4 ms·

But banning them from participating in an entire class of financial transactions is not just protecting them from scams. There are token sales that are not scam

But banning them from participating in an entire class of financial transactions is not just protecting them from scams. There are token sales that are not scams. It's prohibiting them from entering into legitimate investments that simply don't have government approval (e.g. a securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations).

Nursie 9y ago
At this point there are enough scams to make people cheer for the ban. Perhaps a better answer would be regulation in a similar way to more traditional IPOs. >> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I know, this circumscribes some of the allure of the whole area - that it's free of regulation, that it democratises finance etc etc. But like other avenues in life, perhaps we are being shown why the regulations exists in meatspace in the first place. BTW I'm not trying to argue that all regulations and government actions are correct and useful, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we are over-governed and over-regulated, in lots of ways. But perhaps not here.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  People support all sorts of things that reduce rights. Doesn't make it okay.. >>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance. I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Whereas I think that not regulating this space is a great recipe for scams, crashes and monetary instability.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Cryptocurrency is something people choose to go into knowing it's resistant to regulation by design. If they want to avoid the risks associated with fewer regulations, they can remain in the traditional financial market. But yes we've reached an empasse. We fundamentally don't relate on the issue of a third party essentially dictating to an individual what risks they may subject themselves to.
      - Nursie 9y ago
        I think we'll begin to find out how regulation-resistant it is over the next few years... And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.
        CryptoPunk 9y ago
        It may be regulation resistant or it may prove to not be. But the point is people go into it with the expectation that it is designed to try to achieve this property, and they're free to avoid any perceived risks of a regulation resistant industry by remaining in the traditional financial market. This greatly reduces the moral justification of imposing regulations on this space. We also disagree on the economic causes of events like the Great Depression. Also I did mention we could bring back an option to voluntarily cede one's own freedom, for those that don't want to bear the responsibility of living with the consequences of their own bad decisions, so I don't think our disagreement is exactly how you've characterised it. It's more like we disagree on whether we should prevent people from having the option to live freely.
        9y ago
xorcist 9y ago
> There are token sales that are not scams. This whole discussion would be much easier with an example. I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible. > and thus doesn't meet securities regulations In this context "doesn't meet regulations" more often than not means "we lie about what we will use the money for". I'm not sure that's a good idea. It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  BAT and FunFair are neither impossible nor useless. >I'm not sure that's a good idea. But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion. >It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time. Reputation is a very real and powerful thing in the marketplace. In the long run scammers and other unscrupulous types cannot compete against honest providers who deliver. And by the way, I'm fine with going after confirmed scammers. I'm not okay with centralizing/banning an industry to preemptively prevent scams.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Who needs reputation or the long run if you can net a decent amount as a one-off?
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      I was referring to this: >>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time. And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices. My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.
      - 9y ago

Nursie 9y ago

At this point there are enough scams to make people cheer for the ban. Perhaps a better answer would be regulation in a similar way to more traditional IPOs. >> an securities sale that doesn't ask them for their ID, and thus doesn't meet securities regulations Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I know, this circumscribes some of the allure of the whole area - that it's free of regulation, that it democratises finance etc etc. But like other avenues in life, perhaps we are being shown why the regulations exists in meatspace in the first place. BTW I'm not trying to argue that all regulations and government actions are correct and useful, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that we are over-governed and over-regulated, in lots of ways. But perhaps not here.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
People support all sorts of things that reduce rights. Doesn't make it okay.. >>Perhaps it's just not a good idea to have such a thing? Or perhaps the seller side of the equation, where you can't run an ICO without being registered and regulated, is needed. I don't believe we should be limiting other people's right to privacy and to exchange digital tokens (not guns or tanks) under any circumstance. I think accepting the right of society to impose these limitations on individuals is accepting servility for everyone, and I find that enormously dangerous and harmful.
- Nursie 9y ago
  Whereas I think that not regulating this space is a great recipe for scams, crashes and monetary instability.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    Cryptocurrency is something people choose to go into knowing it's resistant to regulation by design. If they want to avoid the risks associated with fewer regulations, they can remain in the traditional financial market. But yes we've reached an empasse. We fundamentally don't relate on the issue of a third party essentially dictating to an individual what risks they may subject themselves to.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      I think we'll begin to find out how regulation-resistant it is over the next few years... And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.
      - CryptoPunk 9y ago
        It may be regulation resistant or it may prove to not be. But the point is people go into it with the expectation that it is designed to try to achieve this property, and they're free to avoid any perceived risks of a regulation resistant industry by remaining in the traditional financial market. This greatly reduces the moral justification of imposing regulations on this space. We also disagree on the economic causes of events like the Great Depression. Also I did mention we could bring back an option to voluntarily cede one's own freedom, for those that don't want to bear the responsibility of living with the consequences of their own bad decisions, so I don't think our disagreement is exactly how you've characterised it. It's more like we disagree on whether we should prevent people from having the option to live freely.
        9y ago

xorcist 9y ago

> There are token sales that are not scams. This whole discussion would be much easier with an example. I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible. > and thus doesn't meet securities regulations In this context "doesn't meet regulations" more often than not means "we lie about what we will use the money for". I'm not sure that's a good idea. It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
BAT and FunFair are neither impossible nor useless. >I'm not sure that's a good idea. But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion. >It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time. Reputation is a very real and powerful thing in the marketplace. In the long run scammers and other unscrupulous types cannot compete against honest providers who deliver. And by the way, I'm fine with going after confirmed scammers. I'm not okay with centralizing/banning an industry to preemptively prevent scams.
- Nursie 9y ago
  Who needs reputation or the long run if you can net a decent amount as a one-off?
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    I was referring to this: >>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time. And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices. My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.
    - 9y ago