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

331–340 of 386 posts

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#331

Post by Nursie »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #330
Nursie wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's both naive and wishful thinking. Like a BSD vs GPL argument, one can have many definitions of what constitutes freedom. Is BSD more free because it places no restrictions, or is the GPL more free because it guarantees freedom to those further on in the chain? I'm not going to attempt an answer because it's the stuff of decades of internet flamewars. Similarly I don't think that libertarian freedoms are…

I think if you ask 10 people on the street which definition of freedom is correct, all 10 of them would agree with mine. But in any case, you know what I mean by 'freedom'. I've given enough context to make that clear. My conception of freedom, by any other name, would still be my conception of freedom. What word you want to assign to is immaterial to the essence of my point. I don't feel this discussion can proceed…

Maybe, maybe not. You certainly frame your definition as if you believe it to be the only one. I believe that libertarians often frame their arguments as concerning freedom, as we in the west tend to believe freedom is unequivocally the best thing. It's the hidden assumptions and definitions about freedom as defined in libertarian thought which I find interesting, and biased.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#332

Post by CryptoPunk »

Nursie wrote: post #324
CryptoPunk wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BAT and FunFair are neither impossible nor useless. >I'm not sure that's a good idea. But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion. >It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time. Reputation is a very real and powerful t…

Who needs reputation or the long run if you can net a decent amount as a one-off?

I was referring to this:

>>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.

And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices.

My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#333

Post by aks_tldr »

vocatus_gate wrote: post #253
anilshanbhag wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that companies doing ICOs aren't Uber. Peek your head into /r/ethtrader. You will find people putting their retirement savings, mortgaging houses, etc and these people aren't technically savvy and can be easily taken for a ride. While you might have good apples, there are going to be tons of bad apples, people just coming with a white paper and asking for millions of dollars. Coming back to your questi…

Maybe I'm cold-hearted but I believe in something called "personal responsibility." They chose to throw their money into something they don't understand, now they get the consequences of that decision. You can be sure they'd be all about accepting the consequences of their decision if it panned out the other way and they made a fortune. I feel zero sympathy.

you too can be in one of those situations. Humans aren't at their rational best all the times.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#335

Post by vernon99 »

rothbardrand wrote: post #225
throwawaybbqed wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I can't take 10K from my parents/friends and give them equity?

It's highly limited. If you have 300 friends you can't take $10k from each, unless they are accredited.

This is why syndicates exist. Not a problem at all. Edit: not the only reason why they exist :) but a major one. To explain a bit more: syndicates allow you to consolidate multiple investors (not necessarily acredited) in an investment vehicle that then owns a chunk of stock in the company.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#336

Post by dsacco »

wav-part wrote: post #322
dsacco wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism. Victim = Individual. > how does that respond to my point? You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults. But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless. The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, pe…

Ah, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#337

Post by CryptoPunk »

Nursie wrote: post #331
CryptoPunk wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you ask 10 people on the street which definition of freedom is correct, all 10 of them would agree with mine. But in any case, you know what I mean by 'freedom'. I've given enough context to make that clear. My conception of freedom, by any other name, would still be my conception of freedom. What word you want to assign to is immaterial to the essence of my point. I don't feel this discussion can proceed…

Maybe, maybe not. You certainly frame your definition as if you believe it to be the only one. I believe that libertarians often frame their arguments as concerning freedom, as we in the west tend to believe freedom is unequivocally the best thing. It's the hidden assumptions and definitions about freedom as defined in libertarian thought which I find interesting, and biased.

   free·dom
   ˈfrēdəm/
   noun
   the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
   "we do have some freedom of choice"

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#338

Post by kobeya »

mcguire wrote: post #268
kobeya wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they will stop people from making bitcoin transactions how, exactly? It's a bit silly to come in and dismissively say "the state will regulate it anyway" when the whole point of the technology is that it technologically prevents central actors (like a state) from interfering. It's a bit like saying "nah, the MPAA and RIAA will shut down filesharing." Nope. They shut down Napster (which was centralized), but BitTo…

The same way they stop you from falsifying your taxes records now. Is this a trick question?

No it's not a trick question. Tax fraud investigation relies on bank cooperation. Bitcoin doesn't cooperate with anybody. They can make toothless voluntary requests though.

More likely society evolves in the face of bitcoin to integrate or at least mitigate it rather than fight it, just like music delivery is chiefly now by streaming subscription services rather than album sales.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#339

Post by ShabbosGoy »

craigsmansion wrote: post #317
TrevorAustin wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about money, it's about the freedom to associate with a group that I am aligned with.

What do you think the Chinese government has to gain from these regulations? Protection of the consumer? This is China we're talking about here.

Re: China's Central Bank Bans ICOs

#340

Post by CryptoPunk »

craigsmansion wrote: post #317
TrevorAustin wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does it sound like that to you? I've seen no evidence that the majority in this thread arguing against the ban have revealed that scamming people out of their money is their ultimate motivation. Assuming bad faith based on cartoonish ideological stereotypes is not fair.
Post reply on HN