If gambling is bad then state governments shouldn't be able to run lottos. We either leave people to engage in what we might consider a vice or prohibit it. If we prohibit, the government shouldn't be able to have a monopoly on what is, arguably, an even more "gambly" gamble.
The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
71–80 of 630 posts
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#72Most of the article's arguments work if you replace the word "Gold" for the word cryptocurrency. Gold itself is just a yellow metal, it is valuable largely for the human belief that it has value, though admittedly it is somewhat pretty, a good conductor of electrons, and has historical value due to its ease of work and use in numerous ancient artifacts. Still, as a currency or value holder, gold is simply a metal tha…
The US actually did ban possessing large amounts of gold during the Great Depression, so there’s legal and historical precedent.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#73Hostile and clearly framed article from the first sentence. Could not read it further.
I am sorry that you did that. I believe that Bitcoin's intrinsic energy usage is a big big problem, and I would have been interested in a reasoned counter-argument from someone who is in favour of Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies. After all, I read HN mostly to learn and grow. I especially enjoy informative comments on articles and the ensuing debates.
Of course energy is a problem. But at the same time you would to have to ban all sport cars, forbid to heat a building more than 20C etc. And not all people live in a "safe" country and it's still more easy to transmit cryptos to some countrys than use the incompatible way from offical banc transaction.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#74This 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 article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation
I'm extremely confused by this argument that I see again and again. If you want to avoid your assets losing value to inflation that you can buy assets that are resistant to inflation, such as stocks, real estate, land, gold, inflation-adjusted bonds ...
I just don't see that cryptocurrencies are particularly useful for that. What's the deal here?
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#75>The most expedient actions would be fourfold:
>Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets.
>Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists.
Lunacy! The author is effectively arguing for American global economic dominion! These are the exact steps you would want to take to ensure international isolation.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has regulatory authority over monetary policy and currency, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? You might take issue with their decision, but the authority is there. https://www.occ.treas.gov/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm
Many seem to argue the coins aren't currency but securities, including SEC.
The SEC uses the Howey Test to determine whether a coin is classified as a security or not.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#77Is "Electricity Neutrality" a concept? Does the government have any control over how I use the electricity that I pay for? This is a genuine question and I'm not trying to be snarky.
It’s a good question. I’d say that the government already gives itself the right to mandate how you burn your petrol for example, by setting emissions regulations.
And more pragmatically, banning crypto would be less politically suicidal than implementing a carbon tax
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#78Most of the article's arguments work if you replace the word "Gold" for the word cryptocurrency. Gold itself is just a yellow metal, it is valuable largely for the human belief that it has value, though admittedly it is somewhat pretty, a good conductor of electrons, and has historical value due to its ease of work and use in numerous ancient artifacts. Still, as a currency or value holder, gold is simply a metal tha…
Gold definitely has value:
- it's rare but not too rare
- malleable
- doesn't rust or tarnish
- non toxic
- doesn't need the tech that platinum, the only other possible choice that satisfies the rest of the list, would need for it to become money instead
Useful and scarce == valuable.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/why-gold-is-money-a-periodi...
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#79I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane, especially Bitcoin, which I agree (I don't hold Bitcoin for this exact reason). But there are many other crypto that uses Proof of Stake, way way greener than Proof of Work, such as Cardano. Even Ethereum is transitioning to Proof of Stake. This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban"…
>This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban".
I don't see the difference between that and "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban". The outcome is the same. Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale. If it does that will be great. But it's no certain thing and it'll probably mean more Eth forks like Eth classic. Most other cryptocurrencies are tied to bitcoin's ecosystem to have value at all.
Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
#80>Bitcoin is the textbook speculative mania for our time.
This is either false or unknowable, there are plenty of reasons why bitcoin speculation is happening, and it's because it has been a very long time since there has been a new desirable commodity.
>The largest elephant in the room is the environmental damage done by bitcoin mining.
This is very true, i don't think it's the largest elephant though.
>Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory.
This is nonsense. Desperately marginalized communities have no access to safe economic vehicles, which bitcoin does, theoretically, provide.
>Cryptocurrency is, by design, the single greatest enabling factor in the rise of exponential explosion in ransomware extortion attacks. A network which is designed to evade sanctions...
This i believe is the best argument for banning it. There is no better tool for extortion in the world than an anonymous, unrestricted asset. We should expect to see a dramatic rise in kidnappings worldwide in the future as bitcoin becomes more accepted.
The author leaves out what I believe is the main reason I've stayed away from bitcoin, and it's another reason to ban it.
It's easy to steal.
It only takes one 0-day wipe you out, irreversibly, and completely. My bank could get hacked, but we, as a society, can just decide that I still have the assets I had before, the paper stocks and coupons are in a drawer somewhere. The loan contracts are in a filing cabinet (or they should be). I get my bank statements every month. There's some cash and some gold in a vault. A breach is, at least theoretically, reversible. That's not true with bitcoin.