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

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#561

Post by Gendun » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 7:00 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #518

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…

Originally posted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26238410 >. Slightly edited. If you live in a country with a highly functional banking system and no kleptocracy, Bitcoin is probably a bit puzzling unless you have family in Cuba. But it’s not puzzling at all for those of us who live somewhere in the middle of the broad spectrum between Switzerland and Somalia, because most places have a little kleptocracy. A…

"Argentina is a stable democracy, far from being “a failed state,”† but if you want to send US$500 abroad via non-Bitcoin means it’s basically impossible...."

So about that: https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2018/06/134729-transferwise...

I believe in fact one of the core aspects of this critique is that cryptocurrency is often presented as the only solution to problems that are either already solved or that have obvious conventional alternatives.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#562

Post by mujina93 » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

jude- wrote: post #430

hudon wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bitcoin is backed by node operators and widespread social consensus Satoshi wanted it to be backed by Proof of Work, but now you’re saying Bitcoin is backed by social consensus... just like the US Dollar I guess?

Who cares what Satoshi wanted? He/she/they do not control the system.

Yes, actually. His/her/their wallet has the majority of bitcoins. If they were to move them, everything would crash.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#563

Post by anoncake » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #518

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…

Originally posted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26238410 >. Slightly edited. If you live in a country with a highly functional banking system and no kleptocracy, Bitcoin is probably a bit puzzling unless you have family in Cuba. But it’s not puzzling at all for those of us who live somewhere in the middle of the broad spectrum between Switzerland and Somalia, because most places have a little kleptocracy. A…

So Argentina has problems that crypto-"currencies" serve as a workaround for? But do they help actually solve them? If not, then they are harmful as workarounds reduce the incentive to actually fix problems.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#564

Post by louwrentius » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 8:37 AM UTC

blindgeek wrote: post #537

louwrentius wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing this. I think many people may not know/understand this aspect /feature of our existing banking system and the role of government. Or they deliberately try to ignore the entire safety mechanism because it goes against their narrative that government control is bad, it collides with this libertarian spiel. All to keep the grift going. When not understanding or misunderstanding things makes you mor…

It is really telling that the people who complain most bitterly about fiat currency fall into a few different camps, most of which want to destroy any kind of government social safety net. On the one hand we have the right-libertarians / "anarcho"-capitalists promoting bitcoin etc. On the other hand, elements of the wacko/fringe right in the US have been attacking "fiat" currency and Keynesian economics for decades,…

Thank you.

Your observation that cryptocurrencies are also embraced for nefarious - democracy undermining - purposes seems an additional aspect that justify a ban.

It’s just such a shit show, I hope the music stops soon, in order for a lot of people to lose their ‘faith’ in this ‘currency’. There is a finite supply of suckers.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#565

Post by boc » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 8:41 AM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #534

boc wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just last week, the United Nations alleged that North Korea was funding its nuclear weapons program using funds from hacked cryptocurrency exchanges, alongside other thefts. The U.N. believes that over $300 million in crypto assets have been stolen by various North Korean hackers.[1] > Iranian thinktanks have also emphasized the need for the nation’s government to use cryptocurrencies to circumvent US-led internati…

Can we actually show that nuclear weapons are bad for the environment? Obviously there is a baseline production cost and various detonation costs plus issues of trying to get a scalar judgement from a complex systtem but they could perversely be helpful theoretially by stopping other polluting activities. Isn't it perversely possible that the environmental impact of another two more Iraq War scale conflicts plus end…

When 99% of people say "good for the environment" it's implied that the point of protecting the environment is to sustain human life on Earth. Nuclear conflict is not compatible with sustainable human life.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#566

Post by louwrentius » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 8:42 AM UTC

Fern_Blossom wrote: post #501

duckfang wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, but you're overly exaggerating "the elites" to some mythic pedestal. They're human. And here's the fun part, you would do the exact same thing they're doing if it was you sitting in their throne. I mean, if whataboutism is alright to play, the honest truth is, you're not angry at the elites. You're angry that you're not apart of their club. You don't win a 100m dash because you lack value in fast twitch muscle…

That was a good rant, thank you.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#567

Post by louwrentius » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 8:46 AM UTC

runj__ wrote: post #130

louwrentius wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think personally that proof of stake and proof of work both don’t matter in the end. I believe that all cryptocurrencies are at their heart scams. Proof of stake doesn’t change this dynamic. As I see it, cryptocurrencies doesn’t actually solve any real, significant problems we face as a (global) society. And to pick one important thing: they exclusively enable crypolocker randsomeware, and we know their devastating…

"Scam" would indicate intent which I'd seriously think you'd be hard pressed to find behind the bitcoin white paper, it would be a really bad, slow scam if it included the number of steps where bitcoin would be where it is right now. I can put a virus on someone's computer and make them mail physical dollars or make dead-drops or whatever to remove it, ransomware is not a problem of cryptocurrency.

Ransomware is entirely made possible due to cryptocurrencies.

Your funny James Bond Scenario is just dishonest, you know this doesn’t scale and dead drops won’t protect you. The risk is too high.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#568

Post by tim333 » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 9:02 AM UTC

>Cryptocurrency is a greater fools game of shuffling numbers around with cryptography under the delusion that this alchemy of entropy can generate progress and wealth — while in fact it does neither.

I think this misunderstands how bitcoin holders become wealthy. It works a bit like Van Gogh paintings - some guy produced something kind of cool but not worth much money at the start and then the reputation of the paintings increased and the price got bid up and now you'd say someone owning a $100m Van Gogh is wealthy. Similar with bitcoin - not worth much at the start, kinda cool, now worth a lot, you'd say someone with $100m in bitcoin was wealthy. Against that it needs 'greater fool' type buyers to buy your painting or coins but Van Goghs have held up well and I doubt in a century people will have forgotten cryptocurrencies or will see nothing special about having the original one.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#569

Post by tome » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

jude- wrote: post #346

tome wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not quite seeing the argument. Your country could also be bombed out of existence in order to seize or destroy its hashing power. I really don't see how bitcoin being "backed by math" saves you there.

It doesn't, obviously. But that's not what you were asking.

Now I'm curious about what I was asking!

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#570

Post by lolthishuman » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

thedrbrian wrote: post #385

lottin wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fighter jets and nukes primarily protect physical property and institutions, not cash. This is basically it. I don't know how bitcoin advocates expect property rights (in fact, any right) to be upheld in the absence of a coercive state. They have become so removed from reality that they don't see the most obvious things.

> This is basically it. I don't know how bitcoin advocates expect property rights (in fact, any right) to be upheld in the absence of a coercive state. They have become so removed from reality that they don't see the most obvious things. Errr something something blockchain?

Solves what physical property ? Requires trusting a third party. Worse.