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

China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#311

Post by dsacco »

wav-part wrote: post #285
dsacco wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money. Are you okay with laws about how money is earned? Why? If yes, why are you not okay with laws about how money is spent? There are a vast number of regulations imposed on how you spend your money is spent in any government. Do you categorically disagree with them or are you okay with some of them? EDIT: Every time a thre…

LOL its like asking victim to prove why attacker should not attack him. The onus is NOT on victim but the attacker. Its the attacker who made the first contact. Its the attacker who has to prove from the mutually agreed upon set of axioms.

To be honest I'm really not following your position here. Who is the victim and who is the attacker, and how does that respond to my point?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#312

Post by krzkaczor »

rothbardrand wrote: post #147

Why don't rich people need protection? Here's the answer: this is their protection. It reduces their competition. Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matt…

I need to say that you have some great points ;) It's really exciting to read opinion so close to my heart.

Currently, I work at Neufund where we want to do exactly what you described: open access to broad range of investment opportunities for everyone by using cryptocurrencies. Check it out! https://neufund.org/

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#313

Post by dsacco »

felipeko wrote: post #252
dsacco wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People cheering a government's ban on what its citizens can do with their lawfully earned money. Are you okay with laws about how money is earned? Why? If yes, why are you not okay with laws about how money is spent? There are a vast number of regulations imposed on how you spend your money is spent in any government. Do you categorically disagree with them or are you okay with some of them? EDIT: Every time a thre…

The principle is pretty simple, if it's two consenting adults doing something that does not impact a third person rights, they should be allowed to do it. So I would be okay with laws about how money is earned, if there's a third person being impacted (pollution, for example), and i am okay with laws about how money is spent if there's a third person being impacted (idk, hiring a assassin) Of course when one of the t…

Do you agree that certain activities that don't directly impact specific individuals can introduce risk for other people in general? If so, how do you feel about laws designed to limit your ability to take part in those activities?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#314

Post by CryptoPunk »

Nursie wrote: post #310
CryptoPunk wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrency is something people choose to go into knowing it's resistant to regulation by design. If they want to avoid the risks associated with fewer regulations, they can remain in the traditional financial market. But yes we've reached an empasse. We fundamentally don't relate on the issue of a third party essentially dictating to an individual what risks they may subject themselves to.

I think we'll begin to find out how regulation-resistant it is over the next few years... And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.

It may be regulation resistant or it may prove to not be. But the point is people go into it with the expectation that it is designed to try to achieve this property, and they're free to avoid any perceived risks of a regulation resistant industry by remaining in the traditional financial market. This greatly reduces the moral justification of imposing regulations on this space.

We also disagree on the economic causes of events like the Great Depression.

Also I did mention we could bring back an option to voluntarily cede one's own freedom, for those that don't want to bear the responsibility of living with the consequences of their own bad decisions, so I don't think our disagreement is exactly how you've characterised it. It's more like we disagree on whether we should prevent people from having the option to live freely.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#315

Post by gritzko »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #308
gritzko wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filecoin? Consider Bit Torrent seeding/bandwidth. It is too cheap to count for at least 10 years. Even tit-for-tat is no longer necessary since LEDBAT was rolled out (circa 2010). The stuff they are going to count "on the blockchain" is too cheap to count! Well, and blockchain transactions are kind of expensive and slow. See the problem?

the question was to name legitimate businesses doing ICOs. filecoin is certainly legitimate. You are talking about how their tech might fail and how their business might not work. that's great, and you could very well be correct, but that's not what we are discussing here

I am rather certain that guys consumed less-legal substances while drafting their whitepapers. That is my top reason not to consider their business "legitimate".

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#316

Post by emperorcezar »

patrickaljord wrote: post #258
emperorcezar wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. This guy here thinks people are rational actors. Even in groups.

The right to act on our own irrationalities and commit our own mistakes is one of our most important right (the right to eat what you want, date who you want etc, these things used be illegal not so long ago to make sure you didn't act irrational, turns out letting people make their own choice even when irrational trumps the lack of freedom to do so because what seems irrational may actually not be and vice versa, as…

This only works in the world where a person's choices only effect them. That's not the case. The case is it effects your family and a load of people losing their money causes the economy the crash.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#317

Post by craigsmansion »

TrevorAustin wrote: post #209
rothbardrand wrote: post #147

Why don't rich people need protection? Here's the answer: this is their protection. It reduces their competition. Seriously, these securities rules keep people like me from investing in AirBnB and Uber (two that I caught very early and wanted into)... but we can all go to Vegas and lose $100k in a single weekend. But putting $10k into Uber's seed round is somehow a crime I need to be protected from? Truth of the matt…

It ... sounds like you wouldn't have any trouble getting accredited?

Very good point.

It sounds like "Why are there laws that prevent fools from giving their money to me?"

The more replies I read, the more I'm convinced these regulations are working exactly as intended: to protect the innocent from free-for-all sociopaths.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#318

Post by vasilipupkin »

gritzko wrote: post #315
vasilipupkin wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question was to name legitimate businesses doing ICOs. filecoin is certainly legitimate. You are talking about how their tech might fail and how their business might not work. that's great, and you could very well be correct, but that's not what we are discussing here

I am rather certain that guys consumed less-legal substances while drafting their whitepapers. That is my top reason not to consider their business "legitimate".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#319

Post by davidgerard »

dingo_bat wrote: post #305
davidgerard wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't appear to be an accurate description of the ICO market as it exists. The hardest work in ICOs is the marketing. At the back end, they literally put in the fine print that the thing you just bought is worthless. https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/icos-magic-beans-and-bu... Look up the EOS fine print. They took down the PDF, but I kept a spare: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/references/EOS%20Token%…

It's literally saying "Give us your money and we will give you nothing in return"! WTF?!

And EOS has been one of the biggest ICOs. Also, despite the "no US citizens" bit, it's been advertising to the general public in the US (and in the UK). They are selling an ERC-20 magic bean to be traded on the bubble machines, and both buyers and sellers are going nod-nod wink-wink.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#320

Post by crush-n-spread »

elefanten wrote: post #256
rothbardrand wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those "studies" are self serving. That is the political propaganda keeping you feeling safe in having your rights violated. This isn't a question of flavor of politics- but fundamental rights. Do you have freedom of association or not? Secondly, you think its "fairly clear to [you]" that these ICOs are scams. I am sure some are, but I know for a fact that many are not. I am quite capable of telling the difference (as…

One of your key premises, that investing in startups is a key / good path to getting rich, is flawed. Investing in startups is notoriously NOT that stable of an investment vehicle. If you're a small-scale enough investor to not meet accreditation rules, why would you WANT to throw 10k at a startup? You speak in terms of rights and that's one debate to have. But evaluating the material harm in this situation, the noti…

His key premise is that freedom of association extends to seed investments. As the other poster said you have set up a straw man argument here.
Post reply on HN