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

India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 244 posts

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#81

Post by wyager »

joe_the_user wrote: post #14
betwixthewires wrote: post #5

Well, they can try, but even with centralized exchanges, a VPN will do. And then there are decentralized protocols. Once you have some of your money in cryptocurrency there's no real way for anyone to stop you from moving your money around however you like. The only points that can be controlled are interfaces with banks.

If it's illegal to exchange goods or official currency for cryptocurrency in the nation you are in, the usefulness of cryptocurrency is going to be considerably constrained. This depends on how thorough or draconian the state is but a lot of people just shy away from illegal activity without enforcement being that strong. After all, if buy a tangible good, I want legal title to it and having engaged in an illegal tra…

This isn't true if your objective is just to protect wealth long-term. If bitcoin is "banned" in India (you can't exchange it for INR on an exchange), you can still "use" it in the sense that you can acquire it illegally or overseas and then hold onto it. Your liquidity is limited but this is a small downside long-term.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#82

Post by joe_the_user »

TekMol wrote: post #29
joe_the_user wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a problem? I "possess" nothing in digital space but get much value from it and I posses various things in meat-space that I also get value from. Moreover, I can spend my conventional money in digital space and get further use from. A "digital possess" seems a thing that doesn't improve the world in a good way.

In the 90s many people said the same thing about "being online" and "having email". Writing letters and meeting in person works just fine, they said. Crypto makes so many things so much more efficient that not having access to it will be like not having access to the internet today.

Crypto makes so many things so much more efficient

Like what? I can currently pay for any legal physical or virtual good I can think of using a conventional credit card. Crypto might or might help privacy and might allow you to buy illegal things more easily. It's a hedge against inflation but a number of things have that quality.

The use of crypto seem inherently confined to keeping the state from doing things to people's money. States can be terrible but since crypto doesn't stop state from doing things to people's physical person, it's most often a protection of the rich from the state, which isn't something I'm particularly in favor of either.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#83

Post by bufferoverflow »

DantesKite wrote: post #70

I'm glad. Bitcoin hasn't done anything good, except become an outlet for criminals, Ponzi schemes, gambling, and poor financial decisions.

That is just a lie. Bitcoin is an easily accessible deflationary instrument.

And while it can be used for illegal things, so can USD or any other currency.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#85

Post by floatingatoll »

joshgrib wrote: post #30
joe_the_user wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's illegal to exchange goods or official currency for cryptocurrency in the nation you are in, the usefulness of cryptocurrency is going to be considerably constrained. This depends on how thorough or draconian the state is but a lot of people just shy away from illegal activity without enforcement being that strong. After all, if buy a tangible good, I want legal title to it and having engaged in an illegal tra…

This is an important point - I think a lot of us tech people like to think "no it only exists on the internet the govt can't touch it! It's like international waters!", but then you have countries that can completely restrict or shut down the internet. As long as the infrastructure exists in the real world and is controlled by a govt, then the "imaginary online stuff" is still ultimately under their control. Even in…

Countries can just ask you to prove how you earned income, and jail you if your proof is unsatisfactory to them.

India banning cryptocoins doesn't mean that people will automatically be jailed for mining on day one. It just means that anyone using cryptocoin to avoid paying Indian taxes can end up jailed when their expenditure exceeds their provable income, or when their documented income is traceable to cryptocoin, or etc.

The United States IRS doesn't have to make cryptocoins illegal to convert into currency; they just have to demand that you pay taxes, and have you jailed for tax evasion if you fail to do so. They don't actually care if you earn income through selling cryptocoins for currency, as long as you report the income earned without attempting to evade an honest assessment of value, and as long as you pay your taxes on that income earned.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#86

Post by lottin »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #12
betwixthewires wrote: post #5

Well, they can try, but even with centralized exchanges, a VPN will do. And then there are decentralized protocols. Once you have some of your money in cryptocurrency there's no real way for anyone to stop you from moving your money around however you like. The only points that can be controlled are interfaces with banks.

>The only points that can be controlled are interfaces with banks. That's... A big deal?

Yeah, well, basically they stop you from cashing out, which means your crypto-holdings are worth zero to you, whatever their market value.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#87

Post by Zamicol »

cletus wrote: post #51

Crypto is increasingly looking like a Ponzi scheme to me. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion on HN but it's no less true. The fact is that blockchain solves a problem for almost nobody. The primary use seems to be to avoid real or threatened government intervention. These uses are largely illegal, by definition (eg bypassing capital controls in China). Now you can argue the morality of such laws but that…

>Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy [...] hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.

This couldn't be further from reality. Blackcoin (2014), Peercoin, Decred, etc...

Eth 2.0 is running, right now, with billions in value. The whole of Eth is planned to move to 100% PoS quarter 1 of 2022.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#88

Post by joe_the_user »

wyager wrote: post #81
joe_the_user wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's illegal to exchange goods or official currency for cryptocurrency in the nation you are in, the usefulness of cryptocurrency is going to be considerably constrained. This depends on how thorough or draconian the state is but a lot of people just shy away from illegal activity without enforcement being that strong. After all, if buy a tangible good, I want legal title to it and having engaged in an illegal tra…

This isn't true if your objective is just to protect wealth long-term. If bitcoin is "banned" in India (you can't exchange it for INR on an exchange), you can still "use" it in the sense that you can acquire it illegally or overseas and then hold onto it. Your liquidity is limited but this is a small downside long-term.

This isn't true if your objective is just to protect wealth long-term.

I said illegality constrains the usefulness of cryptocurrency. Long-term gains is one of the remaining hypothetical uses but other uses are limited. So your claim doesn't refute my point. With fewer practical uses, we might see bitcoin's long terms value decline but that's speculation.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#89

Post by mathnmusic »

TekMol wrote: post #38
rollcat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All ownership (digital or not) is nothing but a social contract. The cryptocurrency (or normal currency) exists because enough people agree to recognise it. You can buy and own a domain name. If trust in DNS is violated, we'll have much bigger problems.

Owning a token means you can perform certain actions on a distributed system. No social contract needed. You own the token by owning a secret key which gives you the power to move it. It's like owning a key to a door. It gives you the power to lock and unlock the door. No social contract needed. You can not own a domain. You can only pay a registrar to have them talk to a registry. You then are at the mercy of both.…

A door-and-lock is a single-agent system and therefore isn't a good analogy. Money always needs social consensus. In a blockchain, you're relying on others agreeing on a certain history. That society can decide to disagree with you and consider a different history as truth. It has happened multiple times on Ethereum and Bitcoin both.

Re: India seeks to block most cryptocurrencies in new bill, government says

#90

Post by tenebrisalietum »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #83
DantesKite wrote: post #70

I'm glad. Bitcoin hasn't done anything good, except become an outlet for criminals, Ponzi schemes, gambling, and poor financial decisions.

That is just a lie. Bitcoin is an easily accessible deflationary instrument. And while it can be used for illegal things, so can USD or any other currency.

Ransomware couldn't be implemented with cash.
Post reply on HN