palmur »

holoduke wrote: post #14

I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.

I know HN's sentiment around cryptocurrency, regardless, how is this the top comment in this thread?

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#87

Post by selfhoster11 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #52
atatatat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of law, intent, etc, this is how it functionally ends up happening, a nonzero amount of the time.

That's what ends up happening when an asset becomes economically meaningful. Crypto is still a joke to global economy, but on the off chance it gains mainstream adoption, it'll have the same kind of regulations, taxation and fraud attached to it.

Except crypto is less firmly anchored in the real world than in the digital realm. It's fundamentally harder to regulate it than a physical currency, which needs specialist equipment to generate.

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#88

Post by jhgb »

trident5000 wrote: post #39
holoduke wrote: post #14

I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable. Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.

Define volatile. The only currency that has stood the test of time is gold, a private currency. Every fiat currency in history has failed. Probably because heads of state like to print it to solve their short term problems essentially robbing everyone with an inflation tax. I dont call that stable or just. I work and save and expect my currency to hold up and not be abused which is not happening currently. Edit: HN m…

Except gold is not a currency. It's a commodity. Gold coins used to be a currency in certain times and places. Insofar as they're not recognized anymore, at least where I live, they've actually failed.

Re: China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’

#90

Post by 542458 »

Loughla wrote: post #76
dougmwne wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a country rounding up a whole population of a religious minority and sending them to reeducation camps. A country that mobilized over a billion people to almost completely control covid. You are vastly underestimating the CCP, as most Westerns continue to do.

I've noticed this quite a bit, and I don't understand it. People keep writing articles and saying things amounting to 'it just won't last forever'. But the reason is, because it just won't, totalitarian governments don't last. Why wouldn't it? Strong central government. Clear economic and social goals with the ends justifying whatever unethical means. A complacent middle and upper class satiated by enough new wealth…

I don’t think that it’s “a sure fire thing that it’ll collapse in N years” or anything, but I do have to wonder if a system that concentrates power that significantly would be less long-term stable, as all you need is one less-competent supreme leader to send the whole thing tumbling.
Post reply on HN