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

Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

bitcoinmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#71

Post by alphanullmeric »

hgomersall wrote: post #70
alphanullmeric wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the point you’re trying to make? Do cryptocurrencies have value or not? It’s one or the other, you can’t claim they have value when you want to tax them and then claim they don’t when you want to regulate them.

That the process of taxation in a certain money is a sufficient condition to give that money value.

I’m not asking you to “give” my money value. I’m asking you to answer a simple yes or no question: does it currently have value or not? The way you’re trying to defend your obvious lack of consistency is purely circular. If it has value, you tax it. You can’t say that if you tax it then it’ll have value that justifies taxing it the first place.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#72

Post by CyberDildonics »

absinthe11 wrote: post #63
tromp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is and always will be Hashcash with SHA256d as hash function.

That's an example of sunk cost fallacy, where the miners have spent so much money (real dollars, not bitcoin) on otherwise useless ASICs that they obstruct any attempts at progress.

That's not a sunk cost fallacy, that's just sunk cost.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#73

Post by hgomersall »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #71
hgomersall wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the process of taxation in a certain money is a sufficient condition to give that money value.

I’m not asking you to “give” my money value. I’m asking you to answer a simple yes or no question: does it currently have value or not? The way you’re trying to defend your obvious lack of consistency is purely circular. If it has value, you tax it. You can’t say that if you tax it then it’ll have value that justifies taxing it the first place.

If you can use it to satisfy your tax liability, then it has value.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#74

Post by alphanullmeric »

hgomersall wrote: post #73
alphanullmeric wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not asking you to “give” my money value. I’m asking you to answer a simple yes or no question: does it currently have value or not? The way you’re trying to defend your obvious lack of consistency is purely circular. If it has value, you tax it. You can’t say that if you tax it then it’ll have value that justifies taxing it the first place.

If you can use it to satisfy your tax liability, then it has value.

It’s a yes or no question.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#75

Post by hgomersall »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #74
hgomersall wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can use it to satisfy your tax liability, then it has value.

It’s a yes or no question.

I think your difficulty is in understanding what states hope to achieve by taxing, which is not in order to capture some "value" from the thing being taxed. To them, crypto obviously has no value beyond anything they can do with the crypto (i.e. none). On the other hand those that fall under the tax jurisdiction of a state have a tax liability and whatever unit they can satisfy that liability in has value.

The fact that states can't issue more crypto on demand is why they'd be stupid to ever pay attention to it, much less let people pay their taxes in it. Crypto is not even money in the sense that it doesn't represent a debt, which is where the value of money is derived from.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#76

Post by alphanullmeric »

hgomersall wrote: post #75
alphanullmeric wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a yes or no question.

I think your difficulty is in understanding what states hope to achieve by taxing, which is not in order to capture some "value" from the thing being taxed. To them, crypto obviously has no value beyond anything they can do with the crypto (i.e. none). On the other hand those that fall under the tax jurisdiction of a state have a tax liability and whatever unit they can satisfy that liability in has value. The fact t…

Without fail, every single time I ask person like you a yes or no question, I receive an essay evading the question in response.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#77

Post by epakai »

samus wrote: post #53
empath-nirvana wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a routine trademark enforcement case.

That might be the case. However, the point is the motivation of the Fed to pursue this case. Most countries in the West might not nominally apply censure, but copyright, trademark, and libel laws are a complex minefield that the press and anyone politically active must carefully navigate, lest the Powers That Be use it to gleefully sue their opposition and pesky dissenters into oblivion.

Trademarks require enforcement or they can become effectively invalid. Any alternative motivation is speculative, trademark simply REQUIRES this action. I don't think the Fed has any special status in this respect.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#78

Post by samus »

epakai wrote: post #77
samus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be the case. However, the point is the motivation of the Fed to pursue this case. Most countries in the West might not nominally apply censure, but copyright, trademark, and libel laws are a complex minefield that the press and anyone politically active must carefully navigate, lest the Powers That Be use it to gleefully sue their opposition and pesky dissenters into oblivion.

Trademarks require enforcement or they can become effectively invalid. Any alternative motivation is speculative, trademark simply REQUIRES this action. I don't think the Fed has any special status in this respect.

They could agree on a compromise where the Fed receives $0.50 for every item sold. Maybe a cease&desist is the usual way negotiation about such a deal is started, but in this case this makes them appear very petty.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#79

Post by hgomersall »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #76
hgomersall wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your difficulty is in understanding what states hope to achieve by taxing, which is not in order to capture some "value" from the thing being taxed. To them, crypto obviously has no value beyond anything they can do with the crypto (i.e. none). On the other hand those that fall under the tax jurisdiction of a state have a tax liability and whatever unit they can satisfy that liability in has value. The fact t…

Without fail, every single time I ask person like you a yes or no question, I receive an essay evading the question in response.

That's because your question is not meaningful. You haven't found some great way to catch people out, you've just found the limits of your understanding. That's great, it's a chance to understand where the problem with the posed dichotomy lies.

The reason I'm here is to discuss issues, which means more than single word answers. I'd love for you to respond in a way that actually challenged what I'm saying, or questioned it more deeply or whatever. I'm not here to win; I'm here to learn.

Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product

#80

Post by alphanullmeric »

hgomersall wrote: post #79
alphanullmeric wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without fail, every single time I ask person like you a yes or no question, I receive an essay evading the question in response.

That's because your question is not meaningful. You haven't found some great way to catch people out, you've just found the limits of your understanding. That's great, it's a chance to understand where the problem with the posed dichotomy lies. The reason I'm here is to discuss issues, which means more than single word answers. I'd love for you to respond in a way that actually challenged what I'm saying, or question…

Whether or not crypto can be used to pay taxes is irrelevant to whether or not it holds the value to be taxed itself. But you’re demanding that I address an argument you made in an attempt to evade an argument I made. You’re now trying to have it both ways in more than one way. My question has a yes or no answer, you can either give me a yes or no or I’ll answer for you. I’m not interested in letting you continue to run from your obvious lack of consistency while asking me to let you try everything and see what sticks.
Post reply on HN