5 ms·

>Bitcoin's main purpose is and always was to have an alternative to the financial system, crippling regulations, government control and taxes. Does bitcoin rea

>Bitcoin's main purpose is and always was to have an alternative to the financial system, crippling regulations, government control and taxes. Does bitcoin really do any of those things? Right now, btc core is not an alternative to cash- a problem that maybe will be fixed in time, but currently only seems to be getting worse. If bitcoin really did take off as a global currency, the IRS would audit unreported bitcoin transactions- and it'd have your financial records because the corporations and individuals you interact act with would cooperate, and it'd only need a few to start to deanonymize you. It seems like the blockchain would almost make the tax job easier, because all transactions are public unless people move from bitcoin to a zerocoin model. Even then, the IRS would pursue those who didn't report and have transaction information from vendors to work to identify fraud. So, bitcoin doesn't seem like an alternative to taxes. Also have no idea what it has to do with most government regulation. And, is it really an alternative to the financial system? Yes, people can use bitcoin instead of a checkings or savings account- but still need to use traditional services to invest in the market, and the financial system will continue humming along making more money from money and making gobs of money profiting off everyone else's market inefficiency whether it's working in usd or btc. So, what are we left with? It seems like core btc is only an alternative to a speculative investment in something that the federal reserve cannot print. And believe it or not, the vast majority of this country either doesn't care about quantitative easing, or believes in basic macroeconomics. Core right now seems to just be a LARP fantasy for libertarians convinced that "this time we can finally get rid of the evil Fed and their evil money printing". It'll never happen, and if it does offfer any kind of freedom, it's the freedom to go back to pre-fiat boom and bust cycles of economic hell detached from modern macroeconomic theory.

beedrillzzzzz 9y ago
I actually started another HN thread today trying to answer questions about taxing crypto and ether tokens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16108475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16108475
bomb199 9y ago
That's what libertarians want so desperately though. Because in their mind, they'll be the gilded elite in the boom-bust cycle. If it wasn't for the nasty government, all the hard-working brilliant libertarians would be billionaires.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>It'll never happen, and if it does offfer any kind of freedom, it's the freedom to go back to pre-fiat boom and bust cycles of economic hell detached from modern macroeconomic theory. Before the central banking era, the US banking system was made more fragile than it would have been under a free market by 1. Civil War era banking regulations that required banks to hold US bonds as reserves and 2. laws against interstate branching. The former resulted in an unstable centralized money supply that fluctuated with the volume of outstanding US bonds and the latter prevented more diversified banks from emerging that could better weather localised shocks. Canada had neither of these mandates and consequently had a far more stable banking system. There were proposals before the Fed was created to make the US financial sector more like Canada's, but the banking cartelists won the argument, and the Federal Reserve mandates were passed to cartelize the banking sector under a centralized hierarchy. Also keep in mind that macroeconomic theory is just theory. It cannot be scientifically proven correct due to the complexity of the factors involved. Also keep in mind that there is an enormous financial incentive to popularize the idea that centralized control over the money supply is economically beneficial, and Economics is not immune to undue influence. Consider that the Fed alone employs thousands of economists, and consider the institutional biases the Fed and its shareholders likely have. Even with all these forces at play, there's no macroeconomic consensus around your belief that free market banking is less effective than central banking. A couple of good talks by George Selgin on pre-Fed era and the 100 year performance record of the Fed: https://youtu.be/Z0J_Ai2sSmY https://youtu.be/Z0J_Ai2sSmY https://youtu.be/P0E7I4URW5o https://youtu.be/P0E7I4URW5o
vehementi 9y ago
Please stop participating in the attempt of some desperate people to relabel bitcoin "bitcoin core"

beedrillzzzzz 9y ago

I actually started another HN thread today trying to answer questions about taxing crypto and ether tokens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16108475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16108475

bomb199 9y ago

That's what libertarians want so desperately though. Because in their mind, they'll be the gilded elite in the boom-bust cycle. If it wasn't for the nasty government, all the hard-working brilliant libertarians would be billionaires.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

CryptoPunk 9y ago

>>It'll never happen, and if it does offfer any kind of freedom, it's the freedom to go back to pre-fiat boom and bust cycles of economic hell detached from modern macroeconomic theory. Before the central banking era, the US banking system was made more fragile than it would have been under a free market by 1. Civil War era banking regulations that required banks to hold US bonds as reserves and 2. laws against interstate branching. The former resulted in an unstable centralized money supply that fluctuated with the volume of outstanding US bonds and the latter prevented more diversified banks from emerging that could better weather localised shocks. Canada had neither of these mandates and consequently had a far more stable banking system. There were proposals before the Fed was created to make the US financial sector more like Canada's, but the banking cartelists won the argument, and the Federal Reserve mandates were passed to cartelize the banking sector under a centralized hierarchy. Also keep in mind that macroeconomic theory is just theory. It cannot be scientifically proven correct due to the complexity of the factors involved. Also keep in mind that there is an enormous financial incentive to popularize the idea that centralized control over the money supply is economically beneficial, and Economics is not immune to undue influence. Consider that the Fed alone employs thousands of economists, and consider the institutional biases the Fed and its shareholders likely have. Even with all these forces at play, there's no macroeconomic consensus around your belief that free market banking is less effective than central banking. A couple of good talks by George Selgin on pre-Fed era and the 100 year performance record of the Fed: https://youtu.be/Z0J_Ai2sSmY https://youtu.be/Z0J_Ai2sSmY https://youtu.be/P0E7I4URW5o https://youtu.be/P0E7I4URW5o

vehementi 9y ago

Please stop participating in the attempt of some desperate people to relabel bitcoin "bitcoin core"