10 ms·

Of course they would have laughed in their face. Do you see Nasdaq trying to list Dogecoin? There is no ambiguity or uncertainty here - there is a big problem a

• ballenf 9y ago
  > who have provided less than zero benefit or service to our society Was following your argument up to that point. Making such a value judgment requires, in my opinion, a lot more data and deep analysis. Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. And it takes those other investors for the process to function. But, the reality and therefore data is needed to judge whether these new currencies can deliver on that promise. Edit: Want to clarify that I'm talking about *coin buyers/sellers. Not scam ICO backers. Agree that those folks are scum with negative value to society. If the parent was mainly talking about ICO scams, then please ignore my response and apologies for the misinterpretation.
  • shmageggy 9y ago
    I fail to see how crypto-speculators making large sums of USD has anything to do with oppressive regimes.
    • kibwen 9y ago
      Though perhaps contrary to your parent commenter's point, the North Korean regime appears to be using Bitcoin speculation to circumvent international sanctions, making as much as $200 million last year ( which would be about 1.5% of its GDP, or 10% of its military budget): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/05/north-korea-may-have-made-much-200-million-bitcoin-according/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/05/north-korea-may-...
      • notahacker 9y ago
        There's also Venezuela, a rare example of the hyperinflationary failed state cryptolibertarians insist their project is designed to combat, launching its own sort of cryptocurrency project as a way to get more dollars from foreign suckers so it can continue to import the stuff its leadership wants.
  • criley2 9y ago
    Regardless, the null position which assumes the least is not "crypto currencies run by folks seeking to exit into USD provide real value" but rather "do not provide value". The claim that someone would prove, of course, would be that they provide value. So that shouldn't offend you that the null position (and the position which satisfies occams razor) is the default stated position. Instead of criticizing it, you could actually do the work of proving your claim that crypto has real measurable value to a society. Until that's proven, though...
    • stale2002 9y ago
      Lots of people in venezuela are using it right now for the purpose of escaping their extremely inflationary currency. It is trivial to prove the value, as people are using right now for this purpose.
  • wincy 9y ago
    The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people trying to convince you cryptocurrencies are the future. When the status quo is disrupted, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a passing fad or won't work out. A product or asset, especially a radical step like cryptocurrencies, succeeding and being valuable is the exception, not the rule. There's a reason accredited investors exist, because they're expected to know better.
    • CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Society shouldn't ban everything that hasn't proven to be socially beneficial.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • dragonwriter 9y ago
        Exchanges of the types prohibited by existing securities laws are not prohibited merely because they haven't proven to be socially beneficial, but because they have proven to be massively harmful. The idea that cryptocurrency as a subject of trading changes that in any way is a claim which requires some substantial basis before it would warrant an exception to the general rules written into law.
        • CryptoPunk 9y ago
          There is absolutely no proof that it's "massively harmful". It's impossible to quantify all of the positive and negative effects of any type of exchange, let alone to "prove" the effects are net harmful. >>the general rules written into law. I'm arguing against the principle that we should ban anything not proven to be socially beneficial.
          • yownie 9y ago
            Not to mention the authorities have a dearth of existing legislation under which to already prosecute bad actors in the crypto space. Ponzi schemes, fake ICO's and outright theft and extortion are already thoroughly addressed by existing legislation / property law. Summarily banning the thing you fine inconvenient to investigate is just lazy regulation, at best.
  • aje403 9y ago
    Good point. HODL to the moon, grandma! For the record, the SEC won't ban cryptocurrency. They want technology (in general) to stay here and potentially evolve into something that can be useful and provide jobs and value someday, so you can still free oppressed nations, but you will need to cooperate with the American government if it's being done on our soil.
    • logfromblammo 9y ago
      The technology cannot discern the intentions of the nation attempting to regulate it. Tyrannical oppression and reasonable regulation both use the same punishment stick to beat those who step out of line. Anything that can free people from tyranny must necessarily also be able to free them from the burden of obeying laws. The reasonable standards of conduct have to actually be built into the system in order for it to have a limit on what amount of external control is allowed. Systems with smart contracts would be able to specify that a government actor could interfere--even retroactively--with any transactions that explicitly opted in to that jurisdiction. So you could sue someone over their Ethereum scam, and a judge could rule in your favor, and then a clerk forwards the order to the technical magicians for the digital circuit court, so that you get as much of your money back as is technically possible to recover. If you don't opt in, you are in the land of caveat emptor, and the court tosses your case because it can't help you, even if you deserved it. Or people could opt in to private arbitration. But if someone wants their mathmoney to be outside the reach of government enforcement, it is necessarily also out of the reach of government protection. If you won't follow someone else's rules, you can't expect that your untrusted counterparty will follow them, either. The first state to create a solid opt-in jurisdiction for network-based civil complaints will clean up, just as Delaware has for corporations.
  • atmosx 9y ago
    > Cryptocurrencies have the potential of loosening the grasp of oppressive regimes over their people. How exactly would that work?!
    • crypt1d 9y ago
      by allowing u to transact wealth without the control and oversight of the oppressive regime.
      • yzmtf2008 9y ago
        And how would their people acquire this “wealth” in the first place?
        • mcs_ 9y ago
          Working?
          • yzmtf2008 9y ago
            And get paid in BTC?
        • crypt1d 9y ago
          Are you implying that because someone lives in an oppressive country that they have no money to transact? I really dont understand your question. Oppressive regimes tend to control money flow in/out of the country. So if you, for example, have an aunt somewhere outside that wants to send you money -> you just might not be able to receive it, or would need to give some official a slice of the pie. Bitcoin obviously can help as u can just move the money without government oversight.
          • yzmtf2008 9y ago
            Crypto is only effective in that regard if you're able to opt-in. The problem is, you eventually need to interface with the fiat currencies for your "wealth" to be useful. The first step an oppressive regime would do is to just ban exchanges. Acquiring this "wealth" of crypto would be impossible in an oppressive regime in the first place.
  • diab0lic 9y ago
    I see the argument that cryptos reduce the grasp of oppressive regimes on here pretty frequently but the truth is that a) the null hypothesis (no effect) has yet to be rejected with any data and b) oppressive regimes are very good at eliminating or severely restricting internet access when it suits them. A slight tangent -- you can't just take two options and say we don't have any data so we can't judge. We have a prior: most things do not have an effect in this case.
    • TomMarius 9y ago
      I think a better way to say it is that it helps to prevent turns of current regimes (that already have Internet infrastructure built and used) into oppressive regimes.
      • diab0lic 9y ago
        Do you honestly believe that would-be oppressive regimes with existing internet infrastructure will not turn oppressive because crypto? In the most optimistic scenario this argument deals with b but still suffers from a.
        • TomMarius 9y ago
          No, but I think it helps more than it hurts. It's still in the beginning.
      • s73v3r_ 9y ago
        How do you reconcile that with the idea that North Korea, perhaps the poster child for oppressive regimes, is being propped up by Bitcoin?
        • TomMarius 9y ago
          I don't know how is that relevant to what I'm saying at all. I never said it can't be used for evil. Also, North Korea doesn't fulfill the condition of being internet-developed area before the turn to an oppressive regime happened.
  • scamcoin 9y ago
    If you look though the code and math behind Bitcoin and other cryptocoin projects it's quite evident that there is malice and a manipulative design with even Bitcoin. OP was making a point about how easy it is to produce cryptocoins (in terms of both launching the software, and in terms of measurable capital cost to mine coins). Coupled with the history of Bitcoin and what has predominately been the demographic attracted to an quasi-anonymous digital token for trading has been anarcho-capitalists who bought drugs and child pornography on TOR and silk road etc. This comic sums up the point: https://i.imgur.com/3VbttYh.png https://i.imgur.com/3VbttYh.png
• Snackchez 9y ago
  What's your stance on forex markets then?
  • aje403 9y ago
    Cryptocurrency markets have absolutely nothing to do with forex markets and the suggestion that they share commonalities or should be compared together is both deceptive, ignorant, and perpetuates a volume of misinformation
    • s73v3r_ 9y ago
      I feel that's a hand-wavy explanation that doesn't actually explain anything, and is similar to patents being granted solely on being the same thing that was done before, but "on a computer".
    • bfuller 9y ago
      Come on, you can't think of ONE commonality between forex markets and crypto markets? Thats just being intentionally obtuse.
      • aje403 9y ago
        Things are bought and sold on the market. At this point, saying anything much past that is just biting into trollbait.
• Edmond 9y ago
  couldn't have said it better. The very idea that a random citizen in a modern country can invent their own notion of money is beyond problematic so it is confounding that this whole thing has been allowed to mushroom into what it is today. Proponents like to drag skeptics into crypto debates but that is far off the mark when it comes to the real implications of the current situation. Some questions to ponder: When will the government decide it is illegal to create your own money? will those who have already amassed fortunes (even imaginary) be allowed to keep it? And if so why would the citizenry tolerate such a situation?
  • lagadu 9y ago
    "money" is a representation of value that is recognised as such by a group of people. If a few people decide that a bunch of stones are now money[0] (in other words, represents value), should they be arrested? Similarly, when a group does the same not to stones but to seashells [1] or salt are they committing securities fraud? Someone decides to do the same for a few hashes on the internet and suddenly they can't? What's the difference? What about doing the same with currencies recognised in countries other than the one you're in, is that illegal? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_money edit: the way I see it, you're advocating against the concept of trading.
    • nsxwolf 9y ago
      Is it really money if nobody's using it like money? When people started using sea shells as money, they were buying stuff with it, not just speculating about its value using some other currency.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • Edmond 9y ago
      The problem with these analogous argument about what money means fails to account for the implicit contract that we all sign as members of a society. If you buy your own island like Sir Richard Branson then by all means do what you please. Legal tender is perhaps the most important corner stone of a modern nation state, if an entrepreneur can invent their own money and subsume the one issued by a government then you don't have a government. I for one prefer having a government. This is not a trivial issue as cryptocurrency proponents seem to think it is.
• za23weo 9y ago
  I can't help but think you're talking about modern billionaires too, like Bill Gates or Buffet, who basically traded in a finance market measures of others efforts. Did he provide a benefit? Sure. Did he provide one that humanity couldn't have provided on its own? Dubious. Open-source could have been the de facto provider of an operating system. IBM was gifted technology designed, build, and paid for the government taxes. The rich only ever get rich off public invention, collective effort. Yet the myth is one of self-sufficiency (nevermind all the basic organization in society that has to be such that it can lift up a "tycoon" in the first place - we keep layering on self-made myth because a more sober telling of reality likely means they're not rich anymore -- we fetishize their status more than their real efforts). When will we be done with this financial chicanery? Probably never since these models keep popping up in human society.
• CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>they're trying to reign it in with gloved hands before it becomes one and it turns into a big economic mess that the government will have to foot the bill to eventually clean up. The government has no obligation to clean up anything. Claiming otherwise is just an excuse to prohibit people from investing into high-risk assets. >>common people like your grandparents and uninformed but good hearted relatives are providing liquidity for a growing number of new millionaires and billionaires If the common good-hearted people are too stupid to control their own money, then they should be deprived of the right to vote and other semblances of legal persohood. What you're suggesting, which is to restrict the rights of everyone, is a disproportionate and illiberal response, characteristic of Big Brother states rather than free societies.
  • JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > The government has no obligation to clean up anything And yet, when millions of individual investors lose more than they can afford that's often what must happen to preserve the peace. If Bitcoin went to $100 today, at the very least we'd see a massive hit to unemployment and disability rolls.
    • CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Nothing "must happen". This is just a cop out to avoid letting people suffer for their own mistakes. Instead the government dumps the cost on everyone else. If there's no bailout at the taxpayer's expense, what do you suppose will happen? Riots? Revolutions? Nothing will happen except millions of people learning a much needed lesson.
    • djrogers 9y ago
      > If Bitcoin went to $100 today, at the very least we'd see a massive hit to unemployment and disability rolls. I don’t think the facts support this. As big as bitcoin’s market cap is globally, it doesn’t actually appear to be causing a lot of employment.
      • JumpCrisscross 9y ago