31 ms·
The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban
- arrosenberg 6y agoThis is America, banning things rarely works as intended. A carbon tax solves this problem just fine.
- colinmhayes 6y agoMiners would just move to China.
- sremani 6y agoThey are already there. US will not be the first country to ban Crypto. The countries that are facing acute Capital flight post-corona would do that. US will use its regulatory regime to firewall crypto into its own thing. But if BTC becomes a threat to USD in a realistic way (which is not evident in medium term), then game on!
- edouard-harris 6y ago> This is America Note that the author of the post is based in London, UK: https://www.stephendiehl.com/ https://www.stephendiehl.com/
- ur-whale 6y ago> Note that the author of the post is based in London But clearly positions himself as as USian.
- mclightning 6y agoYeah, I found it weird too around when he used the phrase "We, in the US".
- RhodoGSA 6y agoEverything about this article oozzes mal intent. From the UK, claiming 'us in the US'. he's also CTO of Adjoint Treasury, which does real-time payments and settlement platform for corporate treasury's.
- herve76 6y agoDont poke the bear or...
- thebean11 6y agoEven if you take the most cynical approach towards crypto, banning crypto is simply not the governments job. At best, this is equivalent to banning beanie babies (no real negative affects for society, but stupid and a big overreach). At worst, it's equivalent to banning the internet (sets the country behind decades as the rest of the world adopts the new technology and profits from it).
- mmastrac 6y agoThe government[0] has regulatory authority over environmental issues, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? [0] ie: all of them
- thebean11 6y agoBanning crypto is a gigantic overreach when the government won't even try the obvious solutions like carbon taxes (which would indirectly discourage crypto mining).
- BitwiseFool 6y agoI see the situation in the exact opposite way. Passing a Carbon Tax, while sensible, would run in major opposition because it would basically effect every citizen. But banning cryptocurrency would be much easier since the majority of the population doesn't own any and it can be framed in very positive terms.
- tshaddox 6y ago> But banning cryptocurrency would be much easier since the majority of the population doesn't own any and it can be framed in very positive terms. Sounds unrealistic. Remember the war on drugs?
- BitwiseFool 6y agoIn my personal experience most people think of cryptocurrencies as a Ponzi scheme, some kind of money laundering operation, a tremendous waste of energy, or some combination of those three. In light of that, I think a cryptocurrency ban would be easy for politicians to sell to the public using those terms. How effective the ban would be is another question, but I am mainly talking about how I think the politicians would justify the ban.
- fcanesin 6y agoWhat a idiotic essay, the same arguments could be made for the ban of most precious metal mining since majority of it goes to storage deposits. Cryptocurrencies actually bring several benefits and better solutions for the problem of trust in a store-of-value or exchange contract. The world needs Bitcoin now more than ever, we are already living in a multilateral world where US and China exert pressure to force international contracts to be denominated in USD abs RMB. That is an awful deal when both countries can print unlimited amounts and distribute to their preferences like happened during this pandemic, specially in the US.
- louwrentius 6y agoGovernments print money to keep society from collapsing. What you rail against is a feature not a bug. So many cryptocoin advocates don’t seem to understand how societies work. The world can do without BTC just fine. Now more than ever. It doesn’t actually solve a problem we face. Only those who have Bitcoin seem so adamant about it. No coincidence right? Because we know it needs more ‘suckers’ to buy into the ponzi because no value is ever created.
- mw888 6y agoAh yes. Because wealth transfers to the rich via money printing and bailouts isn’t something people should try and avoid.
- traceddd 6y agoA centrally controlled emission is a feature that has significant downsides. Whether we want this feature is the point of discussion... Societies with economies existed before fiat and this centrally controlled emission seems to be quite shaky now. It’s not about suckers or even wealth, it’s about whether control should be given to a greater entity who may save us, or if such a thing is too important to trust to a very human and often flawed agency. People who are adamant about Bitcoin were already sold on it before they found it. Just as those who adamantly oppose it.
- Macross8299 6y agoI'm not sure billions of dollars of QE that disproportionately benefit banks and the financial class is a desirable feature in any way.
- xapxap 6y agoSo sad that you didn't buy some huh?
- ThemalSpan 6y agoI don’t think he is.
- verdverm 6y agoHN is not supportive of antagonistic, low quality comments. Please take that level of discourse elsewhere
- bpodgursky 6y agoHN is absolutely supportive of antagonistic snarky, low quality comments which happen to align with the zeitgeist. This one doesn't.
- tomjen3 6y agoI read the words the great reset and just skipped reading, I suggest you do the same.
- christiansakai 6y agoI think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane, especially Bitcoin, which I agree (I don't hold Bitcoin for this exact reason). But there are many other crypto that uses Proof of Stake, way way greener than Proof of Work, such as Cardano. Even Ethereum is transitioning to Proof of Stake. This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban".
- hpoe 6y agoWasn't that posted like 2 days ago on HN already?
- jtolds 6y agoI came here to say this exact same thing. There is seriously interesting and useful real work being done under the umbrella term "decentralized finance" or DeFi. It is hard to cut through the noise of get rich quick schemes, but at the core, the DeFi stuff, built on top of green cryptocurrency (proof of stake), along with quickly improving zero-knowledge proof tech, is actually useful and groundbreaking. Bitcoin and proof of work should totally be banned.
- christiansakai 6y agoIndeed, the world of cyptocurrency/blockchain research has many ground breaking papers and news are often real time, even crypto news aggregator can't keep up with it. HN crowd refuses to care about it because of bad taste of crypto in general.
- mantenpanther 6y agoHostile and clearly framed article from the first sentence. Could not read it further.
- herodotus 6y agoI am sorry that you did that. I believe that Bitcoin's intrinsic energy usage is a big big problem, and I would have been interested in a reasoned counter-argument from someone who is in favour of Bitcoin or other crypto-currencies. After all, I read HN mostly to learn and grow. I especially enjoy informative comments on articles and the ensuing debates.
- artifact_44 6y agoOk. Let's ban capitalism.
- fisf 6y agoThe easiest counter argument to that is that transition to proof-of-stake based Crypto should be encouraged. But the article only makes sweeping statements without much depth. . "Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory" The same could be said about large segments of the traditional finance and banking industry. Yet nobody wants a blanket ban of this sector. It is a very low effort article, that has a very clear bias.
- _trampeltier 6y agoOf course energy is a problem. But at the same time you would to have to ban all sport cars, forbid to heat a building more than 20C etc. And not all people live in a "safe" country and it's still more easy to transmit cryptos to some countrys than use the incompatible way from offical banc transaction.
- mantenpanther 6y agoBitcoins energy usage might be it‘s most important property as an asset. Blatanly discrediting it because of „energy usage“ is the simple route. I prefer to dig deeper for the truth. Maybe PoS is part of the solution, but I‘m not convinced of a purely virtual system without a physical anchor. An overview of counter-argumebtd to the main bitcoin criticisms: https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/ https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/ Regarding energy usage some arguments are: using stranded energy (exists very much), stabilizing energy nets (especially with renewables), incentivizing renewable research.
- tfang17 6y agoDidn't people make the same arguments about the Internet?
- tome 6y agoThey didn't make the argument that the internet was a ponzi scheme or that it used energy equivalent to a medium-sized country. Did you have some other arguments in mind?
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoLet’s go the other way and ban fiat. Money printing is a much greater threat to world security. Print way too much money, run out of resources and room to pump, crash to rock bottom, start a war, then start over again is the historic cycle we are stuck on until we fix this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
- tome 6y agoI don't see anything in the reference that you provide that elaborates on "start a war". Perhaps you could provide the elaboration?
- oleganza 6y agoWars are inherently destructive and can only be funded for prolonged periods of time with mountains of debt. Especially if you can extract taxes backing this debt relatively painlessly. Extracting Bitcoin from individual wallets is no small feat, and Bitcoin-backed (fractionally, of course) notes would not have the same advantage as paper bills over gold coins. Bitcoin is divisible, storable and transferrable well enough to be used as-is.
- tome 6y agoNone of this explains why fiat currency leads to starting a war.
- gher-shyu3i 6y agoFiat currency allows the government to make its citizens pay for its usurious debts, by printing more money. This is not possible with gold or bitcoin.
- tome 6y agoI'm still not seeing an argument that fiat currency leads to war ...
- senthil_rajasek 6y agoIn addition to the shortcomings mentioned in the article a major problem of cryptocurrencies is the inability of local goverments to issue bonds that fund critical community projects like schools, safety and roads.
- djschnei 6y agoHow do crypto currencies diminish the ability of governments to issue bonds?
- pmurt7 6y agoThis guy didn't buy Bitcoin so he want government to ban it. I am joking, but I am sure there is some truth to that. If we start banning what is a bit shady, we will end up shutting down 80% of businesses out there that make money.
- tome 6y agoThis is a strange sort of argument and seeing it so often from cryptocurrency proponents makes me feel that the pro-cryptocurrency are weaker not stronger. On the one hand, yes, I'm sad that I didn't buy $100 of bitcoin ten years ago and hold until now. Who wouldn't be? But on the other hand, how does this even bear resemblance to an argument? > "The political case for a ban on fossil fuels" So sad that you didn't buy some Exxon huh? > "The political case for a ban on tobacco" So sad that you didn't buy some Philip Morris huh? > "The political case for a ban on energy trading" So sad that you didn't buy some Enron huh? "So sad that you didn't buy some bitcoin huh?" is like the opposite of the sour grapes fable: "I was able to reach the grapes so they must be sweet".
- SwimSwimHungry 6y agoObjectively, it's a humble-brag, as if Bitcoin users are somehow among the enlightened and, by anyone "missing out", they will forever be poor. Or wait... actually I was told it's not too late! Bitcoin is only just getting started! If you don't buy now, you'll miss out on more future gains! Right!? Well, it's becoming less of a compelling argument, when to even 2x your input, BTC would have to hit a mind boggling $118k USD per coin as of this very post. In essence, we are finding a diminishing point of returns already. You can do better than that much more easily and quicker on the stock market right now, by comparison. It's like coiners want to play both sides of fence. They want to ridicule and taunt those that they say didn't see the light in 2009 or thereabouts, but at the same time, gain new recruits, so they can continue to fatten their holdings all the same.
- GhostVII 6y agoInstead of regulating specific areas we think pollute more than they are worth, we should just have a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. Let people decide if it is worth it for them to pay for the emissions caused by Bitcoin, or sports cars, or whatever else pollutes without providing real value. What you do with the share of the emissions you have purchased is none of the government's business, but we should make everyone pay for their negative externalities.
- Dumblydorr 6y agoMost of the article's arguments work if you replace the word "Gold" for the word cryptocurrency. Gold itself is just a yellow metal, it is valuable largely for the human belief that it has value, though admittedly it is somewhat pretty, a good conductor of electrons, and has historical value due to its ease of work and use in numerous ancient artifacts. Still, as a currency or value holder, gold is simply a metal that people think has value. Crypto too has value because people think it has value. It is "mined" like gold, though newer coins don't have this quality due to Proof of Stake, thus reducing carbon emissions drastically. And if people are willing to trade paper or metal for digital objects, is it anyone's place to ban that trade? What about digital money for digital crypto, can we ban that? All currencies like pieces of paper, digital objects, metallic circles, seashells, beaver pelts: They all have value because humans value them.
- pushrax 6y agoGold mining is also environmentally intensive, as is transporting gold for trade. Proof of stake is also a "mining" operation insofar as it produces a limited supply at a macro-predictable rate.
- tome 6y ago> Most of the article's arguments work if you replace the word "Gold" for the word cryptocurrency I don't see it. Doesn't seem to apply to ponzi scheme, or facilitating cyber attacks, or the environmental impact. Perhaps you could give some explicit examples.
- tachyonbeam 6y agoI don't like the way bitcoin mining wastes energy, but mining gold certainly has an environmental impact. Most of the machinery is currently powered by fossil fuels, and most of the gold isn't used for useful applications AFAIK. I'm glad some cryptos are moving to proof of stake, and I wonder if bitcoin will be able to make that transition too, or if the miners have too much to lose to let that happen?
- 6y ago
- artifact_44 6y agoWe can't allow the poors to pillage the planet.. That's reserved for "wallstreets crazy traders".
- ggreer 6y agoI find it funny that the environmental arguments have come out again. Major news companies were making the same argument about the Internet back in the 90s.[1] Pretty much any activity has some effect on the environment, so the argument tends to be used when few other criticisms can stick. 1. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0531/6311070a.html https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0531/6311070a.html
- jamal-kumar 6y agoIf my computer was spewing out clouds of black smoke, I might start to care
- javert 6y agoThis ignores the positive arguments for bitcoin. Bitcoin is objective, hard, honest money. Many view that as a very good thing, myself included. Governments steal inordinate amounts of energy from the populace with their money printing. The Pharaohs built the pyramids using slave labor. This was a monstrous, immoral waste of human energy. Modern governments accomplish the same thing with money printing. That is the system Stephen Diehl supports.
- kibleopard 6y ago> Bitcoin is objective, hard, honest money Yes, definitely makes sense when the main usage of it is money laundering and mindless speculation
- javert 6y agoThat isn't the case, but believe what you want.
- kibleopard 6y agoI mean, if you'd like to see some academic research backing up that it is indeed the case, see here: https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/32/5/1798/5427781?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/32/5/1798/5427... "We find that approximately one-quarter of bitcoin users are involved in illegal activity. We estimate that around $76 billion of illegal activity per year involve bitcoin (46% of bitcoin transactions), which is close to the scale of the U.S. and European markets for illegal drugs." I would love if you could point me towards a current use of Bitcoin that isn't as a currency for illegal goods, or as an investment vehicle -- I'm genuinely curious why you think what I said isn't the case.
- javert 6y agoI do think it's currently mainly used as an investment vehicle. I don't think that is the same as "mindless speculation," which is what you said before. Michael Saylor, who is the CEO of an S&P 600 company, makes a good case for bitcoin as a store of wealth. You can google him and see his arguments if you want. Also, BTW, money laundering != illegal drug activity. Those are two different crimes.
- pmurt7 6y agoHere we go again, the "right-wing populism" narrative to ban crypto.
- christiansakai 6y agoAFAIK, crypto is very popular with right-wing.
- pmurt7 6y agoDo you think terrorist organisations use BTC ? Of course no, they are fine with USD. Should we ban USD too?
- tome 6y agoI always assumed they would use BTC for some of their transactions! Why wouldn't they? You said "Of course no, they are fine with USD" so do you have any evidence that they don't?
- pmurt7 6y agoDo you really think The Islamic State use BTC to buy weapons on the Dark Web?
- tome 6y agoI guess you're replying to me. I have no idea, but that seems a non sequitur. Where's your evidence that no terrorist group uses BTC for any of their transactions?
- jlos 6y ago>>> In social media era, everyday our adversaries are running very effective military-inspired psyops campaigns to sow division and polarization within the body politic. Am I the only one who thinks this is a 2 way street and our governments are actively doing the same to our adversaries?
- frockington1 6y agoThey are likely doing it to their subjects as well
- rybosworld 6y agoSeems to me that Stephen is not well informed on crypto in general. This article is really only relevant to Bitcoin. Take a project like Brave for instance which is disrupting the online advertising model: https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ (I am completely unaffiliated, just a fan of the project) Can you look at this project and tell me with a straight face it is bad for the environment and should be banned by government? Because that's basically what Stephen has done when he lumped every crypto together.
- namdnay 6y agoThe thing is, Im not sure Brave really needs a cryptocurrency. It seems that a centralized DB would be enough.
- rybosworld 6y agoSure it might work with a database, just as you don't need a blockchain to do what Visa does. But Brave is really one of the best showcases for what crypto can achieve imo. They've tied anonymity, opt-in advertisements, and micropayments into one thing. I think it would actually be more difficult to do this without a cryptocurrency.
- scsilver 6y agoThe unifiying protocol of a token(BAT) is a political feature. It aligns incentives out of the box. Stakeholders become shareholders, stakeholders become financially aligned. The problem with this can be speculation distorting the market, making it to expensive to transact, reducing or eliminating its value.
- RhodoGSA 6y agoHow can you ENSURE decentralization on a centralized database? How can you ENSURE anonymity and they aren't selling you data? How can you ENSURE borderless transaction in fiat? There's alot of things a blockchain does that can't be done otherwise.
- nightski 6y agoI used to have a lot of respect for him, he's very intelligent and a great hacker. But man he's really gone down the rabbit hole basically on the edge of consipiracy theorist lately. It's sad. His viewpoints are naive and he never proposes viable solutions. It's easy to say ban "X" when that is never going to happen. If he was really interested in a solution he would acknowledge the benefits that people are getting out of Bitcoin and provide alternative solutions. But meanwhile people will continue to complain about Bitcoin while it's market cap will continue to rise and it will keep on growing in usage. All major banks are now planning serious efforts in the crypto space with massive investments. This isn't going to go away with magical thinking.
- boringg 6y agoBan? That silly. How you kill something you don't like is tax it heavily. Add on the carbon tax equivalent to each bitcoin transaction as well as tax the capital gains/losses. Interest will deflate on it's own.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoThe political case against it is that banning cryptocurrency will cause a non-negligible fraction of the population to lose a large amount of money solely through government action.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoIs "Electricity Neutrality" a concept? Does the government have any control over how I use the electricity that I pay for? This is a genuine question and I'm not trying to be snarky.
- rocqua 6y agoI don't think it is. If you want a big enough electrical cable, you need a deal with the local energy supplier. They can add whatever clause they want. Personally, I don't see much of a reason for Electricity neutrality. It's not like the power companies could use their discretion to disadvantage their competition. Nor does the contention for power lead to large barriers for entry.
- namdnay 6y agoIt’s a good question. I’d say that the government already gives itself the right to mandate how you burn your petrol for example, by setting emissions regulations. And more pragmatically, banning crypto would be less politically suicidal than implementing a carbon tax
- golemotron 6y agoThe article neglects the best argument for crypto. It will force us to do more energy research and put more money into hydroelectric, solar, and nuclear. We shouldn't let concerns about the environmental problems of current energy sources lead us to destroy an incentive structure that can lead us away from them. Harness the tiger, don't put it down.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ggreer 6y agoI don't know of any place requiring different rates and metering for certain uses, but many power companies offer such things as an option. For example: In California, PG&E offers different metering plans for electric vehicles.[1] These plans make it much more expensive to charge your vehicle during peak hours (daytime) and significantly cheaper to charge during the night. Though once you are on separate meters, you're at risk of PG&E unilaterally jacking up your rates for charging your car.[2] I didn't notice the difference in rates until just now, but California's cheapest off-peak rate of 14 cents per kWh is almost twice what I pay for electricity in Washington (8 cents per kWh). It currently costs me $6 to fully charge my car. If I had to pay California rates, charging would cost $11-38 depending on the time of day. 1. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-options/electric-vehicle-base-plan/electric-vehicle-base-plan.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-o... 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/11/19/pge-raises-costs-for-electric-cars-by-25--nobody-blinks/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/11/19/pge-ra...
- cryptochamorro 6y agoNo one blames fiat for the destruction of entire countries and assassinations of leaders who tried to get away from being beholden to X financial system. Money drives people to do insane things. Governments only care about the environment insofar as to stay in power and to keep their citizens from interrupting their gravy train. Look at the numerous examples politicians using “green” initiatives to line their own pockets. Attacking cryptocurrency is in their best interest because they can’t control it. Full stop.
- frankbreetz 6y ago>>Governments only care about the environment insofar as to stay in power If the people care about the environment and will vote people out of office who don't take care of the environment, that seems like a system that works. If a small number people are allowed to destroy the environment, that takes away the people's right to a livable planet. >>Look at the numerous examples politicians using “green” initiatives to line their own pockets. One can make money and help the environment it doesn't have to be one or the other
- kmeisthax 6y agoGovernment can almost certainly control cryptocurrency, or at least make the lives of those involved with it very difficult. They could, for example, pass laws that mandate backdoors, which would mean any cryptocurrency developers in the country would be thrown in jail if they didn't comply. They could also ban operating P2P nodes in the cryptocurrency's network. Due to the nature of P2P it isn't possible to hide the fact that you're running a node, unless you also close the entire network off to new users. (Case study: BitTorrent filesharing lawsuits) The government would just have to run their own nodes and connect to other users to collect information on who needs to be arrested. I don't think people on HackerNews entirely appreciate how much their ability to do cool fun hacker stuff is a function of living in an advanced democracy where there are significant limitations on the power of government upon which the government has agreed to remain, people's innocence is presumed in criminal proceedings, and private actors trying to curtail said freedoms are looked upon with skepticism, if not outright legal condemnation.
- DickingAround 6y agoThis article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed by fighter jets and nukes; literally. How is it that someone can't steal your money? The bank makes sure. How is it the bank can be sure? The cops protect them. How is it the cops aren't overwhelmed? The military protects them. Law and order stands on the backs of a lot of stuff and CO2. Bitcoin is an example of one little piece of this not needing all that stuff. Instead it's protected by this mining fleet. And if you want to contest ownership there's no one to invade, no one to attack; the best you can do is make a fleet and try to mine. It's a small step in the direction of getting away from all these endless wars and control. A little step away from needing to point guns at eachother to protect our pile of stuff. And this author is saying "point guns at them and make them give it up". That's crazy. Just leave them alone. (If you need to point guns to save the environment, do that specifically. Carbon tax CO2)
- quickthrower2 6y agoIf we are Saying fiat is backed by fighter jets then Bitcoin is backed by selling dangerous fake MDMA. That’s if we are getting into that way of arguing which hopefully we are not.
- rybosworld 6y agoThat's really not a solid argument. Bitcoin doesn't depend on drugs to have value, anymore than the US dollar does.
- bayesian_horse 6y agoBitcoin does seem to depend to a large degree on money laundering and speculation on money laundering. You might not like it, but that is definitely the reality. Other kinds of currency and investment are a few times more useful as long as you are doing legitimate business.
- jamal-kumar 6y agoI usually see people who have a lot of disparaging things to say about stuff they clearly have a misunderstanding of as missing out on the fun. Also he doesn't seem to realize that despite lauding Japan's payment infrastructure that SBI Holdings utilizes ripple to make the remittances go fast... they're probably going to end up relocating in that country, leaving the USA even further in the dust https://www.coindesk.com/japan-xrp-ripple-suit https://www.coindesk.com/japan-xrp-ripple-suit
- jb775 6y agoTo anyone who thinks a ban would never happen, look into how the US govt banned gold ownership after the great depression.
- stopBurncoins 6y agoSo yesterday in HN we linked to a medium post of mine where I expanded on the problems of Proof of work, and linked to a change.org petition to ban proof of work to force projects move to proof of stake. It got flagged, but nice to see that somehow the argument itself is not that unapproachable, so I'll link the petition here: https://www.change.org/StopBurncoins https://www.change.org/StopBurncoins It's full of links on the issue of power, carbon pollution and more. IMHO the problem is not cryptocoins themselves as is suggested here, but just proof of work
- xwowsersx 6y agoIf gambling is bad then state governments shouldn't be able to run lottos. We either leave people to engage in what we might consider a vice or prohibit it. If we prohibit, the government shouldn't be able to have a monopoly on what is, arguably, an even more "gambly" gamble.
- sb057 6y ago>The most expedient actions would be fourfold: >Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets. >Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists. Lunacy! The author is effectively arguing for American global economic dominion! These are the exact steps you would want to take to ensure international isolation.
- scoofy 6y ago>Bitcoin is the textbook speculative mania for our time. This is either false or unknowable, there are plenty of reasons why bitcoin speculation is happening, and it's because it has been a very long time since there has been a new desirable commodity. >The largest elephant in the room is the environmental damage done by bitcoin mining. This is very true, i don't think it's the largest elephant though. >Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory. This is nonsense. Desperately marginalized communities have no access to safe economic vehicles, which bitcoin does, theoretically, provide. >Cryptocurrency is, by design, the single greatest enabling factor in the rise of exponential explosion in ransomware extortion attacks. A network which is designed to evade sanctions... This i believe is the best argument for banning it. There is no better tool for extortion in the world than an anonymous, unrestricted asset. We should expect to see a dramatic rise in kidnappings worldwide in the future as bitcoin becomes more accepted. The author leaves out what I believe is the main reason I've stayed away from bitcoin, and it's another reason to ban it. It's easy to steal. It only takes one 0-day wipe you out, irreversibly, and completely. My bank could get hacked, but we, as a society, can just decide that I still have the assets I had before, the paper stocks and coupons are in a drawer somewhere. The loan contracts are in a filing cabinet (or they should be). I get my bank statements every month. There's some cash and some gold in a vault. A breach is, at least theoretically, reversible. That's not true with bitcoin.
- jayd16 6y ago>This is either false or unknowable Alright well that means it could also be true...
- scoofy 6y agoI, obviously, bring it up because the author is making statements of fact that they can't possibly know to be true. This should be a reasonable criticism of the author. Don't talk nonsense if you're trying to write a serious argument.
- heywintermute 6y ago
- Luker88 6y agoSo yesterday in HN there was a link to a medium post on the same thing, but limited to Proof of Work instead of the whole cryptocoins. Got flagged pretty quickly, but there was a link to a petition inside with links to various problems of proof of work: https://www.change.org/StopBurncoins https://www.change.org/StopBurncoins IMHO the problem is not cryptocoins themselves as is suggested here, but just proof of work. A total ban would barely work anyway, as the system is completely decentralized, and to fully ban it we would need basically all countries to agree on the ban.
- sitkack 6y agoNFTs are interesting because they are an entity in of themselves, they could be the root of value. Apologies, I don't have all the money words to make this sound smart.
- washedup 6y agoWhat a terrible article. Crypto is a new technology that will likely have many uses, to advocate banning it nationally is dangerous and would quickly put us behind the rest of the world. There are easier ways around the "energy use dilemma": carbon tax. If your energy used for mining comes from renewable resources, then there is no issue.
- quickthrower2 6y agoTaxing the miners is only possible with a single world government. One country can’t do it. I suggested earlier that taxing the money coming into Bitcoin via the exchanges, similar to a “stamp duty” (not “gst” as that can be claimed back) collection of tax but for carbon would be the way to go. For example 30% tax on purchasing real crypto from an exchange.
- Sanzig 6y agoUnless you are running completely detached from the public grid, consuming renewable energy for crypto mining absolutely indirectly produces CO2. You are buying renewable energy that could otherwise be sold to another customer/jurisdiction where it would displace fossil fuel usage. This isn't an academic exercise, this is an issue that renewables operators are dealing with right now. Hydro-Quebec is the state-owned corporation which handles all generation, transmission, and distribution in the province of Quebec. As the name implies, the vast majority of Quebec's generating capacity comes from large hydroelectric facilities located in the north. The company sells hydropower to the northeastern United States during times of day when demand is high. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement: the profits from the sale of hydropower in peak periods allows Hydro-Quebec to subsidize its own ratepayers who enjoy the lowest electricity rates in North America, and the Northeast US in turn doesn't have to build as many peaking power plants which are typically gas-fired facilities that produce CO2. However, the low cost of electricity in Quebec has made it extremely popular with crypto miners, to the point where Hydro-Quebec has been forced to place miners into a 300 MW allocation block [1]. Miners who didn't manage to get into the allocation block are charged a rate that is more than double the normal rate in order to try and disincentivize their activities. If the crypto miners weren't in Quebec, this excess energy would be sold to the northeastern US where it would displace the capacity of some CO2-generating peaker plants. But because it's being diverted to crypto mining, the energy doesn't get used for that. [1] https://www.hydroquebec.com/blockchain/ https://www.hydroquebec.com/blockchain/
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pmurt7 6y agoThis guy will be mad when he finds out than Ethereum 2.0 will be energy efficient (no more mining).
- fancyfredbot 6y agoYou can't really frame a ban as a way of protecting the little guy if your ban causes everyone who "invested" so far to immediately lose everything. You'd almost certainly be sued and end up paying compensation. Even a partial ban restricting who can invest would be open to accusations of elitism and politically difficult. I suspect that a politician who thinks the crypto market is going to crash will wait for that to happen before implementing a ban. At that point you will not need to pay compensation and there will be political support for it. In the meantime the government's best option is probably tight regulation and prosecution of any outright fraudulent operations.
- quickthrower2 6y agoA carbon tax/price might work assuming you could get that through. Then tax a percentage on Bitcoin purchases via exchanges to aloe for the carbon emissions.
- fancyfredbot 6y agoAgree it might be workable, although Tobin taxes like this haven't had a lot of support in the past. Also, enforcement is likely to be a bit of a nightmare! It would raise some money you could use to mitigate environmental impact, but I'm not sure that a reasonable tax level would actually disuade anyone from putting their money in so less helpful from that point of view.
- quickthrower2 6y agoI would imagine enforcement would be similar to tobacco or alcohol or gambling duty which is already done. I agree it would be hard to get the tax in because of vested interests and yeah people will still buy it but if the money is used to properly offset carbon it might be worth it. But I’m a dreamer!
- the_local_host 6y agoI think cryptocurrencies are idiotic, but this essay just does not make a case for a blanket ban at all, nor do I think one is necessary. The environmental impact should be regulated, but other than that, governments should just stay out of it and let the cryptocurrency landscape be the wild frontier its proponents want it to be. May the best obfuscated smart contract code win, until no one wants to play anymore.
- biztos 6y agoOther than the miners paying the market price for electricity, how would the environmental impact be regulated?
- RhodoGSA 6y agotax exchanges both ways, with a bit more than normal capital gains. Want to buy bitcoin, tax is like an IRA. Want to sell bitcoin for fiat, tax it like cap gains. Use some of this tax as an 'externality tax' like carbon tax should be anyways.
- kipchak 6y agoI think the "how" part is the most interesting question here, both in terms of political justification (people who bought $100 of BTC on their coinbase app won't be very pleased) and practical enforcement. Of authors suggested measures, I think only the first would be necessary to result in a de-facto ban. "Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges. Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets. Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists. Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by classifying them as securities investment contracts moving forward."
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoFrom the article: "The United States is a deeply economically unequal society and the proliferation of get-rich-quick schemes taps into a deep weakness in the American mindset." When has the United States not been this way? The first explorers came over here hoping to find a trove of far East spices or gold, and make a killing. The Spanish did make a killing on gold for quite some years, even as they destroyed entire civilizations. Some American pioneers just wanted a piece of land on which to raise a family and support themselves away from tyranny. But many others were looking for gold or other quick riches. The history of our stock exchanges has been one pump-and-dump after another. Diehl's other criticism, that crypto mining is environmentally destructive, has some merit, but is that a reason to ban an entire industry? What about people fortunate enough to be near hydroelectric plants, or people with solar electric or nuclear? Building extra coal-fired plants in China to power crypto operations does sound bad, but even China is moving away from polluting sources; they have a desperate need to clean up their environment and they are working hard on nuclear and solar alternatives, not to mention that they are developing cheap, affordable electric vehicles. Every currency system is built on trust. The U.S. dollar, which is the world's reference currency, is increasingly shaky; last year the Treasury created more dollars in a single year than in all years previously. A lot of people are very worried that a currency collapse from excessive debt and a weak economy is coming in the not-too-distant future. Crypto currency is an interesting and powerful new technology that may actually save us from monetary collapse; I wouldn't dismiss it as a dangerous boondoggle just yet. At any rate, I don't see how Mr. Diehl's prescription for banning crypto could possibly be implemented; private companies have the right to create products for sale or trade as long as they are not dangerous. Even tobacco and guns, both known to potentially kill people, are still huge profitable industries albeit highly regulated.
- duckfang 6y agoNotice: When Wall street decides to horrible things with money in its various ways, nobody bats an eye. When fraud happens, nobody goes to jail. It's business as usual. When the People decides to do horrible things with money in its various ways, we see hardware manufacturers attempt to lock down hardware to prevent it (nVidia), we see the SEC collectively lose their shit, we see completely inconsistent rules from the IRS how to even handle it, and we see calls for its ban. Rules for thee, but not for me.
- louwrentius 6y agoYou can't justify your own 'bad behaviour' by pointing at someone else's bad behaviour. That is whataboutism, to distract from - I believe - valid and substantiated criticism. I agree that so much is wrong with Wall Street, but that is another discussion. That is a separate issue to me.
- hakesdev 6y agoWhataboutism - why do I see this word so much these days? Whenever I see it, I notice people are often basically trying shut down an honest comparative analysis by another party.
- duckfang 6y agoThen you are missing my point of criticism. The elites put together the artifact that we call the Stock Market. And when the elites play there, they have pretty much a free reign to do as they wish. Sure, there are rules... But as how they're enforced is a whole other matter. And for even the rules that are enforced - if they only have a fine component, they are only meant for the lower classes. Fines for the elites are only a cost of doing business. And my comments weren't exclusively of bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. I remember what happened around late February 2021 regarding shorting GME and /r/wallstreetbets . It was yet another case of a hedge fund trying to bankrupt a company in the same way that Toys-R-Us, Sears, and others have had happen to them (by the elite class, no less). And when r/WSB fought against them, corporate elite sycophants like Robinhood and others forbid the very transactions. . When the masses comes together, the elites effectively unionize into a huge bloc, but that didn't save Melvin Capital. What you call whataboutism is what I call "inherent rigging of the market by the elites against the middle class". It just so happens that the elites didn't get into cryptocurrency until much later, so we see these kinds of one-sided articles.
- musesum 6y agoA shift in perspective for BTC is underway, from transaction platform (Yellen on the Con side) to a trans-national asset class (Saylor & Musk on the Pro side). So, now the discussion is on the energy spent on mining: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencewintermeyer/2021/03/10/bitcoins-energy-consumption-is-a-highly-charged-debate--whos-right/?sh=2fc179a97e78 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencewintermeyer/2021/03/10/... IMO, currency is a belief system backed by Joules.
- Bluestein 6y ago> currency is a belief system backed by Joules. That is a very insightful definition ...
- keiferski 6y agoThe hullabaloo over Bitcoin’s environmental cost is a classic example of people focusing on things that are easily visible and being totally oblivious to ones that are unseen or not obvious. What is the energy cost of the current currency system and the political structure that keeps it in use? I’m going to guess that it is significantly higher than Bitcoin. That’s not even mentioning Proof of Stake, which will essentially solve all of these problems.
- einpoklum 6y ago> and the political structure that keeps it in use? 1. False equivalence, since the environmental concern is about the generation of cryptocurrency not its social implications vs a crypto-currency-free world. 2. You've expanded this question so much that it is not possible to answer. The political structure that keeps money is use is basically the political structure of almost all world states, and capitalist/money-based economies. So the cost is about 100% of all energy expenditure. What's the alternative? You would need to imagine an anti-capitalist revolution creating a non-exchange-based economy (so not USSR-style either). I happen to think that's a swell idea, but you realize there is absolutely no way you can estimate how much less energy humanity would use up in such a different reality than today's.
- tome 6y ago> > and the political structure that keeps it in use? > 1. False equivalence It's additionally a false equivalence because those political structures also keep in place the things you want to buy with bitcoin, such as shops, factories, and things you produce bitcoin with, such as power stations and computers.
- MrMan 6y agoAnd indeed all those structures provide the support system for crypto itself. It is not outside the existing system. The rhetoric makes it seem like an independent and autonomous system but it is part of the existing technical and financial system. It will not replace the rest of the system, evidenced by recent cooptation by Visa and PayPal, the creation of exchanges, taxation and KYC rules. The real world exists and crypto is not an escape.
- ethagnawl 6y ago> The darker perspective is that cryptocurrency may be taking a demographic who would otherwise have had gambling problems and legitimates their addiction by wrapping it up in a veneer of technical legitimacy. Granted it's a small sample set, but this rings _very_ true with respect to many people I "know" (acquaintances I'm connected to on various social media platforms) who've jumped onto the "crypto" bandwagon in recent times.
- thorwasdfasdf 6y ago>> "Bitcoin is the textbook speculative mania for our time" This misses the point of bitcoin entirely. People need to understand Bitcoin solves a problem: a very big problem. This problem was caused by the gov and fed defaulting on it's obligation to maintain a stable currency. As a result, cash can no longer be used as a store of value. And by artificially suppressing interest rates, the fed/gov has eliminated yet another class of investement: fixed income. So with two major asset classes eliminated: cash and fixed income, it doesn't leave much else. The only asset classes we have remaining are equities, real estate and commodities. Real estate, there's no easy way to invest in it in a scalable way. So, what are you going to do put ALL your money in Equities? with no diversification. People desperately need a store of value, they can't just work until their 120 year old. Bitcoin solves this problem: it's a store of value. For a lot of people, bitcoin is NOT speculation, it's a long term buy and hold asset that you hold for a long time. And the tax rules encourage such buy and hold behavior. those that are selling the moment it goes up, are going to pay dearly in capital gains taxes 30, 40, 50%+ in some states.
- biztos 6y agoSure, people are using Bitcoin as a store of value, but I think a lot of those people think it will just keep going up. Which is not a super rational thing to believe about an asset whose value has no relation to anything in the real world, and nothing to prop it up but the people who believe the same thing. Bitcoin is up something like 800% for the year. It might be up another 800% in six months! Or it might go down to $10000! Or $1000, $100, $10 -- any of these would make exactly as much sense as the ~$60K we see right now. Taxes aside, that strikes me as a pretty volatile place to be storing your value. Not everybody has the option of USD or CHF but still... it sure does look like a speculative bubble. (For actual "mania" maybe see NFT's instead.)
- samatman 6y agoIt's also not rational to believe that a sovereign currency which is backed only by government fiat cannot crash due to inflationary spirals. After all, if it should happen to be the case for the currencies we all use right now, it would be the first time that this experiment, which has been tried often enough throughout history, hasn't ended in that particular way. We've put all our eggs in that basket, and it's working... so far! I'm glad there's a hedge against that outcome though. If the worst happened, and the debt balloon triggers ECB, the Fed, and their Asian cousins, to initiate hyperinflationary money printing, we'll all be grateful that there's an alternative to going back to shipping convoys protecting boats loaded up with gold and silver. I don't even think the aforementioned hyperinflationary spiral is inevitable, or even more likely than not. But I repeat, it is irrational not to consider it a real risk, given history, and that outcome would lead to immeasurable human suffering, which cryptocurrencies cannot prevent, but can at least ameliorate.
- vegardx 6y agoThere's a lot of talk about building a fair system to replace the current we have, and there's a lot of good arguments to why the current system is corrupt and serves an elite. That said, all the talk about inequality and how crypto currency solves this is real rich coming from people that was already extremely privileged and would benefit almost immeasurably from it.
- tinktank 6y ago> Since the entire premise of cryptocurrency is as a speculative investment to redeem for Dollars or Euros, True of: - Stocks - Housing - Commodities (precious or otherwise)
- meiji163 6y ago>Cryptocurrency is a pseudo-asset built around the dubious notion of “speculation for speculation’s sake” No, some people think scarcity and trustlessness make it a good store of value. This is not even addressed in the article. > Cryptocurrencies disproportionately victimize vulnerable people and those in marginalized communities without access to traditional investments or financial advisory. I don't see any good evidence for this, the goal of many DeFi projects is to increase access. Overall an unfair and needlessly inflammatory evaluation. The idea that all cryptocurrency is a scam that "masses of dumb money investors" buy into is overbearingly pretentious, and a non-starter for legitimate criticism IMO.
- nayuki 6y agoThe fact that this author repeatedly upholds China as a good example of technological progress is disturbing.
- bitcoinmonger 6y agoI have a solution to the energy consumption problem. Instead of banning Bitcoin completely, just make it illegal for individuals to run cryptocurrency nodes or perform mining operations. In it's place, each government can then run their own cluster of nodes for the general public to use as a cryptocurrency. This way, the general population has access to cryptocurrency, but government can monitor and control all of the transactions that take place to ensure that no illegal activity arises. In addition, governments could also control the issuance of private and public keys, which means that funds can be easily confiscated in the event of fraudulent behaviour. Of course, the main issue with this setup is that the nodes will be centralized, and therefore are at a greater risk of physical attack. This can be solved through physical force, which will consume energy in itself, but will be far more efficient than using a globally distributed proof-of-work mechanism for protecting the transaction history of the currency. Furthermore, in the event that a nation state scale attack takes place to try and undermine the transaction history of the government-run nodes, the force required to protect these ledgers can be scaled up to match it (e.g. war). However, I believe this to be an unlikely scenario, and so the overall cost involved with protecting the cryptocurrency would be less than what is currently consumed by proof-of-work. In short; instead of using electrical energy to protect the integrity of the currency, we use physical force instead (which will be far more energy-efficient). To me, this quite clearly solves the energy consumption, without having to perform an outright ban on the technology. This way, everyone benefits.
- djschnei 6y ago> but government can monitor and control all of the transactions that take place to ensure that no illegal activity arises. I don't mean any disrespect when I say this, but when I read comments like, after the initial shock subsides, there is always a realization that we all have such widely varying and disconnected worldviews that I simply don't understand how mass governance could every work without eventually succumbing to violent conflict... Not trying to make any comment on the underlying merit of either worldview, just that it's like we live in completely different realities... It's very depressing, to be completely honest.
- 6y ago
- hakesdev 6y agoBitcoin (like gold since the gold standard ended) is just a "check" on Fiat currencies and can act as insulation from central banks that issue too much money too quickly. Fiats will continue to exist alongside bitcoin/cryptos, they'll just eventually have to "compete" a bit more (i.e., not be printed so readily by gov'ts) or else they'll become significantly less relevant.
- frockington1 6y agoWith $1.9 trillion freshly printed for 'covid relief' and another $4 trillion on the way in the form of 'infrastructure', fiat will likely face more competition by the end of the year
- subsubzero 6y agoHere's a revolutionary idea, if you don't like a particular asset don't buy it. if you think its a terrible idea etc. don't use your money to own it. How other people choose to utilize their assets is their own business.
- burnished 6y agoIts not clear to me why it is fundamentally more acceptable for Wall street to speculate on "crazier things every day before lunch". The money hedge funds are making isn't coming out of nowhere, its not like the games they play are net positive. Their big pay outs are still coming out of the pockets of regular people. It seems like the difference with Bitcoin is that an individual gets to choose whether they want to participate or not.
- sakopov 6y agoI find it funny that we only talk about blanket bans and increased regulation when the poor start accumulating wealth. We saw this when GME was going through the roof and Lee Cooperman went live on CNN to bash retail investors. Similarly, when bitcoin starts trending up we have Ray Dalio talking about future crypto ban. Hedge funds really don't like this I take it. But I digress, a crypto ban would be disruptive to a very innovative tech (crypto speculation aside) in finance. However, regulation and taxation is likely a better approach not only for world governments, but also for taking projects like Bitcoin to a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly realm of operation.
- bayesian_horse 6y agoThere are some good reasons for banning cryptocurrencies. "Speculative nature" certainly isn't a good reason.
- tome 6y agoReally? The SEC bans all sorts of securities issuances for exactly that reason.
- bayesian_horse 6y agoBitcoins isn't a security issuance. Just like the SEC can't regulate the trade on a lot of speculative investment goods like collectible items. The SEC can't regulate Bitcoin out of existence. A government can make using Bitcoin for payment purposes, even mining, to some extent, illegal. That wouldn't extinguish any cryptocurrency, but it could squeeze them to a fraction of their former value or relevance.
- carlosrg 6y agoIs it just me or some people are starting to lose their mind over Bitcoin and crypto? The visceral hate it is getting seems out of place, and the arguments are getting more desperate (now we should ban crypto?) Don't know if that's the case with the author, but from what I've been seeing in social networks and such, it looks like some people have decided crypto is an alt-right thing (not true) and we should "cancel" it. Ironic, because there's nothing more conservative that banning crypto and sticking to fiat.
- frockington1 6y agoHighly likely its all media and propaganda driven. After passing $2 trillion in 'covid relief' and shooting for another $4 trillion in 'infrastructure', work will need to be done to keep consumer confidence in fiat
- boring_twenties 6y agoSo what's the alternative? We just accept that Paypal & friends get to be the final, unaccountable arbiters of who gets to transact online? That's wholly unacceptable.
- csomar 6y agoI think this article is a very nice example of why the US is superior (or at least I think is superior) to China. The political system that allows someone (or some entity) uninhibited power over its citizens, institutions, companies and rights; or the political system where power is fragmented and people need to converge toward a solution (through potential infighting in a big building), need to convince other people using words (through media, lobbying, NGO work, etc...), and need to accept compromises with people who have wildly different ideas and ideals than theirs. The author positioned himself as the sole source of truth. Then, as a judge, deemed all cryptocurrencies and their operators as an evil. Then, wants to use the full powers of the United States (judicial, police, regulators, diplomatic) to enforce his ruling. It's not even clear why this author should have any authority? He doesn't have any projects, ran any companies (or any mentions of that) or did any significant academic work. His whole blog is a crypto rage: https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog.html
- ur-whale 6y ago> His whole blog is a crypto rage Indeed, and that makes it quite hard to to pay any attention to what he has to say or read to the end of the article.
- RhodoGSA 6y ago>t's not even clear why this author should have any authority? He doesn't have any projects, ran any companies (or any mentions of that) or did any significant academic work. Search alittle deeper and you see why he hates crypto so much. He's CTO of Adjoint: "Adjoint Treasury is a real-time payments and settlement platform for corporate treasury" A.K.A, Crypto is stealing his thunder.
- blululu 6y agoThis feels overly specific. Implementing something like a Pigovian tax is standard practice where negative externalities are concerned. There is no need for an outright ban if properly taxed. There are also much larger negative externalities to cryptocurrency than CO2. Ransomware payments are a clear cut example that a ban might not even address and are easy to tax.
- djoldman 6y agoThere is a horrific waste of resources devastating the environment that has gone on for far too long without detection. Hundreds of thousands of computer servers running almost 24/7, hundreds of thousands of people driving to work, burning energy on their development machines. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on making products (and wasting energy) to support this industry, which then must be transported, wasting more energy. We must ban this scourge: entertainment! This entertainment industry (TV shows, movies, podcasts, video games, etc. used primarily for entertainment) adds nothing and is unproductive. /s But not totally sarcasm. Maybe bitcoin isn't truly solving all the problems we hoped it could. Perhaps those problems will be solved by a better version, maybe Ethereum or some other cryptocurrency. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that energy isn't wasted in other parts of the economy. What's a "legitimate" use of energy? I think most Americans, generally protective of individual rights, would say let the market decide. If Americans want to pay for TV shows, let the entertainment industry burn energy to give it to them. If Americans want to buy/sell/transfer Bitcoin, whether to watch their "investment" go up and down in value, or for some other reason, let them.
- lmilcin 6y agoI think people just don't appreciate how much energy is being wasted for bitcoin mining. Bitcoin mining currently uses 10x the amount of power used by Google and 50% of what ALL DATACENTERS IN THE WORLD are using. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56215787 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56215787 This also means that our efforts to replace non-renewable sources of energy are being wasted as we are just adding capacity to bitcoin mining network. When you are paying your taxes and subsidize "green" energy know that part of your subsidy just goes to shit.
- djoldman 6y agoI think you're right, it's difficult to imagine the scale. Let's also look at something else: the US department of defense: "...The U.S. military also produced more greenhouse gases than Morocco, Peru, Hungary, Finland, New Zealand and Norway. According to the research from Brown University, the Pentagon would be the world's 55th largest CO2 emitter if it was a country..." [0] I think reasonable people could disagree as to whether or not all those emissions were worth it. The point is that many people think the U.S. military is by and large a complete waste of resources analogous to the waste of the Bitcoin network. If we're going to condemn Bitcoin, let's condemn all the other resource and energy wastes out there. [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
- spir 6y agoI work in the cryptocurrency industry. I perceive Stephen as being 42% correct, yet so angry about it that it'll take him another decade, or more, to appreciate the other 58%.
- dclaw 6y agoI'm really getting sick of this argument that bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is using some ridiculous/insane amount of electricity while completely ignoring the costs of running the entire existing financial system. There are companies literally tunnelling through mountains to lay fiber so that they can make thousandths of a cent on stock trades and that's not worse? Come on.
- louwrentius 6y agoThis is a straw man argument. Yes our financial systems use power but they provide the corner stone of our societies. They do provide actual tangible value. Bitcoin doesn’t create value at al in any sense. And HF trading is a different beast, you won’t hear me defending them. But pointing at others is just whataboutism, to distract from unpleasant facts. Boiling the oceans to make a few people rich(er) is not a valid reason to exist.
- chriselles 6y agoIsn’t cryptocurrency fundamentally about real or perceived lack of equity and trust? Isn’t the real aspirational promise of cryptocurrency really just a container that will retain the purchasing power of your savings with low friction?
- jude- 6y agoJust do the following: * Implement a universal carbon tax. Make CO2-based mining unprofitable. * Require KYC/AML checks and tax reporting from all exchanges, and prosecute/block those that don't. Wholesale banning cryptocurrency is a fool's errand without a massive restriction on general-purpose computing and Internet usage. So, let's attack the problems they create instead, since we already have the tools and legal precedent for doing so.
- ur-whale 6y agoThe level of gripe and sourness in this article is amazing. He's basically raising the "evil that is crypto" to levels that would make you believe that a large number people's lives are being actively ruined by Bitcoin. I wonder how someone can get so angry with something that abstract ... I wouldn't be surprised if his agenda wasn't motivated by something less than noble.
- CynicusRex 6y agoI don't understand why people can't see it's all one big pyramid scheme. The early 'adopters' pay small amounts of money for a big percentage of the total amount of 'coins', and the late 'adopters' pay large amounts of money for a small percentage of the total amount of 'coins'. And once people have it, they have every incentive to get as many people to buy it as well, because only then they profit. A blanket ban is a good idea. This cancer deserves no place in the economy.
- anm89 6y agoThis stuff really doesn't warrant a response. Simply say "good luck banning it". There are a large complicated set of reasons why it isn't going to happen but the proof of this is that many governments have many reasons theyd love to ban crypto but they don't because in the end they perceive it to be either an economic or political loss and can't make it happen. Anyway, this isn't keeping me up at night.
- nathias 6y agotypical nocoiner FUD
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nbardy 6y agoAnyone who dismisses crypto as useless hasn't used the software. Here's some use cases I've used in the last month: I secured an instant loan based off collateral with faxing or calling my bank. Doing this at schwabb took weeks. Another one, "thegraph" a distributed super computer to make public blockchain data indexed and queryable. Another, Bitclout, a social network build on the blockchain. Now the data of my social network is trustless distributed, verified and forkable. I can build a business on top of it and I don't have to worry about getting the firehouse shut down like I did with Twitter. Bitcoin was horse that drove the consensus making technical progress of distributed computing. The coins are less interesting than the distributed computing revolution.
- superjan 6y agoI think the most convincing argument is that Bitcoin is an enabler for crime. Governments have a responsibility here.
- seaourfreed 6y agoStephen Diehl's goal is control others. He doesn't value citizens having sound currency via non-money printing. It is a free country so the part of the country building a financial system around non-money printing digital currencies will do that. Stephen doesn't need to buy into it. Those who want a non-money printing digital currency driven financial system will opt-in. Opt-in and opt-out is what happens in free countries. Stephen should focus on allowing people to be free, make their individual choice. He should stop trying to control other people.
- lucasnortj 6y agoCryptos are trash, ban them now
- cryptica 6y ago>> [cryptocurrency] entices masses of dumb money investors to pour their savings into what is effectively a unregulated speculative momentum investment untethered to any real economic activity. As if that was different for the stock market or the rest of the economy... The entire economy is propped up by the money printers at this stage. Bitcoin and crypto are just better at getting hold of that freshly printed money for obvious reasons. If the government bans crypto, they will have to ban the stock market too.
- orthecreedence 6y agoJeez. I have my own issues with cryptocurrencies, but blanket banning them? How do you even enforce this?? Also, if you're going to bring ecology into it, then instead of advocating for the ban of cryptocurrencies, it makes much more sense to put your energy into banning the economic system which systematically incentivizes externalities (of which carbon pollution is one).
- endisneigh 6y agoSo if the whole world went to crypto (particularly one with a fixed amount) and something like the Great Depression happened what would the governments do to provide stimulus? Or is the idea that governments never do so?
- arcanon 6y agoIf the author thinks crypto is “predatory” now just wait until DAOs blend with military contractors
- johanneskanybal 6y agobitcoin is the worst form of currency except for all the others.
- mw888 6y agoThis is typical anti-bitcoin rhetoric, it’s nothing new and not completely unfounded, but the author lacks any awareness of the true value of crypto currencies, makes no mention of proof of stake, and assumes that speculation somehow justifies outlawing trading because it’s now gambling. A few points: There are some interesting and somewhat out there justifications for the energy use, and there are a couple very simple ones: 1. Bitcoin emits less carbon than gold mining, and does the job of gold (as a store of value) to a much higher standard. 2. Proof of Stake could replace proof of work, eliminating any carbon emissions worth mentioning. Bitcoin offers sound, secure, reliable money / store of value. The author elects not to even directly mention this because there is no good argument or replacement for this. If you say gold, read above. The author believes he can just straw man serious bitcoiners (not the gamblers) into idealistic yet flawed cultists or something, when in reality the technology has no replacement, is greener than its competitor, and offers to the world, the service, and asset, of sound money. The article appears in such bad faith (I’m willing to hear criticisms of crypto currencies, but only from those who demonstrate their ability to play with its basic mission statement and functionality; this article is pop-sci parroting) that I almost believe this is some kind of paid hit piece.
- mattwilsonn888 6y ago>> no good argument or replacement for this Should be: >> no good argument against, or replacement for this
- tubbyjr 6y agoPoor guy, he's scared of "cryptoasset" holders not voting for democrats :( After this blanket ban, let's just move to a one-party democratic system too, like North Korea.
- D-Nice 6y agoThis reads like an April Fools joke, and I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt on that one as the author's company literally works in the cryptocurrency space, except they apparently refer to themselves as a cryptoledger. So it seems like a troll post... Otherwise this makes for some terrible irony. Or the other case could be that they feel they've lost out on investment, due to the fact that openness and decentralization is leading the charge in blockchain/cryptocurrency technologies, while he's trying to come up with a privatized solution... and why accept private when there's better and more established open alternatives already leaving their marks, no pun intended.
- alexmingoia 6y agoAll markets are speculation. Buyers and sellers speculate on the price of goods and services. It’s quickly going to become impossible for governments to control cryptocurrency, unless they shut down the Internet. With ring signatures, stealth addresses, and shielded amounts, there’s no telling who has what cryptocurrency, who they paid, or how much was paid. Proof of stake and federated voting consensus are coming to privacy coins, so there’s no mining farms to shut down.
- tim333 6y ago>Cryptocurrency is a greater fools game of shuffling numbers around with cryptography under the delusion that this alchemy of entropy can generate progress and wealth — while in fact it does neither. I think this misunderstands how bitcoin holders become wealthy. It works a bit like Van Gogh paintings - some guy produced something kind of cool but not worth much money at the start and then the reputation of the paintings increased and the price got bid up and now you'd say someone owning a $100m Van Gogh is wealthy. Similar with bitcoin - not worth much at the start, kinda cool, now worth a lot, you'd say someone with $100m in bitcoin was wealthy. Against that it needs 'greater fool' type buyers to buy your painting or coins but Van Goghs have held up well and I doubt in a century people will have forgotten cryptocurrencies or will see nothing special about having the original one.
- moralsupply 6y agoI love how much the HN community is invested in demonizing Bitcoin for its energy consumption. I wish for you bashing Bitcoin to keep all your wealth allocated in assets associated with fiat currencies. I also wish that you spend lots of time running political narratives in order to stop a decentralized piece of technology from growing. Good luck trying to reach out the Bitcoin CEO in order to ask him to shut down his "environmentally damaging operations". In 5 years time, however, once the US dollar has lost 50% of its purchase power, you'll be begging your employer to pay you in Bitcoin. By that time you'll conveniently forget the narrative about energy consumption. You'll even claim that Bitcoin is one of the most important technologies ever invented, and that you always believed in it.
- acyclic0 6y agoThe author ran a failed crypto startup. This is sour grapes. Stephen Diehl is founder of adjoint.io, which used to build smart contacts.
- gobrewers14 6y agoI thought this was an April Fool's joke. It is frightening there are people that think giving the State another reason to fine, harass, and imprison people is an actual solution to a problem.
- trapatsas 6y agoI hope it’s an April fool’s joke. I can’t explain the size of this nonsense otherwise.
- DennisP 6y ago> There is not a single profitable company that came out of the excess of $20 billion poured in. Startups have a high failure rate, but a 100% failure rate is unheard of. The article supports that with a paywalled link to Financial Times. Here's the full-text archive: https://archive.is/yMsep https://archive.is/yMsep If you read it, you'll see that it says no such thing, and in fact mentions a number of major ICO projects that delivered. Their first example is Filecoin, whose purpose was to create an economy of peer-to-peer data storage. It's live now with over an exabyte of capacity. Various smaller ICO projects not mentioned in the article have also delivered. Two I'm familiar with: Funfair, which does regulated gambling on Ethereum, and Monolith, which puts tokens on VISA cards for spending, without having to take custody of them.
- jl2718 6y agoMost people agree that crypto speculation is stupid and wasteful. Unfortunately the price indicates a common belief that politicians’ ideas for the economy are worse. So here we are...