5 ms·

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

by eli 6y ago

xvector 6y ago
The point is that the media gets up in arms about criminal activity and money laundering with cryptocurrency but rarely ever reports crimes of a much greater magnitude made by “legitimate” institutions like banks. Someone money launders with crypto and it’s on the front page. A bank launders hundreds of times more and it’s just another day. Perhaps you could say it’s because of the novelty of crypto, but I suspect the motives run deeper - crypto is a threat to modern financial institutions and turning public interest against crypto is in the best interests of the establishment.
- eli 6y ago
  "The media" didn't vote this article to the front page of HN.
  - xvector 6y ago
    HN is not immune to propaganda.
    - ndesaulniers 6y ago
      or what-about-ism, it would seem.
- kylebenzle 6y ago
  Also, HN inexplicably hates Bitcoin. Also why this comment will be removed.
  - labster 6y ago
    If you'd like me to explain why I hate Bitcoin, look no further than the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index[0], which currently has Bitcoin using the same energy consumption as the nation of Chile. It provides less utility than a credit card, all while using 779092 times the energy needed per transaction. I don't think it's inexplicable that we hate an ongoing environmental disaster. [0]: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
    - javert 6y ago
      Saying bitcoin provides less utility than a credit card is missing the point the bitcoin people are making. You can still hold that bitcoin is bad, but that particular argument is not viable and comes from ignoring what the other side is saying.
  - ahallock 6y ago
    You're not wrong. HN seems heavily biased against anything crypto. With Paypal, Square, MicroStrategy, and even JPMorgan adpoting/investing in Bitcoin, I think it's becoming legitimate.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  OK, but the real economy is about 10,000,000x larger than the crypto economy. The point is that a huge fraction of the crypto economy is outright extortion or fraud, not that it's the source of all evil in the world.
  - javert 6y ago
    > a huge fraction of the crypto economy is outright extortion or fraud I'm not sure that's true. Do you have a citation? What is clear is that a huge portion of the crypto economy is based around cryptocurrencies (particularly bitcoin) being financial assets.
    - xapata 6y ago
      > citation While it's good to check sources, keep in mind that original research is also valid. After all, you made a similarly uncited assertion.
      - javert 6y ago
        I don't think there is any point to saying something like that.
        xapata 6y ago
        Because you don't think I'll change anyone's behavior or opinion? I'm holding out hope.
        javert 6y ago
        What behavior of mine do you think I should change? I didn't see any suggestion of something I actually did wrong. It felt like you were trying to criticize, but that your criticism had no actual content.
        xapata 6y ago
- crtasm 6y ago
  I don't know what media you read but I see stories in The Guardian about banks laundering money when it comes to light.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Money laundering in traditional finance is a problem of scale: there's far too much of it and we don't police it well enough. The problem is tractable given enough enforcement tools and resources. Bitcoin's different - it has little AML control so it's super easy to write money laundering tools. Monero is even worse. Money laundering is built into the protocol, to the point where being able to determine the chain-of-custody over some funds is computationally infeasible. Cryptocurrency is designed to increase the scope of money laundering rather than just the scale, because it makes money laundering the default. Think about how difficult it was to enforce copyright law in 1970 versus 2010. In the former, copyright enforcement was a matter of having enough lawyers to sue enough enterprises. In 2010, everyone has a commercial-scale copyright infringement device in their pocket. You practically can't enforce the law to the same level purely because the targets are too small and numerous and going after them is a PR nightmare. This is why the music industry fought against consumer-grade recording technology for so long (and lost). Regulating large businesses is a fundamentally more tractable form of law enforcement than individuals.
  - chii 6y ago
    > Monero is even worse. Money laundering is built into the protocol, to the point where being able to determine the chain-of-custody over some funds is computationally infeasible. Cryptocurrency is designed to increase the scope of money laundering rather than just the scale, because it makes money laundering the default. I would replace 'money laundering' with privacy and anonymity. These properties are desirable. These properties give the individual undertaking the transaction a semblance of control. These properties prevent authorities from taking that control away except by using the law, which i think is a fairly good way to enforce control. So if the individual feel that the law is unfair, they have the option to _not_ obey. If enough people choose to _not_ obey, it forces the court's hand and legislator's hand - this serves society. Under centralized control, the individual does not have the option to not obey, because their transactions require approval from authorities. This approval becomes a chilling effect for change, and it makes it easy to target them before the general society is able to transition or understand. Civil disobedience is thus impossible under centralized control.
    - 6y ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

by eli 6y ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The point is that the media gets up in arms about criminal activity and money laundering with cryptocurrency but rarely ever reports crimes of a much greater magnitude made by “legitimate” institutions like banks. Someone money launders with crypto and it’s on the front page. A bank launders hundreds of times more and it’s just another day. Perhaps you could say it’s because of the novelty of crypto, but I suspect the motives run deeper - crypto is a threat to modern financial institutions and turning public interest against crypto is in the best interests of the establishment.

eli 6y ago
"The media" didn't vote this article to the front page of HN.
- xvector 6y ago
  HN is not immune to propaganda.
  - ndesaulniers 6y ago
    or what-about-ism, it would seem.
kylebenzle 6y ago
Also, HN inexplicably hates Bitcoin. Also why this comment will be removed.
- labster 6y ago
  If you'd like me to explain why I hate Bitcoin, look no further than the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index[0], which currently has Bitcoin using the same energy consumption as the nation of Chile. It provides less utility than a credit card, all while using 779092 times the energy needed per transaction. I don't think it's inexplicable that we hate an ongoing environmental disaster. [0]: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
  - javert 6y ago
    Saying bitcoin provides less utility than a credit card is missing the point the bitcoin people are making. You can still hold that bitcoin is bad, but that particular argument is not viable and comes from ignoring what the other side is saying.
- ahallock 6y ago
  You're not wrong. HN seems heavily biased against anything crypto. With Paypal, Square, MicroStrategy, and even JPMorgan adpoting/investing in Bitcoin, I think it's becoming legitimate.
bpodgursky 6y ago
OK, but the real economy is about 10,000,000x larger than the crypto economy. The point is that a huge fraction of the crypto economy is outright extortion or fraud, not that it's the source of all evil in the world.
- javert 6y ago
  > a huge fraction of the crypto economy is outright extortion or fraud I'm not sure that's true. Do you have a citation? What is clear is that a huge portion of the crypto economy is based around cryptocurrencies (particularly bitcoin) being financial assets.
  - xapata 6y ago
    > citation While it's good to check sources, keep in mind that original research is also valid. After all, you made a similarly uncited assertion.
    - javert 6y ago
      I don't think there is any point to saying something like that.
      - xapata 6y ago
        Because you don't think I'll change anyone's behavior or opinion? I'm holding out hope.
        javert 6y ago
        What behavior of mine do you think I should change? I didn't see any suggestion of something I actually did wrong. It felt like you were trying to criticize, but that your criticism had no actual content.
        xapata 6y ago
crtasm 6y ago
I don't know what media you read but I see stories in The Guardian about banks laundering money when it comes to light.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Money laundering in traditional finance is a problem of scale: there's far too much of it and we don't police it well enough. The problem is tractable given enough enforcement tools and resources. Bitcoin's different - it has little AML control so it's super easy to write money laundering tools. Monero is even worse. Money laundering is built into the protocol, to the point where being able to determine the chain-of-custody over some funds is computationally infeasible. Cryptocurrency is designed to increase the scope of money laundering rather than just the scale, because it makes money laundering the default. Think about how difficult it was to enforce copyright law in 1970 versus 2010. In the former, copyright enforcement was a matter of having enough lawyers to sue enough enterprises. In 2010, everyone has a commercial-scale copyright infringement device in their pocket. You practically can't enforce the law to the same level purely because the targets are too small and numerous and going after them is a PR nightmare. This is why the music industry fought against consumer-grade recording technology for so long (and lost). Regulating large businesses is a fundamentally more tractable form of law enforcement than individuals.
- chii 6y ago
  > Monero is even worse. Money laundering is built into the protocol, to the point where being able to determine the chain-of-custody over some funds is computationally infeasible. Cryptocurrency is designed to increase the scope of money laundering rather than just the scale, because it makes money laundering the default. I would replace 'money laundering' with privacy and anonymity. These properties are desirable. These properties give the individual undertaking the transaction a semblance of control. These properties prevent authorities from taking that control away except by using the law, which i think is a fairly good way to enforce control. So if the individual feel that the law is unfair, they have the option to _not_ obey. If enough people choose to _not_ obey, it forces the court's hand and legislator's hand - this serves society. Under centralized control, the individual does not have the option to not obey, because their transactions require approval from authorities. This approval becomes a chilling effect for change, and it makes it easy to target them before the general society is able to transition or understand. Civil disobedience is thus impossible under centralized control.
  - 6y ago