6 ms·

To me the argument is the opposite: what is the reason for cryptocurrencies to exist if not for money laundering and generally avoiding regulations/fees you'd o

To me the argument is the opposite: what is the reason for cryptocurrencies to exist if not for money laundering and generally avoiding regulations/fees you'd otherwise be subject to?

seibelj 8y ago
The desire to have a currency not controlled by a government? Whether you think that's a good thing or not, it is still a valid reason
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Those two are the exact same goal. Just wrapped in different ideologies and highlighting different aspects of the tradeoff. But they're saying the same thing. The only thing that makes money laundering what it is is governments deciding what are good ways to make money.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    Gold is not controlled by a government, but it's a poor currency given its physical characteristics, although it has been used as a common currency in the past. Cryptocurrencies are similarly not government controlled, but have better characteristics to make them usable as common currencies. The desire to use cryptocurrencies as currency is not by nature linked to crime, or tax avoidance, etc. just as owning gold does not make you a tax cheat. I own cryptocurrencies and I paid taxes on my trades, just as I paid taxes on my other capital gains.
    - blotter_paper 8y ago
      >Gold is not controlled by a government, but it's a poor currency given its physical characteristics, although it has been used as a common currency in the past. It still is used as a currency, particularly in Islamic parts of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar
  - kragen 8y ago
    When people say that an advantage of Bitcoin is that it is a currency not controlled by a government, they do not mean that governments prevent them from spending their dollars, or that governments are aware of what their dollars are spent on. If that was what they meant, you would be right to say, "Those two are the exact same goal." But that isn't what they mean, and so you are mistaken. What people actually mean when they say "not controlled by a government" is that the dollar has lost 98.3% of its value since its peak in 1792–1833. It fell 6.3% in 1834, but stayed at that value (with occasional deviations downwards) until 1932. From 1932 to 1970, it lost 47% of its value, mostly in 1933. In 1971, it became a fiat currency, and fiat currencies are famously prone to inflation; since 1970, the dollar has lost 96.6% of its remaining value. I'm measuring the dollar against gold here, not just because gold was what defined its value from 1792 to 1970 (and part of 1971), but because gold was the standard of value for international commerce from sometime around 100 BCE until 1971. You could reasonably use a different good as the standard of value, and you'll probably get marginally different results, although a few goods (passenger pigeons, 32-bit multiplications, warships) will give you significantly different results. Gold is relatively convenient for this because of the wide availability and verifiability of its price. Gold's short-term volatility makes it useless for very short-term comparisons, though, by which I mean anything less than 10 years. When Bitcoin people say they want a "currency not controlled by a government", they mean that they don't want 97% of their savings to evaporate in a mere 50 years because the government decided that printing money was a good way to meet its payroll and pay its bonds. As fiat currencies go, dollars are actually doing pretty well. Here in Argentina, our peso has lost about 25% of its value each year for the last several years, but this year, it's accelerated; it's lost 50% of its value since April. (It's worth 5¢ today, down from 10¢ in April.) And of course everyone remembers Zimbabwe's hundred-trillion-dollar bills. Now, you could argue that 5% inflation per year doesn't really impair a currency's use as a measure of value or a medium of exchange, only as a store of value. And you might be right. But there are a bunch of people out there who would love to have a secure store of value that they can also spend, which is why the dollar price of gold more than tripled in 2005–2012. (It's recovered a bit since then.) I am not going to take a position here on whether providing a potentially safer store of value than dollars is a good thing or a bad thing. It's a thing some people want, and you might not want them to have it. That's okay. I'm just pointing out that they want it, and it's not the same thing as money laundering. (Historical gold price data from http://onlygold.com/m/Prices/Prices200Years.asp. http://onlygold.com/m/Prices/Prices200Years.asp.)
lawn 8y ago
Payments without permission. For example: * Donations to wikileaks * Payments to gray area businesses like porn and marijuana businesses who can't get credit cards * Digital payments for unbanked. Yes many don't have bank accounts or credit cards but they have smart phones. * Payments to/from unstable countries. For example escape Venezuela with your wealth intact or receive aid from outside. * Cheaper than credit cards (who take 1-3% fees). * Safer for merchants as it avoids credit charge back fraud.
- RIMR 8y ago
  Porn has never had a problem with charging people's credit cards... And in states where marijuana is legal, cash is the easiest solution for everyone. In states where it is not legal, cash and Venmo seem to be the preferred methods of payment.
  - lawn 8y ago
    I think you missed an article detailing how big a problem porn sites have accepting payments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17756219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17756219 In short they're losing a lot of money since they need to go roundabout ways as credit card companies wants to avoid them. Cash is however not digital, cryptocurrencies are. The term "digital cash" gets thrown around sometimes.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    As a CO native, cash is only the easiest option because they literally can't accept credit cards. I'm sure most stores would rather not tell customers they need to go find an ATM and come back when they do.
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    And all of those credit card companies know that you have a porn subscription. That can be leveraged against you should you ever run for office.
    - gonzo 8y ago
wonderwonder 8y ago
A whole world currency that is potentially immune to inflation and government manipulation. No currency conversion fees. The ability to send funds to anyone with no middle man and no fee (besides the miners). Also the removal of business and corporate surveillance. Right now Banks, Mastercard, stripe, venmo etc. know everything about you. They can then leverage that information in any way that they want. I don't like that. You run for office on an anti banking or big business platform and amazingly its leaked that you have an ongoing monthly subscription to X.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  > A whole world currency that is potentially immune to inflation and government manipulation. You said potentially, so I’ll give you this one. > No currency conversion fees. This is a function of the market, not the underlying instruments. It’s also not true of most crypto markets, and I’m not confusing the spread with fees at exchanges. > The ability to send funds to anyone with no middle man and no fee (besides the miners). No fee (besides the miners) isn’t much different to no fee (except this fee). It’s still a fee, and in the case of Bitcoin, the fee has potential to be prohibitive (and already is for some use cases that it was designed for, e.g. buying a cup of coffee). > Also the removal of business and corporate surveillance. Right now Banks, Mastercard, stripe, venmo etc. know everything about you. They can then leverage that information in any way that they want. I don't like that. You run for office on an anti banking or big business platform and amazingly its leaked that you have an ongoing monthly subscription to X. Bitcoin is not anonymous, Monero could be unmasked[1], if you’re leaving a digital footprint, someone will eventually be able to follow it. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299.pdf
  - jeremyt 8y ago
    Look, if you are going to be a critic then you can't stand behind ignorance. The "fees are just too high to buy a cup of coffee" is an old trope that is no longer relevant. One can go download LND 0.5 and use the lightning network to make instant practically free payments for a "cup of coffee" today. The only thing I'll concede is that it is still in beta, but the question of whether it's going to exist or not is no longer a question.

To me the argument is the opposite: what is the reason for cryptocurrencies to exist if not for money laundering and generally avoiding regulations/fees you'd otherwise be subject to?

seibelj 8y ago

The desire to have a currency not controlled by a government? Whether you think that's a good thing or not, it is still a valid reason

vinceguidry 8y ago
Those two are the exact same goal. Just wrapped in different ideologies and highlighting different aspects of the tradeoff. But they're saying the same thing. The only thing that makes money laundering what it is is governments deciding what are good ways to make money.
- seibelj 8y ago
  Gold is not controlled by a government, but it's a poor currency given its physical characteristics, although it has been used as a common currency in the past. Cryptocurrencies are similarly not government controlled, but have better characteristics to make them usable as common currencies. The desire to use cryptocurrencies as currency is not by nature linked to crime, or tax avoidance, etc. just as owning gold does not make you a tax cheat. I own cryptocurrencies and I paid taxes on my trades, just as I paid taxes on my other capital gains.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    >Gold is not controlled by a government, but it's a poor currency given its physical characteristics, although it has been used as a common currency in the past. It still is used as a currency, particularly in Islamic parts of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar
- kragen 8y ago
  When people say that an advantage of Bitcoin is that it is a currency not controlled by a government, they do not mean that governments prevent them from spending their dollars, or that governments are aware of what their dollars are spent on. If that was what they meant, you would be right to say, "Those two are the exact same goal." But that isn't what they mean, and so you are mistaken. What people actually mean when they say "not controlled by a government" is that the dollar has lost 98.3% of its value since its peak in 1792–1833. It fell 6.3% in 1834, but stayed at that value (with occasional deviations downwards) until 1932. From 1932 to 1970, it lost 47% of its value, mostly in 1933. In 1971, it became a fiat currency, and fiat currencies are famously prone to inflation; since 1970, the dollar has lost 96.6% of its remaining value. I'm measuring the dollar against gold here, not just because gold was what defined its value from 1792 to 1970 (and part of 1971), but because gold was the standard of value for international commerce from sometime around 100 BCE until 1971. You could reasonably use a different good as the standard of value, and you'll probably get marginally different results, although a few goods (passenger pigeons, 32-bit multiplications, warships) will give you significantly different results. Gold is relatively convenient for this because of the wide availability and verifiability of its price. Gold's short-term volatility makes it useless for very short-term comparisons, though, by which I mean anything less than 10 years. When Bitcoin people say they want a "currency not controlled by a government", they mean that they don't want 97% of their savings to evaporate in a mere 50 years because the government decided that printing money was a good way to meet its payroll and pay its bonds. As fiat currencies go, dollars are actually doing pretty well. Here in Argentina, our peso has lost about 25% of its value each year for the last several years, but this year, it's accelerated; it's lost 50% of its value since April. (It's worth 5¢ today, down from 10¢ in April.) And of course everyone remembers Zimbabwe's hundred-trillion-dollar bills. Now, you could argue that 5% inflation per year doesn't really impair a currency's use as a measure of value or a medium of exchange, only as a store of value. And you might be right. But there are a bunch of people out there who would love to have a secure store of value that they can also spend, which is why the dollar price of gold more than tripled in 2005–2012. (It's recovered a bit since then.) I am not going to take a position here on whether providing a potentially safer store of value than dollars is a good thing or a bad thing. It's a thing some people want, and you might not want them to have it. That's okay. I'm just pointing out that they want it, and it's not the same thing as money laundering. (Historical gold price data from http://onlygold.com/m/Prices/Prices200Years.asp. http://onlygold.com/m/Prices/Prices200Years.asp.)

lawn 8y ago

Payments without permission. For example: * Donations to wikileaks * Payments to gray area businesses like porn and marijuana businesses who can't get credit cards * Digital payments for unbanked. Yes many don't have bank accounts or credit cards but they have smart phones. * Payments to/from unstable countries. For example escape Venezuela with your wealth intact or receive aid from outside. * Cheaper than credit cards (who take 1-3% fees). * Safer for merchants as it avoids credit charge back fraud.

RIMR 8y ago
Porn has never had a problem with charging people's credit cards... And in states where marijuana is legal, cash is the easiest solution for everyone. In states where it is not legal, cash and Venmo seem to be the preferred methods of payment.
- lawn 8y ago
  I think you missed an article detailing how big a problem porn sites have accepting payments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17756219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17756219 In short they're losing a lot of money since they need to go roundabout ways as credit card companies wants to avoid them. Cash is however not digital, cryptocurrencies are. The term "digital cash" gets thrown around sometimes.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  As a CO native, cash is only the easiest option because they literally can't accept credit cards. I'm sure most stores would rather not tell customers they need to go find an ATM and come back when they do.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  And all of those credit card companies know that you have a porn subscription. That can be leveraged against you should you ever run for office.
  - gonzo 8y ago

wonderwonder 8y ago

A whole world currency that is potentially immune to inflation and government manipulation. No currency conversion fees. The ability to send funds to anyone with no middle man and no fee (besides the miners). Also the removal of business and corporate surveillance. Right now Banks, Mastercard, stripe, venmo etc. know everything about you. They can then leverage that information in any way that they want. I don't like that. You run for office on an anti banking or big business platform and amazingly its leaked that you have an ongoing monthly subscription to X.

oarsinsync 8y ago
> A whole world currency that is potentially immune to inflation and government manipulation. You said potentially, so I’ll give you this one. > No currency conversion fees. This is a function of the market, not the underlying instruments. It’s also not true of most crypto markets, and I’m not confusing the spread with fees at exchanges. > The ability to send funds to anyone with no middle man and no fee (besides the miners). No fee (besides the miners) isn’t much different to no fee (except this fee). It’s still a fee, and in the case of Bitcoin, the fee has potential to be prohibitive (and already is for some use cases that it was designed for, e.g. buying a cup of coffee). > Also the removal of business and corporate surveillance. Right now Banks, Mastercard, stripe, venmo etc. know everything about you. They can then leverage that information in any way that they want. I don't like that. You run for office on an anti banking or big business platform and amazingly its leaked that you have an ongoing monthly subscription to X. Bitcoin is not anonymous, Monero could be unmasked[1], if you’re leaving a digital footprint, someone will eventually be able to follow it. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299.pdf
- jeremyt 8y ago
  Look, if you are going to be a critic then you can't stand behind ignorance. The "fees are just too high to buy a cup of coffee" is an old trope that is no longer relevant. One can go download LND 0.5 and use the lightning network to make instant practically free payments for a "cup of coffee" today. The only thing I'll concede is that it is still in beta, but the question of whether it's going to exist or not is no longer a question.