The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban • Hacker News Board

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#211

Post by duckfang » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

louwrentius wrote: post #138

duckfang wrote: post #109

Notice: When Wall street decides to horrible things with money in its various ways, nobody bats an eye. When fraud happens, nobody goes to jail. It's business as usual. When the People decides to do horrible things with money in its various ways, we see hardware manufacturers attempt to lock down hardware to prevent it (nVidia), we see the SEC collectively lose their shit, we see completely inconsistent rules from th…

You can't justify your own 'bad behaviour' by pointing at someone else's bad behaviour. That is whataboutism, to distract from - I believe - valid and substantiated criticism. I agree that so much is wrong with Wall Street, but that is another discussion. That is a separate issue to me.

Then you are missing my point of criticism.

The elites put together the artifact that we call the Stock Market. And when the elites play there, they have pretty much a free reign to do as they wish. Sure, there are rules... But as how they're enforced is a whole other matter. And for even the rules that are enforced - if they only have a fine component, they are only meant for the lower classes. Fines for the elites are only a cost of doing business.

And my comments weren't exclusively of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. I remember what happened around late February 2021 regarding shorting GME and /r/wallstreetbets . It was yet another case of a hedge fund trying to bankrupt a company in the same way that Toys-R-Us, Sears, and others have had happen to them (by the elite class, no less). And when r/WSB fought against them, corporate elite sycophants like Robinhood and others forbid the very transactions. . When the masses comes together, the elites effectively unionize into a huge bloc, but that didn't save Melvin Capital.

What you call whataboutism is what I call "inherent rigging of the market by the elites against the middle class". It just so happens that the elites didn't get into cryptocurrency until much later, so we see these kinds of one-sided articles.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#212

Post by oleganza » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #58

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #14

Let’s go the other way and ban fiat. Money printing is a much greater threat to world security. Print way too much money, run out of resources and room to pump, crash to rock bottom, start a war, then start over again is the historic cycle we are stuck on until we fix this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

I don't see anything in the reference that you provide that elaborates on "start a war". Perhaps you could provide the elaboration?

Wars are inherently destructive and can only be funded for prolonged periods of time with mountains of debt. Especially if you can extract taxes backing this debt relatively painlessly. Extracting Bitcoin from individual wallets is no small feat, and Bitcoin-backed (fractionally, of course) notes would not have the same advantage as paper bills over gold coins. Bitcoin is divisible, storable and transferrable well enough to be used as-is.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#213

Post by oxymoran » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #74

DickingAround wrote: post #53

This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…

> This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation I'm extremely confused by this argument that I see again and again. If you want to avoid your assets losing value to inflation that you can buy assets that are resistant to inflation, such as stocks, real estate, land, gold, inflation-adjusted bonds ... I just don't see that cryptocurrencies are particularly useful f…

A)I don’t have $150k+ To just go invest in land or real estate that I’m not going to reside in.

B)Are stocks and bonds inflation resistant if they are priced in the inflating currency? Not just normal year over year inflation but the type of inflation that happens when you debase a currency. Regardless, I already own these, the first rule of investing is diversification.

C)gold is inflation resistant and tangible so I agree that is the best option if you are truly worried about SHTF but it’s also heavy and more expensive to secure.

Bitcoin, in my opinion, is a hedge on the hegemony of the US dollar which I see weakening going forward. The US dollar is the global reserve currency thanks to the global oil industry. That gives the US a lot of power. But between the switch away from oil, the weakening of the dollar, and the rise of China the US currency dominance looks to be coming to an end. There is no other currency that could act as a global reserve currency except China, which would essentially make China the worlds superpower. That is where Bitcoin comes in: it can be the new global currency instead of China when the US dollar loses its place. Gold and paper only has value because we imagine that they have value, I don’t see how Bitcoin is any more or less imaginary.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#214

Post by bayesian_horse » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

hakesdev wrote: post #169

DickingAround wrote: post #53

This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…

This. 100%. Bitcoin (like gold since the gold standard ended) is just a "check" on Fiat currencies and can act as insulation from central banks that issue too much money too quickly. Fiats will continue to exist alongside bitcoin/cryptos, they'll just eventually have to "compete" a bit more (i.e., not be printed so readily by gov'ts) or else they'll become significantly less relevant.

Or governments will just ban the use of cryptocurrency and instantly marginalize its use.

Lots of good reasons to do so, if only to prevent the democratic power over market regulation becoming "much less relevant".

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#215

Post by ledauphin » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

viklove wrote: post #132

flaque wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do! Gas taxes, bans of gas vehicles, required emission standards, etc.

I think the real solution here is banning coal, natural gas, etc., not the downstream users of it. If I want to mine BTC with 100% nuclear/wind/solar energy, then the problem is solved right?

technically, any process with negative externalities should not necessarily be free of societal (i.e. governmental) limits. All of the "renewable" sources of energy you've mentioned here have some form of negative externality.

of course, in my non-expert opinion, it would be preferable for the government to focus directly on the negative externalities rather than second or third order causes thereof.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#216

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #74

DickingAround wrote: post #53

This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…

> This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation I'm extremely confused by this argument that I see again and again. If you want to avoid your assets losing value to inflation that you can buy assets that are resistant to inflation, such as stocks, real estate, land, gold, inflation-adjusted bonds ... I just don't see that cryptocurrencies are particularly useful f…

They're very similar to gold in this regard. They have a value because people think they have a value. They're a lot easier to store, transport and transact with than gold bars though.

And I have my doubts whether Bitcoin mining is more destructive than gold mining. It's possible (it's a LOT of energy), but gold mining is also pretty nasty.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#217

Post by SavantIdiot » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #172

SavantIdiot wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> healthcare of someone who used their health insurance money to speculate on cryptocurrency? You've got it backwards. You are making health insurance profit-driven, when it should be a government service. So then there would be no "individual's health insurance money" to quibble about. > Once the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens, it has weird effects like banning cryptocurrency Wow, that'…

You're setting up your own strawperson at the end there. The kind of libertarian who's excited about Bitcoin is the kind that, with Satoshi in Bitcoin's genesis block, criticizes the bailout of banks and thinks they should have been allowed to fail, because that's what would keep them in check and prevent their walking all over regular people.

That's actually not a strawperson. I didn't set up an argument and knock it down. But go ahead and avoid my criticism of your point, it speaks volumes.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#218

Post by bayesian_horse » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

rybosworld wrote: post #161

quickthrower2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are Saying fiat is backed by fighter jets then Bitcoin is backed by selling dangerous fake MDMA. That’s if we are getting into that way of arguing which hopefully we are not.

That's really not a solid argument. Bitcoin doesn't depend on drugs to have value, anymore than the US dollar does.

Bitcoin does seem to depend to a large degree on money laundering and speculation on money laundering.

You might not like it, but that is definitely the reality. Other kinds of currency and investment are a few times more useful as long as you are doing legitimate business.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#219

Post by biztos » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

the_local_host wrote: post #102

I think cryptocurrencies are idiotic, but this essay just does not make a case for a blanket ban at all, nor do I think one is necessary. The environmental impact should be regulated, but other than that, governments should just stay out of it and let the cryptocurrency landscape be the wild frontier its proponents want it to be. May the best obfuscated smart contract code win, until no one wants to play anymore.

Other than the miners paying the market price for electricity, how would the environmental impact be regulated?

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#220

Post by kgwgk » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

oxymoran wrote: post #213

tome wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation I'm extremely confused by this argument that I see again and again. If you want to avoid your assets losing value to inflation that you can buy assets that are resistant to inflation, such as stocks, real estate, land, gold, inflation-adjusted bonds ... I just don't see that cryptocurrencies are particularly useful f…

A)I don’t have $150k+ To just go invest in land or real estate that I’m not going to reside in. B)Are stocks and bonds inflation resistant if they are priced in the inflating currency? Not just normal year over year inflation but the type of inflation that happens when you debase a currency. Regardless, I already own these, the first rule of investing is diversification. C)gold is inflation resistant and tangible so…

> B)Are stocks and bonds inflation resistant if they are priced in the inflating currency?

The parent comment said "inflation-adjusted bonds". If you don't know what that means, look it up.

As for stocks, they are priced in an inflating currency in the same way that real estate or dogecoin are priced in an inflating currency.