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

Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

financialinclusion.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#41

Post by once_inc »

ejb999 wrote: post #29
once_inc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making blanket statements without backing it up with evidence. Even if you do back it up with evidence, it will be anecdotal, since Russia has been actively working on crypto infrastructure and reserves, while Ukraine hasn't. Also, you are comparing individual Ukranians with the Russian state. Also; Bitcoin isn't net negative for society and environment. Another blanket statement given without any form of evi…

I am going to criticize your blanket statements without backing it up with evidence by making other blanket statements also not backed up with any evidence.

See my reply above please, linking to: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/05/the-frustrating...

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#42

Post by once_inc »

danuker wrote: post #33
once_inc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please note that Bitcoin is considerably more carbon emission friendly than most other industries. Also note that PoW is deliberately wasteful as feature.

I agree that PoW is wasteful by design. But it should be tuneable - it should somehow target securing, say, $X/hour, and not more, because it's even more wasteful. This could be implemented through an oracle that gives the current price to the protocol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_oracle

Adding an oracle is adding an attack vector on the base layer for the future monetary network. Oracles are by definition trusted sources of information and wonky, untrustworthy, unreliable ones at that.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#43

Post by danuker »

once_inc wrote: post #42
danuker wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that PoW is wasteful by design. But it should be tuneable - it should somehow target securing, say, $X/hour, and not more, because it's even more wasteful. This could be implemented through an oracle that gives the current price to the protocol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain_oracle

Adding an oracle is adding an attack vector on the base layer for the future monetary network. Oracles are by definition trusted sources of information and wonky, untrustworthy, unreliable ones at that.

Ugh. Then it would take revising the protocol, or a hard fork, to reduce the miner reward.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#44

Post by bambax »

reflexco wrote: post #14
astoor wrote: post #5

The problem is that any "legitimate" use case is negated many times over by all the illegitimate ones. It would be like saying let's legitimise terrorism because sometimes the terrorists might (just might) be freedom fighters, when in actual fact terrorism on the whole does way more harm than it does good. In the opening example, sure some money may have got through to Ukraine via cryptocurrency (although some was st…

Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism? One is a inherently neutral tool, functionally almost identical to cash, the other is a inherently harmful violent action. I mean there are plenty of countries where the idea of free trade being inherently harmful is accepted as common knowledge, but the US isn't one. Your view is one of extremism. Maybe we need to modernize Godwin's law with "terrorism".

> Are you seriously comparing cryptocurrency with terrorism?

Well, terrorism is a way of framing things; it's how the momentary victor labels the momentary loser. Cf. WW2; "terrorists" during the war became heroes when the war ended, and victory switched sides.

Cryptocurrency on the other hand, provides zero benefits, while contributing immensely to C02 emissions and global warming, which could end life on earth as we know it.

So the comparison might not turn to crypto's advantage.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#45

Post by danuker »

300bps wrote: post #39
danuker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I use Bitcoin is as a personal defense against hyperinflation. I find this very valuable. Also, apparently people pay a lot of transaction fees, therefore the network must be offering at least that much in benefits. What examples of terrorism or other illegitimate uses have been financed through Bitcoin? How much damage have they caused to society?

Without Bitcoin, Ransomware would essentially not exist. With Bitcoin, 37% of global organizations said they were the victim of some form of ransomware attack in 2021. Even more statistics here: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/feature/Ransomware... Beyond that, there are plenty of inflation hedges that don't require massive damage to the environment. Look into Series I Savings Bonds from TreasuryDirect.gov.…

> In first six months of 2021, there was $590 million in ransomware-related activity

Well, in the same period, there were about $900 million (edited; I had it wrong the first time, sorry).

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd

A lower bound of the benefits provided by the network (the transaction fees paid) is 50% higher than the ransomware. I am surprised it is that low, and am sad that the scammers are so successful.

But at what point does banning something become warranted? Roads, planes, cities, and spoons are also used by criminals. And "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

I'd rather argue that paying ransoms should be illegal, since it amounts to directly financing criminal activity.

> gold, silver, productive assets like stocks and rental properties

I also own gold.

I live in Romania, not the US. About assets linked to my country: their value would be severely affected in a hyperinflation. Look at Venezuelan real estate: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/historical-data?itemId...

Also, confiscations could extend to more paper assets, not just foreign money:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/12/venezuel...

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#46

Post by giaour »

once_inc wrote: post #30
danuker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please note that the environment FUD has been refuted many, many times over. And here you are making a blanket statement without backing it up with evidence. Bitcoin spends more than $1M/hr through proof-of-work, https://www.crypto51.app/ , essentially out-spending any doublespenders. This is wasteful. If the inflationary reward were reduced or eliminated, the transaction fees were more in line with the externaliti…

Environment FUD refutation (just the one I personally link to most): https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/05/the-frustrating... PoW security is a vector, and doesn't flip from secure to insecure at some specific point. A gradual reduction in mining hash rate doesn't render the chain noticeably less secure. Feel free to fork Bitcoin and use it as an alternative. Please note that this has been done in the past, an…

> PoW security is a vector, and doesn't flip from secure to insecure at some specific point.

The network does flip from secure to insecure whenever the cost of mounting a 51% attack dips below the amount an attacker could expect to gain. Markov and Schoar [0] made a convincing case last year that as minted rewards from mining drop, the active mining pool will naturally shrink and become more and more vulnerable. PoW does not prevent misbehavior; it establishes an incentive system to encourage participants to behave properly, and that incentive is subject to realignment by market forces.

[0]: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29396

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#47

Post by 300bps »

danuker wrote: post #45
300bps wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without Bitcoin, Ransomware would essentially not exist. With Bitcoin, 37% of global organizations said they were the victim of some form of ransomware attack in 2021. Even more statistics here: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/feature/Ransomware... Beyond that, there are plenty of inflation hedges that don't require massive damage to the environment. Look into Series I Savings Bonds from TreasuryDirect.gov.…

> In first six months of 2021, there was $590 million in ransomware-related activity Well, in the same period, there were about $900 million (edited; I had it wrong the first time, sorry). https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd A lower bound of the benefits provided by the network (the transaction fees paid) is 50% higher than the ransomware. I am surprised it is that low, and am sad that the scammers…

It isn't just ransomware. It's money laundering, terrorist financing, drug trafficking, human trafficking and so much more.

Think about it for a second - of those $900 million in transaction fees, how many of them were transactions involving legal vs illegal activities? Anyone involved in legal activities would have a much easier time and lower fees using ACH, wire transfers and other methods.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#48

Post by _zllx »

jkarni wrote: post #21
_zllx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article looking for any mention of Peter Thiel, couldn't find one. Tried Ctrl+F for thiel, no results. Cryptocurrency isn't all about Peter Thiel. Plenty of people want to use NFTs to earn money for their art or other achievements, and plenty of people are doing it outside of energy-hungry platforms like Ethereum. What's immoral is to deny anyone that opportunity under the guise of morality. Yes, the typical…

Thiel is one of the big donors to HRF, the foundation Kasparov and another co-signatory, Gladstein, work for.

I'll take your word for it that Kasparov may be unfortunately engaged in shady dealings, but I maintain that this should not condemn cryptocurrency tech. I don't imagine the recent rise of the anti-bitcoin movement is squeaky clean either; they're not doing all this PR work out of the goodness of their hearts.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#49

Post by giaour »

once_inc wrote: post #41
ejb999 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am going to criticize your blanket statements without backing it up with evidence by making other blanket statements also not backed up with any evidence.

See my reply above please, linking to: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/05/the-frustrating...

This article completely ignores the "embodied carbon" emissions and e-waste generated by the mining ecosystem [0]. Electricity usage is not the whole story.

[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09213...

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Crypto Policy

#50

Post by _zllx »

giaour wrote: post #27
_zllx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any resources to read about Russia's use of cryptocurrency during wartime? It seems purely hypothetical at this stage. I thought, like China, they would ultimately ban it to prevent civilians from easily exiting the Russian economy. (another legitimate use of cryptocurrency that is often overlooked)

> I thought, like China, [Russia] would ultimately ban it to prevent civilians from easily exiting the Russian economy. (another legitimate use of cryptocurrency that is often overlooked) You're kind of proving GP's point here. Evading capital controls is a criminal activity, and, though this is an example of a crime that we would all agree is morally righteous, you're still arguing that cryptocurrency is good becaus…

Good catch, but assuming evading capital controls is crime, then this becomes a debate of victimless crime. Under normal circumstances, it's not victimless, because it can hurt the economy and everyone in it. Who is the victim of a Russian civilian evading their establishment? I don't see the criminals running the establishment as a victim; they already did the most damage to their economy, and they're still the perpetrators of other crimes with many victims. Cryptocurrency makes everything pertaining to money easier, unfortunately crime too depending on what is considered crime, and I think it's still a net benefit. No matter what happens, we can't rely on implicit control of money as an easy way to punish crime anymore, no amount of debating or essays or letters will close that box.
Post reply on HN