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

SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 489 posts

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#471

Post by lern_too_spel »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #470
lern_too_spel wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that consistent? DPRK and Russia can already use their own messaging systems. They cannot create a cryptocurrency and make Americans use it in order to steal their money.

I took your complaints about financial privacy and applied it nearly word for word to communication privacy, and you switched sides. Stop moving the goalposts. You lack both consistency and honesty which is why you are losing this argument.

You've already lost the argument. There is nothing the US can do to prevent Russia and DPRK from securely communicating. There is something the US can do to prevent them from stealing money from Americans using cryptocurrencies.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#472

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #471
alphanullmeric wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took your complaints about financial privacy and applied it nearly word for word to communication privacy, and you switched sides. Stop moving the goalposts. You lack both consistency and honesty which is why you are losing this argument.

You've already lost the argument. There is nothing the US can do to prevent Russia and DPRK from securely communicating. There is something the US can do to prevent them from stealing money from Americans using cryptocurrencies.

Stop moving the goalposts. You support the redistribution of consequences and I do not. Simple as that. You do not have the right to other people’s money, the same way you don’t have the right to ban communication privacy, even if it were effective at stopping Russians or whatever other poor excuse you use to justify reaching into the wallets of others.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#473

Post by lern_too_spel »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #472
lern_too_spel wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've already lost the argument. There is nothing the US can do to prevent Russia and DPRK from securely communicating. There is something the US can do to prevent them from stealing money from Americans using cryptocurrencies.

Stop moving the goalposts. You support the redistribution of consequences and I do not. Simple as that. You do not have the right to other people’s money, the same way you don’t have the right to ban communication privacy, even if it were effective at stopping Russians or whatever other poor excuse you use to justify reaching into the wallets of others.

> You support the redistribution of consequences

You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

> Stop moving the goalposts.

Ditto.

> You do not have the right to other people’s money

If you say so. I guess we won't have roads or a government then.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#474

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #473
alphanullmeric wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop moving the goalposts. You support the redistribution of consequences and I do not. Simple as that. You do not have the right to other people’s money, the same way you don’t have the right to ban communication privacy, even if it were effective at stopping Russians or whatever other poor excuse you use to justify reaching into the wallets of others.

> You support the redistribution of consequences You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. > Stop moving the goalposts. Ditto. > You do not have the right to other people’s money If you say so. I guess we won't have roads or a government then.

If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences, you should have no problem banning encryption. You are the only one moving goalposts here. Again, I can easily construct an example in which the ban would be effective, and you would still not support it. Without double standards you would have no standards at all.

Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, military and police could be paid for by its consumers proportional to their consumption. Of course, people like you oppose that model because it forces you to pay your fair share instead of offloading the cost of the services you use to others.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#475

Post by lern_too_spel »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #474
lern_too_spel wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You support the redistribution of consequences You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. > Stop moving the goalposts. Ditto. > You do not have the right to other people’s money If you say so. I guess we won't have roads or a government then.

If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences, you should have no problem banning encryption. You are the only one moving goalposts here. Again, I can easily construct an example in which the ban would be effective, and you would still not support it. Without double standards you would have no standards at all. Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, m…

> If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences

For the third time, it isn't. Whose consequences are being redistributed?

> you should have no problem banning encryption

Why should I support ineffective policy?

> Without double standards you would have no standards at all.

My standard is effective policy. Nothing of value is lost by regulating cryptocurrencies, and starving DPRK and Russia of one source of ill-gotten gains is gained.

> Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, military and police could be paid for by its consumers proportional to their consumption.

Let's leave almost everyone be completely uneducated then. That's the way to run a successful democracy. /s

Are you going to continue to steal to fund the courts and military?

> You are the only one moving goalposts here.

Nobody is moving goalposts here. You simply don't understand what moving goalposts means.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#476

Post by tsimionescu »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #463
tsimionescu wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is actually a perfect example, since it's impossible to do anything with it except moving it from one account to another without requiring trust of the other party.

Sending it is kinda the main point of it. Also, you can mine fresh bitcoin without trusting another party.

Normally, the main point of money is to exchange it for goods. But you can't securely and trustlessly exchange bitcoin for goods, since goods are not on-chain. So all the fancy cryptography is not solving the main problem that it would have been useful to solve.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#477

Post by lern_too_spel »

hnfong wrote: post #435
sbierwagen wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do Kwan and Sam Bankman-Fried also tried evading arrest by not being in the US. Didn't work so well.

Worked for Snowden.

Not in the way he would have liked. He leaked information on compromised Chinese systems to China, hoping to gain asylum in the then relatively free Hong Kong, but China told him to take a hike. He then got on a Russian airline to try to get to Ecuador, but Russia detained him on pretense of invalid travel documents, which China didn't care a whit about. "Lucky" for Snowden that he didn't reach Ecuador, as Moreno would have given him up like he did Assange.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#478

Post by TheDudeMan »

tsimionescu wrote: post #476
TheDudeMan wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending it is kinda the main point of it. Also, you can mine fresh bitcoin without trusting another party.

Normally, the main point of money is to exchange it for goods. But you can't securely and trustlessly exchange bitcoin for goods, since goods are not on-chain. So all the fancy cryptography is not solving the main problem that it would have been useful to solve.

You can buy lots of things with bitcoin. Why would the goods need to be on-chain?

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#479

Post by alphanullmeric »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #475
alphanullmeric wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences, you should have no problem banning encryption. You are the only one moving goalposts here. Again, I can easily construct an example in which the ban would be effective, and you would still not support it. Without double standards you would have no standards at all. Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, m…

> If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences For the third time, it isn't. Whose consequences are being redistributed? > you should have no problem banning encryption Why should I support ineffective policy? > Without double standards you would have no standards at all. My standard is effective policy. Nothing of value is lost by regulating cryptocurrencies, and starving DPRK and R…

Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto, it’s the redistribution of consequences.

“Why should I support ineffective policy” is precisely the moving of goalposts. Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it, you are now adding more conditions after the fact. You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a scenario where your new goalposts are satisfied and just reposing the question. If banning encryption were an effective means of preventing Russian communication, you would support it right?

I don’t care if it doesn’t benefit you to pay your fair share. Yes, the military and courts have to be paid with theft, but you believe in those things too. Remember how I mentioned honesty and consistency? I’m honest where I’m not consistent, and since there are less instances of theft I believe are justified than you, at a baseline I’m always more consistent than you.

Re: SEC Sues Binance and CEO Zhao for Breaking US Securities Rules

#480

Post by UncleMeat »

unity1001 wrote: post #360
w7 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long standing in history, long standing in diplomacy, long standing in actual freaking Louis XIV administration communique, long standing in practically everything. That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media. > No offense but just because you people have a beef with Russia at the moment and they are using…

> That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media. How does this justify removing an actual historic term from the vocabulary. > But it clearly has a different meaning in English. It doesnt: > I'll admit error if you can find a source, that's not Russian It amazes me how someone that claims any insight in the ma…

It isn’t an especially historic term. It certainly isn’t contemporaneous to the time period people associate with the term.
Post reply on HN