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

The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#451

Post by Paradigma11 »

jude- wrote: post #295
Luker88 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally just 2 points: * using crypto will not make the military stop existing * switching to Proof Of Stake would solve almost all bitcoin problems ...but bitcoin will not even consider keeping PoW and switching to argon2, since the investment of miners in dedicated hardw…

> switching to Proof Of Stake would solve almost all bitcoin problems This will also create a very severe problem: it makes it so the means of coin production exist solely in the hands of the coin owners today. Those coin owners won't ever sell you enough coins for you to be a competitive staker. At least with PoW, I can make more coins through extrinsic means -- i.e. better mining hardware.

1.) If they dont sell it, its the same as it not existing or having been lost. Liquidity is not a problem in the PoS blockchains that have been operating for years (for example Tezos).

2.) You have to pay taxes on staking rewards. So unless they intend to lose money they have to sell at least that much.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#452

Post by beiller »

wk_end wrote: post #203
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…

I’m not sure if there’s a good way to measure how much CO2 is used to enforce fiat, but I very strongly suspect that it’s nowhere near as much as Bitcoin requires per economic unit or whatever. Bitcoin’s already using several country’s worth of CO2 and it’s still (compared to fiat) very fringe. Also bear in mind that much of that CO2 generated by the force you’re describing, aside from the people guarding the banks d…

Bitcoin doesn't use several countries worth of CO2. It has been "calculated" that "cryptocurrency" uses as much electricity as a small country. But that is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not use GPUs to mine. They use specialized chips which are far more efficient than GPUs. Etherium is the currency burning all the electricity. Also, you are conflating CO2 with electricity. Which is not correct in my opinion because electricy can generated via nuclear, wind and solar. In fact,any miners migrate to those power generation modes because it's cheaper for them. Electricity price is part of the ROI of mining.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#453

Post by ramphastidae »

abrahamepton wrote: post #425
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 is pretty damn incoherent. > the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime. > Law and order stands on the backs of a lot of stuff and CO2. Bitcoin is an example of one little piece of this not needing all that stuff. Ok...? This is nonsensical. > Instead it's protected by this mining fleet. And if yo…

> Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime.

That’s the same line authoritarian governments used to demonize encrypted communications.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#454

Post by webinvest »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #48
thebean11 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning crypto is a gigantic overreach when the government won't even try the obvious solutions like carbon taxes (which would indirectly discourage crypto mining).

I see the situation in the exact opposite way. Passing a Carbon Tax, while sensible, would run in major opposition because it would basically effect every citizen. But banning cryptocurrency would be much easier since the majority of the population doesn't own any and it can be framed in very positive terms.

> But banning cryptocurrency would be much easier since the majority of the population doesn't own any and it can be framed in very positive terms.

How exactly do you ban or confiscate bitcoin? New bitcoin wallets are created without even touching the internet! It can be done from the middle of the Mojave desert without any proof of it ever happening or existing. Internet access is needed when sending bitcoin but not when receiving bitcoin. By the time someone sends it, it’s too late, you can’t confiscate it because they don’t have it anymore. If the government bans or too heavily monitors the bitcoin network for activity, people can still send slips of paper through the mail with the private and public key to one of their wallets and trade around pieces of paper instead.

Combine that with a brain wallet and you can literally store bitcoin in your brain and pass through borders carrying nothing on hand. Try doing any of that with gold, Euros, Dollars, or Chinese Yuan.

The only thing stopping bitcoin is exponentially higher transaction costs but paradoxically higher transaction costs make small bitcoin holders effectively illiquid. This reduction in supply further drives up the price infinitely until most bitcoin is rendered illiquid or until people think slow cryptocurrencies with high transaction fees are stupid.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#455

Post by imtringued »

jasode wrote: post #263
samvher wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally. How is it that someone can't steal your money? The bank makes sure. How is it the bank can be sure? The cops protect them. How is it the cops aren't overwhelmed? The military protects them. At first glance, I find this an interesting take and it makes me rethink some things. But I don't think I find it very convincing, or at least it's too ex…

>But I don't think I find it very convincing, or at least it's too exaggerated. Fighter jets and nukes primarily protect physical property and institutions, not cash. Typically, the concept of "military force" like fighter jets, aircraft carriers, etc in criticism about fiat currency (especially $USD) is about connecting the dots to explain the strength of that currency. E.g., USA gets Saudi Arabia to sell oil denomi…

I honestly don't understand your comment. You're comparing two completely different things. Bitcoin mining protects the currency.

Meanwhile you talk about the USA securing its access to oil by using a potent "weapon" called the US dollar, delivered by the US military. The dollar isn't what's being protected, what's being protected is the entire economic system of the USA that is dependent on oil. If it was really about the dollar then the USA could protect it within its own borders. The US dollar is already strong enough as it is.

Comparing these completely different things makes no sense. There is no Bitcoin nation.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#456

Post by perardi »

RinTohsaka wrote: post #435
abrahamepton wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty damn incoherent. > the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime. > Law and order stands on the backs of a lot of stuff and CO2. Bitcoin is an example of one little piece of this not needing all that stuff. Ok...? This is nonsensical. > Instead it's protected by this mining fleet. And if yo…

> Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime. Speculation I could agree with... however, Crime? Really? Got anything to back this up? The vast majority of crime is performed using cash. https://hodlhard.io/blog/bitcoin-crime/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333388187_Sex_Drugs...

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/darknet-markets-cryptoc...

Anecdotally: people buy lots of drugs using cryptocurrencies. Not that I would ever do such a thing…

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#457

Post by louwrentius »

api wrote: post #424
thro7654 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whataboutism is about hypocrisy. Argument: X is bad because Y. Counter: But Z is also bad because Y and I don't hear you saying anything about that! Conclusion: So X isn't bad. E.g. the typical Soviet whataboutism: Argument: The USSR doesn't respect human rights and that's bad. Counter: A u vas negrov linchuyut (but at your place, you lynch negroes). I.e. the US doesn't respect human rights either. Conclusion: So the…

In this case it's about consistency. If marijuana is illegal then alcohol should be illegal too. If cryptocurrency is illegal than socially harmful property speculation, shorting stocks and then trashing companies in the press, casinos, state lotteries, and so on should also be illegal. Inconsistency in these kinds of areas just makes a mockery of the legal system and encourages corruption. There are tons and tons of…

What you may point out is hypocrisy. That hypocrisy still doesn't change anything about cryptocurrencies themselves.

Real or perceived hypocrisy doesn't absolve cryptocurrencies in any way. What they are and what they have to account for has to stand on itself, on its own.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You also seem to be a bit disingenuous: cryptographic hashes don't boil the ocean. Amusement park tokens idem. They aren't used for ransomware.

So this attempt at some kind of slippery slope argument isn't really working, if you would ask me.

When money is at stake, logic and reason is the first to fly out of the window. Whatever necessary to make the grift going will be said.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#458

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

The "mining fleet", if it uses computers, requires electricity. Who controls the supply and sale of electricity.

Nothing against desire to solve world problems but Bitcoin (edit: or any other example of a cryptocurrency) seems to be creating more problems than it purports to solve.

The author calls cryptocurrencies a "predatory investment scheme". In practice, is this not correct. Is it not the lack of "law and order" with respect to cryptocurrencies that allows for this to occur. Please explain. Show me how cryptocurrency is solving world problems. Evidence, not speculation.

When I was young people said that "money" itself was the root of all evil. Today, people online try to convince us that "fiat currency" is the problem. It does not feel like the same idealism.

The original Satoshi paper made his idea sound like it would be possible to implement as peer-to-peer^1 without third parties. All the implementations I have seen to date involve third parties. Doubtful a coincidence that the third parties are all profiting from that involvement.

1. The term now has multiple meanings. Here it is used in the original, Napster sense. Peer-to-peer networking, not, e.g., peer-to-peer financial. Edit: To clarify further what I mean by peer-to-peer, can person A and B, assuming each knows how to reach the other through the internet (address:port), conduct a transaction without involvement of a third party. For example, a requirement for person A or B to "sign up for an account" with anyone else in order to start using a cryptocurrency would be "involvement of a third party". If persons A or B needed to have a third party "mine" the currency before transactions between A and B could occur, this would also be "involvement of a third party".

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#459

Post by [deleted] »

bourgoin wrote: post #428
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…

Why does it make a difference whether your wealth is denoted by USD, Bitcoin, milk caps, or Rai Stones? If tanks roll over your capital city and your countrymen are made to kneel in a row, what good is it that you can refuse to give up the private keys? And how does the medium of exchange have any bearing on nations going to war over control of oil, rare earth minerals, strategic islands? It seems to me you're implyi…

[deleted]

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#460

Post by thesz »

RinTohsaka wrote: post #435
abrahamepton wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty damn incoherent. > the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime. > Law and order stands on the backs of a lot of stuff and CO2. Bitcoin is an example of one little piece of this not needing all that stuff. Ok...? This is nonsensical. > Instead it's protected by this mining fleet. And if yo…

> Maybe in a whitepaper. In the real world, it's mostly about speculation and enabling crime. Speculation I could agree with... however, Crime? Really? Got anything to back this up? The vast majority of crime is performed using cash. https://hodlhard.io/blog/bitcoin-crime/

I performed a napkin calculation about percentage of criminal transactions using $100 bills [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/sergueyz/status/1365040381155491841

Quote: "$100 bill spans 22-23 years with about 20 operations per year, 450 operations in total, 220 for median. We need to calculate probability p that operation is not illicit. p=0.2^(1/220)=0.9927. Probability that operation is illicit is 1-p=0.0073 or 0.73%."

I was answering clearly biased twit about "only 1% of transactions using bitcoin are criminal and 70%-80% of $100 bills are used in criminal transactions". The calculation above is for worst case of 80%. For best case of 70% of transactions are illicit, the probability of single transaction being illicit drops to 0.55% (fifty five hundredths of percent).

Thus, bitcoin carries from one and a third (1.36=1/0.73) to almost twice (1.8=1/0.55) more percentage of illicit transactions than money.

Post reply on HN