10 ms·

Ray Dalio says the government could ban bitcoin

35 points by Gustomaximus 6y ago

satellite2 6y ago
The only good reason to outlaw Bitcoin would be because of its energy consumption. But there is no strong political power that has a say over that currently, so it doesn't seem likely. The article quoting prominent economists is totally irrelevant, so it's tempting to discard the article as providing very little informative content.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Governments generally care what economists think, so (fluffy articles aside) criticism by economists is a legit reason regardless of the energy concern.
- hntroll666 6y ago
  People pay for the energy they use, and do what they want with it. I don't think it's anybody else's business what it's used for.
  - satellite2 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure if you start to buy any substantial proportion of the global supply of food to burn it, raising its price and reducing its availability in the process, you would soon have laws or ordinances banning you from doing so.
    - chroem- 6y ago
      Supposedly (haven't dug into it yet) videogames consume more energy than bitcoin. [1] Yet we don't see a similar organized effort to ban gaming. Why? [1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/introducing-cbei-a-new-way-to-measure-bitcoin-network-electrical-consumption https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/introducing-cbei-a-new-...
      - rl3 6y ago
        >Supposedly (haven't dug into it yet) videogames consume more energy than bitcoin. [1] Yet we don't see a similar organized effort to ban gaming. Why?* Because intellectual and entertainment pursuits generally benefit society. Selfish fucks continuously buying up an already scarce supply of specialized microchips for the sole purpose of greed isn't really comparable. Proof-of-Work crypto has completely screwed some scientists, artists, and just everyday people who might like to just unwind after a long day. During a global pandemic. Crypto in its current form tends to brings out the worst in us. It's kind of like social media in that regard.
        chroem- 6y ago
        But you could make identical arguments for gaming, so I don't see how that applies: >Because intellectual and entertainment pursuits generally benefit society. The ability to conduct business under oppressive regimes in foreign countries also has value. > Selfish fucks continuously buying up an already scarce supply of specialized microchips for the sole purpose of greed isn't really comparable. The same happens with gamers buying up cards, and there have been shortages pre-crypto as well. > Proof-of-Work crypto has completely screwed some scientists, artists, and just everyday people who might like to just unwind after a long day. During a global pandemic. Why can't you entertain yourself with something that's less damaging to the environment, like watching a movie? > Crypto in its current form tends to brings out the worst in us. It's kind of like social media in that regard. The same could be said for the gaming community, which is saturated with misogyny and racism. I suggest we ban gaming.
        rl3 6y ago
        You're equating shortage driven by organic demand to that of shortage from cryptomining. The fundamental difference is that with organic demand, people typically just want one card. With crypto, the incentive is to get your hands on as many cards as you can, fuck everyone else. Then we find ourselves in this race to the bottom. Moreover, trying to equate the energy use of both activities is laughable when mining creates an environment where idle compute resources translate to lost profits. I'm sure many people have taken up watching movies instead. Thing is, the net energy use is still vastly higher because mining creates a perverse incentive for virtually all GPUs to be hoarded, while drawing power 24/7. I don't disagree that a large swath of gaming culture is a cesspool, nor do I disagree that crypto has beneficial uses. I do however think both are beyond the scope of this discussion. What I'm saying is that the Proof-of-Work model has run amok and is a net detriment to society right now in its current incarnation.
    - kjksf 6y ago
      Cryptominers are sensitive to electricity prices so they seek to locate their operations where electricity is cheap. Simple logic dictates that they don't increase anyone's electricity price but taking advantage of the cheapest electricity there is. As to "reducing availability": when was this electricity shortage caused by bitcoin miners? It's astounding how easy it is to wage FUD and mis-information campaigns. Someone come up with this utterly idiotic argument of Bitcoin energy usage, it was picked up by the press, mindlessly repeated by people not willing to spend even few minutes dissecting it and now you can't have a HN article about Bitcoin without endless repetitions of this specious argument, which perpetuates it even more.
    - philipkglass 6y ago
      Sadly, the United States has policies to specifically encourage burning food as fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol Corn ethanol is ethanol produced from corn biomass and is the main source of ethanol fuel in the United States. Approximately 25% of U.S. corn croplands are used for ethanol production. ... Since 2001, corn ethanol production has increased by more than seven times. [In] 2018, out of 14.62 billions of bushels of corn produced, 5.60 billions of bushels were used to produce corn ethanol, reported by the United States Department of Energy.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I was 8 or 9 when I learned about electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Not sure how old I was when my dad warned me about chlorine if I used the wrong salt in the water, but chlorine is a nice clear example of why the thing you use the electricity for matters.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    We have efficiency requirements for air conditioners and refrigerators, why not for cryptocurrencies?
    - entropea 6y ago
      The more laws and regulations you add on, the less the entire thing begins to be its original idea of a free-for-all libertarian paradise currency and begins to make a lot less sense.
  - iSnow 6y ago
    As long as you create zero externalities for others, you are right. BTC is the exact opposite, though.
- nullifidian 6y ago
  Bitcoin enables tax evasion, sponsoring terrorism, all kinds of illicit trade, malware ransoms, and god knows what else. Isn't banning or hindering those in the interest of the general public?
  - wadkar 6y ago
    Cash enables tax evasion, sponsoring terrorism, all kinds of … Should we ban cash?
    - nullifidian 6y ago
      >Cash enables tax evasion, sponsoring terrorism, all kinds of 99% of bitcoin use is speculation, which does not create any value for society, only wastes energy, and illicit transactions. Cash is actually useful, but it is indeed being used more and more for illicit transactions. >Should we ban cash? Maybe?
  - madis 6y ago
    So does government money. And these uses are only a small percentage. I'd be like banning internet because it allows false news/cons/<your vice of choice>
    - entropea 6y ago
      >And these uses are only a small percentage. When you take transfers to and from exchanges out, what percentage of Bitcoin use is then crime compared to cash?
    - nullifidian 6y ago
      "Government money" is heavily regulated with with numerous provisions and international treaties , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer guidelines, and much more easily tracked.
cft 6y ago
There are two counter arguments: 1. As real US infrastructure and capacity continues to crumble, the government could become less and less effective in its enforcements. As an extreme example (first hand) you won't find police on the roads in Honduras or in El Salvador, not because there are no traffic laws, but because the governments are helpless. 2. Big banks actually want Bitcoin. They are smart enough to see past the end of the dollar ponzi scheme, and they aren't concerned with optics or with election cycles. I personally think it would be a great idea for the whales to grant each US senator 300 Bitcoin, and each congressman 100 Bitcoin in recognition of their excellent service to the people of the United States.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  >I personally think it would be a great idea for the whales to grant each US senator 300 Bitcoin, and each congressman 100 Bitcoin in recognition of their excellent service to the people of the United States. It would hardly be the first time some special interest tried to bribe the government for favorable treatment. I think to succeed you need to be a bit more subtle these days.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Indeed. If the US houses could be bought for such an on-the-nose $16.8 million, I’m sure half of world governments would do it — Côte d’Ivorie could afford that kind of bribe as a rolling expense for <1% national GDP.
- casi 6y ago
  FTX (crypto exchange) was one of Bidens biggest donors last year...
  - phyalow 6y ago
    SBF just making sure he doesnt go the way Arthur Hayes and friends did.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > Big banks actually want Bitcoin. They are smart enough to see past the end of the dollar ponzi scheme, Ahaha. Citation needed, extra-ordinary claims etc.
hntrader 6y ago
Politically difficult considering 30 million American potential voters own some crypto
- cft 6y ago
  How many owned gold in 1933?
  - rzzzt 6y ago
    I had to look this up; in case someone else is also not super familiar with modern US history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
- smt88 6y ago
  Where did that number come from? Out of the 140-180 million US voters, I would happily bet that not a huge percentage own crypto. I still don't think this will happen, though.
- coldtea 6y ago
  It will be bipartisan do wont make a dent to either side.
Havoc 6y ago
Now that would be an epic Streisand effect. This genie isn’t going back in the bottle.
- ben_w 6y ago
  If the currency is banned, only criminals will accept it or sell it. How often do you you expect Jane and Joe Average to actively choose to trade with criminal businesses? (Other than for illegal drugs, which I recognise are way more commonly used than pearl-clutching newspapers and politicians pretend).
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Now that would be an epic Streisand effect Nope. Streisand effect is about not being able to keep something off the media/press/gossip/etc when you try to make it so. It's not about the inability to make something illegal and be succesful at it (because of what? many people learning about the law? That's a bonus for laws). >This genie isn’t going back in the bottle It very easily can: "You have 6 months to register your bitcoin with the authorities and covert it to dollars and/or pay taxes on it. If you still have such addresses after that you'll be illegal. Exchanges should ceaze operations immediately".
  - csomar 6y ago
    > covert it to dollars convert it with whom? US government? Foreign investors?
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Would it matter? In the most extreme case — if mere possession has a penalty in law — BTC could even have a negative price. People could conceivably sell it to their own government below zero to avoid being fined by the same.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        I think the concern of the parent is "but why would the government exchange it, since they're making it illegal, and at what price -- since the act of making it illegal will get it into free-fall anyway". And it might not -- if that was the case, the owner would have to try to sell it to wherever they can within the time span. Which would also mean a flooded market and falling prices, but why would the government care about that? In the end, they get a tax share of the smaller, dollar converted, amount. As for the bitcoin owners losing money because of this, well, that money were in the form of a monetary asset that was not guaranteed by the government, in the first place. It's not like they lost private property, more like they made a bad (non-)investment...
trident5000 6y ago
This is the guy whose 3rd largest position is gold which is getting destroyed by btc right? He says its because feds dont want treasury competition but thats exactly what stocks and real estate are as money moves into them instead of low yielding debt. Btc is just another asset, there are many.
Geee 6y ago
Usually when prominent investors make these kinds of statements, they are trying to suppress the price so they can buy in cheaper. They published an article about Bitcoin a while back: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-thoughts-on-bitcoin https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-though...
vmception 6y ago
I’ve avoided saying so for many years (because I wanted to earn more bitcoin) but there are some fun ways to debilitate bitcoin A ban requires an ongoing attack on the bitcoin network An ongoing attack on the bitcoin network doesnt require a ban Basically a well funded organization will have to engage in a multi-pronged and simultaneous approach to debilitate bitcoin, while also deterring its use in person This pretty much requires a government sponsored entity to do
- forkerenok 6y ago
  They don't have to do that. They can just make it illegal to operate any off- and on-ramps into crypto (from fiat). And, if I'm not mistaken, the US can sanction all foreign businesses that continue to provide these services.
  - vmception 6y ago
    They can do that too
nly 6y ago
This came up because the issue of banning Bitcoin came up in India again[0] The original interview is here, and the Bitcoin segment starts at 14:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ82qABNWQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ82qABNWQA The whole interview is worth a watch if you're interested in his perspective on the global economy. What Dalio actually said was in the long run he wouldn't be surprised if the US Government eventually attempt to ban Bitcoin, and he made the historical comparison to gold (which he favours). For those that don't know their history[1]: "in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins.". These restrictions lasted for 30 years I actually tend to agree with him. Bitcoin blows a gaping hole in any capital controls any government could ever want to impose, and its one available to ordinary plebs with an Internet connection. The reality is though, only 3% of the ~32 million funded wallets in existence actually transact every day[2], and only 7 million wallets globally have more than $1,000 USD worth in them[3]. Bitcoin isn't really a threat to anything yet. [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/india-proposes-ban-bitcoin-us-110019581.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/india-proposes-ban-bitcoin-us... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act [2] https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/how-many-people-use-bitcoin/ https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/how-many-people-use-bit... [3] https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses....
- Luker88 6y ago
  But should there be other reason to ban it? Not just bitcoin, but proof of work coins in general: * power usage * environmental issues * worsening chip shortage Do we have technical reason for proof of work? Isn't proof of stake as safe anyway? I would be in favor of banning PoW. Projects can switch anyway
  - trident5000 6y ago
    The govt couldnt even ban TikTok and now institutions who pay for their campaigns are balls deep in the industry. Its going nowhere.
  - 6y ago
dragonelite 6y ago
The only thing the US government can ban/regulate are the on and off ramps, going from fiat to crypto and from crypto to fiat. Because at the end of the year you most likely need to pay your tax in fiat currencies. But given that the ledger data is public I could see it become regulate so that to buy and sell crypto you need to go through a Know your customer(KyC) process. So they know who's behind which wallet address. This way states can create white lists and black lists of wallet addresses. Only allow white listed miners to add new bitcoins/crypto to exchanges. This will make sure sanctioned nations can't trade with US companies. The can pretty much track in real time when illegal transactions are taking please by cross referencing if transactions from black listed to white listed addresses are taking place and fine instantly. Chain analyses have already been used to find criminal activity.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The only thing the US government can ban/regulate are the on and off ramps, going from fiat to crypto and from crypto to fiat. Well, making it illegal to own Bitcoin alone is only enough to delegate it to criminals and libertarian "fbi can come and get me" types. Even if they can't technically police it, it's enough that if you're ever caught with it you can go to jail / pay a fine to discourage most. And of course this means all exchanges have to close, whether in the US, or in places where the US can excert force (not to mention the other countries govermenets might as well agree), etc.
- trident5000 6y ago
  The govt can go with the flow or against it. If they go with the flow they will get a mostly transparent leading coin (bitcoin) that people use and whereby people abide by the reasonable rules they set out. If they go against the flow, they will be dealing with bitcoin mixers, monero, decentralized exchanges, foreign stable coins instead of usd, and an entire separate digital economy that develops without their involvement.
- csomar 6y ago
  > But given that the ledger data is public I could see it become regulate so that to buy and sell crypto you need to go through a Know your customer(KyC) process. You already need KYC today for most exchanges. This status quo is unlikely to remain, however, given that Decentralized Exchanges are likely to become cheap and efficient in the future. > The can pretty much track in real time when illegal transactions are taking please by cross referencing if transactions from black listed to white listed addresses are taking place and fine instantly. I think when this happens most people will realize how important the current Proof Of Work concept is. It basically means this white/black listing becomes very hard vs. PoS where the big holders could be manipulated by some government.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

35 points by Gustomaximus 6y ago

The only good reason to outlaw Bitcoin would be because of its energy consumption. But there is no strong political power that has a say over that currently, so it doesn't seem likely. The article quoting prominent economists is totally irrelevant, so it's tempting to discard the article as providing very little informative content.

ben_w 6y ago
Governments generally care what economists think, so (fluffy articles aside) criticism by economists is a legit reason regardless of the energy concern.
hntroll666 6y ago
People pay for the energy they use, and do what they want with it. I don't think it's anybody else's business what it's used for.
- satellite2 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure if you start to buy any substantial proportion of the global supply of food to burn it, raising its price and reducing its availability in the process, you would soon have laws or ordinances banning you from doing so.
  - chroem- 6y ago
    Supposedly (haven't dug into it yet) videogames consume more energy than bitcoin. [1] Yet we don't see a similar organized effort to ban gaming. Why? [1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/introducing-cbei-a-new-way-to-measure-bitcoin-network-electrical-consumption https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/introducing-cbei-a-new-...
    - rl3 6y ago
      >Supposedly (haven't dug into it yet) videogames consume more energy than bitcoin. [1] Yet we don't see a similar organized effort to ban gaming. Why?* Because intellectual and entertainment pursuits generally benefit society. Selfish fucks continuously buying up an already scarce supply of specialized microchips for the sole purpose of greed isn't really comparable. Proof-of-Work crypto has completely screwed some scientists, artists, and just everyday people who might like to just unwind after a long day. During a global pandemic. Crypto in its current form tends to brings out the worst in us. It's kind of like social media in that regard.
      - chroem- 6y ago
        But you could make identical arguments for gaming, so I don't see how that applies: >Because intellectual and entertainment pursuits generally benefit society. The ability to conduct business under oppressive regimes in foreign countries also has value. > Selfish fucks continuously buying up an already scarce supply of specialized microchips for the sole purpose of greed isn't really comparable. The same happens with gamers buying up cards, and there have been shortages pre-crypto as well. > Proof-of-Work crypto has completely screwed some scientists, artists, and just everyday people who might like to just unwind after a long day. During a global pandemic. Why can't you entertain yourself with something that's less damaging to the environment, like watching a movie? > Crypto in its current form tends to brings out the worst in us. It's kind of like social media in that regard. The same could be said for the gaming community, which is saturated with misogyny and racism. I suggest we ban gaming.
        rl3 6y ago
        You're equating shortage driven by organic demand to that of shortage from cryptomining. The fundamental difference is that with organic demand, people typically just want one card. With crypto, the incentive is to get your hands on as many cards as you can, fuck everyone else. Then we find ourselves in this race to the bottom. Moreover, trying to equate the energy use of both activities is laughable when mining creates an environment where idle compute resources translate to lost profits. I'm sure many people have taken up watching movies instead. Thing is, the net energy use is still vastly higher because mining creates a perverse incentive for virtually all GPUs to be hoarded, while drawing power 24/7. I don't disagree that a large swath of gaming culture is a cesspool, nor do I disagree that crypto has beneficial uses. I do however think both are beyond the scope of this discussion. What I'm saying is that the Proof-of-Work model has run amok and is a net detriment to society right now in its current incarnation.
  - kjksf 6y ago
    Cryptominers are sensitive to electricity prices so they seek to locate their operations where electricity is cheap. Simple logic dictates that they don't increase anyone's electricity price but taking advantage of the cheapest electricity there is. As to "reducing availability": when was this electricity shortage caused by bitcoin miners? It's astounding how easy it is to wage FUD and mis-information campaigns. Someone come up with this utterly idiotic argument of Bitcoin energy usage, it was picked up by the press, mindlessly repeated by people not willing to spend even few minutes dissecting it and now you can't have a HN article about Bitcoin without endless repetitions of this specious argument, which perpetuates it even more.
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    Sadly, the United States has policies to specifically encourage burning food as fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol Corn ethanol is ethanol produced from corn biomass and is the main source of ethanol fuel in the United States. Approximately 25% of U.S. corn croplands are used for ethanol production. ... Since 2001, corn ethanol production has increased by more than seven times. [In] 2018, out of 14.62 billions of bushels of corn produced, 5.60 billions of bushels were used to produce corn ethanol, reported by the United States Department of Energy.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I was 8 or 9 when I learned about electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Not sure how old I was when my dad warned me about chlorine if I used the wrong salt in the water, but chlorine is a nice clear example of why the thing you use the electricity for matters.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  We have efficiency requirements for air conditioners and refrigerators, why not for cryptocurrencies?
  - entropea 6y ago
    The more laws and regulations you add on, the less the entire thing begins to be its original idea of a free-for-all libertarian paradise currency and begins to make a lot less sense.
- iSnow 6y ago
  As long as you create zero externalities for others, you are right. BTC is the exact opposite, though.
nullifidian 6y ago
Bitcoin enables tax evasion, sponsoring terrorism, all kinds of illicit trade, malware ransoms, and god knows what else. Isn't banning or hindering those in the interest of the general public?
- wadkar 6y ago
  Cash enables tax evasion, sponsoring terrorism, all kinds of … Should we ban cash?
  - nullifidian 6y ago
    >Cash enables tax evasion, sponsoring terrorism, all kinds of 99% of bitcoin use is speculation, which does not create any value for society, only wastes energy, and illicit transactions. Cash is actually useful, but it is indeed being used more and more for illicit transactions. >Should we ban cash? Maybe?
- madis 6y ago
  So does government money. And these uses are only a small percentage. I'd be like banning internet because it allows false news/cons/<your vice of choice>
  - entropea 6y ago
    >And these uses are only a small percentage. When you take transfers to and from exchanges out, what percentage of Bitcoin use is then crime compared to cash?
  - nullifidian 6y ago
    "Government money" is heavily regulated with with numerous provisions and international treaties , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer guidelines, and much more easily tracked.

cft 6y ago

There are two counter arguments: 1. As real US infrastructure and capacity continues to crumble, the government could become less and less effective in its enforcements. As an extreme example (first hand) you won't find police on the roads in Honduras or in El Salvador, not because there are no traffic laws, but because the governments are helpless. 2. Big banks actually want Bitcoin. They are smart enough to see past the end of the dollar ponzi scheme, and they aren't concerned with optics or with election cycles. I personally think it would be a great idea for the whales to grant each US senator 300 Bitcoin, and each congressman 100 Bitcoin in recognition of their excellent service to the people of the United States.

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
>I personally think it would be a great idea for the whales to grant each US senator 300 Bitcoin, and each congressman 100 Bitcoin in recognition of their excellent service to the people of the United States. It would hardly be the first time some special interest tried to bribe the government for favorable treatment. I think to succeed you need to be a bit more subtle these days.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Indeed. If the US houses could be bought for such an on-the-nose $16.8 million, I’m sure half of world governments would do it — Côte d’Ivorie could afford that kind of bribe as a rolling expense for <1% national GDP.
casi 6y ago
FTX (crypto exchange) was one of Bidens biggest donors last year...
- phyalow 6y ago
  SBF just making sure he doesnt go the way Arthur Hayes and friends did.
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> Big banks actually want Bitcoin. They are smart enough to see past the end of the dollar ponzi scheme, Ahaha. Citation needed, extra-ordinary claims etc.

hntrader 6y ago

Politically difficult considering 30 million American potential voters own some crypto

cft 6y ago
How many owned gold in 1933?
- rzzzt 6y ago
  I had to look this up; in case someone else is also not super familiar with modern US history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
smt88 6y ago
Where did that number come from? Out of the 140-180 million US voters, I would happily bet that not a huge percentage own crypto. I still don't think this will happen, though.
coldtea 6y ago
It will be bipartisan do wont make a dent to either side.

Havoc 6y ago

Now that would be an epic Streisand effect. This genie isn’t going back in the bottle.

ben_w 6y ago
If the currency is banned, only criminals will accept it or sell it. How often do you you expect Jane and Joe Average to actively choose to trade with criminal businesses? (Other than for illegal drugs, which I recognise are way more commonly used than pearl-clutching newspapers and politicians pretend).
coldtea 6y ago
>Now that would be an epic Streisand effect Nope. Streisand effect is about not being able to keep something off the media/press/gossip/etc when you try to make it so. It's not about the inability to make something illegal and be succesful at it (because of what? many people learning about the law? That's a bonus for laws). >This genie isn’t going back in the bottle It very easily can: "You have 6 months to register your bitcoin with the authorities and covert it to dollars and/or pay taxes on it. If you still have such addresses after that you'll be illegal. Exchanges should ceaze operations immediately".
- csomar 6y ago
  > covert it to dollars convert it with whom? US government? Foreign investors?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Would it matter? In the most extreme case — if mere possession has a penalty in law — BTC could even have a negative price. People could conceivably sell it to their own government below zero to avoid being fined by the same.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      I think the concern of the parent is "but why would the government exchange it, since they're making it illegal, and at what price -- since the act of making it illegal will get it into free-fall anyway". And it might not -- if that was the case, the owner would have to try to sell it to wherever they can within the time span. Which would also mean a flooded market and falling prices, but why would the government care about that? In the end, they get a tax share of the smaller, dollar converted, amount. As for the bitcoin owners losing money because of this, well, that money were in the form of a monetary asset that was not guaranteed by the government, in the first place. It's not like they lost private property, more like they made a bad (non-)investment...

trident5000 6y ago

This is the guy whose 3rd largest position is gold which is getting destroyed by btc right? He says its because feds dont want treasury competition but thats exactly what stocks and real estate are as money moves into them instead of low yielding debt. Btc is just another asset, there are many.

Geee 6y ago

Usually when prominent investors make these kinds of statements, they are trying to suppress the price so they can buy in cheaper. They published an article about Bitcoin a while back: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-thoughts-on-bitcoin https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-though...

vmception 6y ago

I’ve avoided saying so for many years (because I wanted to earn more bitcoin) but there are some fun ways to debilitate bitcoin A ban requires an ongoing attack on the bitcoin network An ongoing attack on the bitcoin network doesnt require a ban Basically a well funded organization will have to engage in a multi-pronged and simultaneous approach to debilitate bitcoin, while also deterring its use in person This pretty much requires a government sponsored entity to do

forkerenok 6y ago
They don't have to do that. They can just make it illegal to operate any off- and on-ramps into crypto (from fiat). And, if I'm not mistaken, the US can sanction all foreign businesses that continue to provide these services.
- vmception 6y ago
  They can do that too

nly 6y ago

This came up because the issue of banning Bitcoin came up in India again[0] The original interview is here, and the Bitcoin segment starts at 14:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ82qABNWQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ82qABNWQA The whole interview is worth a watch if you're interested in his perspective on the global economy. What Dalio actually said was in the long run he wouldn't be surprised if the US Government eventually attempt to ban Bitcoin, and he made the historical comparison to gold (which he favours). For those that don't know their history[1]: "in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins.". These restrictions lasted for 30 years I actually tend to agree with him. Bitcoin blows a gaping hole in any capital controls any government could ever want to impose, and its one available to ordinary plebs with an Internet connection. The reality is though, only 3% of the ~32 million funded wallets in existence actually transact every day[2], and only 7 million wallets globally have more than $1,000 USD worth in them[3]. Bitcoin isn't really a threat to anything yet. [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/india-proposes-ban-bitcoin-us-110019581.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/india-proposes-ban-bitcoin-us... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act [2] https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/how-many-people-use-bitcoin/ https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/how-many-people-use-bit... [3] https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses....

Luker88 6y ago
But should there be other reason to ban it? Not just bitcoin, but proof of work coins in general: * power usage * environmental issues * worsening chip shortage Do we have technical reason for proof of work? Isn't proof of stake as safe anyway? I would be in favor of banning PoW. Projects can switch anyway
- trident5000 6y ago
  The govt couldnt even ban TikTok and now institutions who pay for their campaigns are balls deep in the industry. Its going nowhere.
- 6y ago

dragonelite 6y ago

The only thing the US government can ban/regulate are the on and off ramps, going from fiat to crypto and from crypto to fiat. Because at the end of the year you most likely need to pay your tax in fiat currencies. But given that the ledger data is public I could see it become regulate so that to buy and sell crypto you need to go through a Know your customer(KyC) process. So they know who's behind which wallet address. This way states can create white lists and black lists of wallet addresses. Only allow white listed miners to add new bitcoins/crypto to exchanges. This will make sure sanctioned nations can't trade with US companies. The can pretty much track in real time when illegal transactions are taking please by cross referencing if transactions from black listed to white listed addresses are taking place and fine instantly. Chain analyses have already been used to find criminal activity.

coldtea 6y ago
>The only thing the US government can ban/regulate are the on and off ramps, going from fiat to crypto and from crypto to fiat. Well, making it illegal to own Bitcoin alone is only enough to delegate it to criminals and libertarian "fbi can come and get me" types. Even if they can't technically police it, it's enough that if you're ever caught with it you can go to jail / pay a fine to discourage most. And of course this means all exchanges have to close, whether in the US, or in places where the US can excert force (not to mention the other countries govermenets might as well agree), etc.
trident5000 6y ago
The govt can go with the flow or against it. If they go with the flow they will get a mostly transparent leading coin (bitcoin) that people use and whereby people abide by the reasonable rules they set out. If they go against the flow, they will be dealing with bitcoin mixers, monero, decentralized exchanges, foreign stable coins instead of usd, and an entire separate digital economy that develops without their involvement.
csomar 6y ago
> But given that the ledger data is public I could see it become regulate so that to buy and sell crypto you need to go through a Know your customer(KyC) process. You already need KYC today for most exchanges. This status quo is unlikely to remain, however, given that Decentralized Exchanges are likely to become cheap and efficient in the future. > The can pretty much track in real time when illegal transactions are taking please by cross referencing if transactions from black listed to white listed addresses are taking place and fine instantly. I think when this happens most people will realize how important the current Proof Of Work concept is. It basically means this white/black listing becomes very hard vs. PoS where the big holders could be manipulated by some government.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]