5 ms·

Nearly every BTC post on HN is filled with comments deriding the usefulness of the currency, and yet we still pretty frequently see governments attempt to ban a

by nprz 5y ago

Nearly every BTC post on HN is filled with comments deriding the usefulness of the currency, and yet we still pretty frequently see governments attempt to ban and outlaw the use of cryptocurrencies. Why are governments spending energy and effort to outlaw something that is so apparently useless?

creepto 5y ago
BTC isn't a currency. That's the old narrative, now it's a "Store of value" and a "hedge against inflation".
vadansky 5y ago
>Nearly every MML post on HN is filled with comments deriding the usefulness of ponzi schemes, and yet we still pretty frequently see governments attempt to ban and outlaw them. Interesting. Not saying BTC is that, but just because the government is against it doesn't mean it's suddenly useful
- jl2718 5y ago
  I think the Bitcoin crowd would welcome government involvement if it were solely for the purpose of consumer protection. It would have been easy for Turkey to prevent this, but instead, they turn the victims into criminals. Is there anybody of note in the Bitcoin space that has ever suggested that custodial arrangements of crypto should be completely without legal or technical means of protection for depositors? No. But there is almost nothing that any government on earth offers for that kind of assurance to the consumer. Conversely, they have all established legal and technical means that they may confiscate deposits. They’re not doing anything to stop this ‘ponzi scheme’. They’re just making sure they can profit from it.
bafumio 5y ago
I'm not following your argument. One issue if bitcoin is that countries will block it because countries don't want to loose the co trol over currency. It is also purely against btc not the idea of cryptocurrency or the thought of having one global trusty cryptocurrency. My personal btc hatred comes from the huge energy waste though.
- wmf 5y ago
  If Bitcoin is a total failure then it can't threaten sovereign currencies. If Bitcoin is actually causing the Turkish government to lose control over money then it can't be a failure.
  - bafumio 5y ago
    It's just getting attention now. Something like this needs time. Normal government does not monitor btc as closely as people on hn.
  - Shorel 5y ago
    Turkish people want their savings not to lose that much value. So they get USD, gold, BTC, what they can. This is more about Erdogan destroying democracy and the secular state than anything else.
rspeele 5y ago
If smoking is so bad for you, how come the government has to tax cigarettes and put warning labels on them?
vincnetas 5y ago
Same as cigaretes. No matter how much someone from tobaco industry tells you in what ways cigaretes are useful to you, goverment wants to ban (limit) how much you use them. Does not make cigaretes useful.
- elif 5y ago
  Your comparison fails because 'Causing the 2nd most preventable deaths' is far from "useless" it's just an undesirable use.
  - m00dy 5y ago
    Agreed!
- temp8964 5y ago
  Lol. If cigarettes are truly useless and government wants to ban it, why would anyone want to use it? Usefulness must have a very strange meaning to you.
  - karpierz 5y ago
    People use Ponzi schemes, would you consider them useful?
    - temp8964 5y ago
      Yes. Useful to the people who use them. Does useful equal to ethical? No.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
game_the0ry 5y ago
Yes, that is a fundamental question that governments will need to grapple with: If bitcoin is inconsequential, why regulate / ban it? And why are institutional asset manager trying to figure out how to profit off of it? [1] Well, is the answer not becoming overwhelmingly obvious? [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/jp-morgan-launches-bitcoin-fund-rich-clients-after-years-bashing-crypto https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/jp-morgan-launches-bitcoin-...
- jwhitlark 5y ago
  Useful, inconsequential, and profitable are orthogonal. Useful has a positive effect, inconsequential has no effect, and profitable is something else entirely.
- purple_ferret 5y ago
  At a trillion dollar marketcap (more for the whole crypto sphere), it's obviously not inconsequential. If you believe it's a speculative, ponzi scheme (not saying it actually is) where the money winds up in Singapore or wherever, do you want your population investing in it? >[In 2018] Some estimates state at least 30 percent of South Koreans have invested in them. Simon Kim, CEO of Hashed (Korea’s leading crypto fund) told me that number could be as high as 50 percent among white-collared professionals.[0] Would you not be worried about this? [0]https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/14/why-south-korea-is-crypto-crazy-and-what-that-means-for-the-rest-of-the-world/ https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/14/why-south-korea-is-crypto...
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Inconsequential is a mutable state of being. Governments are probably worried about what "consequential" looks like. And they could be coming from a benevolent point of view (might be used to aid in the commission of a crime/evade taxes/etc), from a malevolent PoV (could be used to expatriate capital), or even from a position of ignorance, laziness, and/or position of weakness (we just don't want to deal with the BS, especially objections from large international trade partners). The USA and China are powerful trading partners. If one of them says, "ban crypto," the smaller country is likely to comply.
purple_ferret 5y ago
Because they don't want their money flowing out of the country
SigmundA 5y ago
Ponzi schemes are outlawed as is most fraud. Are they useful?
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Its a Ponzi scheme that uses as much energy as Argentina, has insignificant market cap $1T, on top of that btc is useless small gimmick that governments are trying to ban because how unthreatening it is. This is a gist of all anti-btc posts. Make up you mind people. Or maybe BTC is a Schrödinger's new cat.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    > governments are trying to ban because how unthreatening it is. Replace "unthreatening" with "harmful" and you'll have a more accurate reason for governments to ban it, and no contradiction.
KingMachiavelli 5y ago
A lot of these places have subsidized energy which is what makes them attractive for crypto mining in the first place. The majority of the crypto revenue is not going to be spent in their local economy so its a net negative activity. The other factor is crypto is a very easy way to launder and move money outside of the government's view so pretty much any government hates it from that perspective.
- nprz 5y ago
  > crypto is a very easy way to launder and move money outside of the government's view I so often here the complete opposite, that the blockchain is all public and provides no anonymity at all. No one can make up their mind on why they hate crypto.
pkulak 5y ago
Really? I mostly see issues with the energy cost. It can be useful and terribly inefficient.
humaniania 5y ago
The only thing that bitcoin is better at than Paypal is ransomware and that's not a good thing.

by nprz 5y ago

creepto 5y ago

BTC isn't a currency. That's the old narrative, now it's a "Store of value" and a "hedge against inflation".

vadansky 5y ago

>Nearly every MML post on HN is filled with comments deriding the usefulness of ponzi schemes, and yet we still pretty frequently see governments attempt to ban and outlaw them. Interesting. Not saying BTC is that, but just because the government is against it doesn't mean it's suddenly useful

jl2718 5y ago
I think the Bitcoin crowd would welcome government involvement if it were solely for the purpose of consumer protection. It would have been easy for Turkey to prevent this, but instead, they turn the victims into criminals. Is there anybody of note in the Bitcoin space that has ever suggested that custodial arrangements of crypto should be completely without legal or technical means of protection for depositors? No. But there is almost nothing that any government on earth offers for that kind of assurance to the consumer. Conversely, they have all established legal and technical means that they may confiscate deposits. They’re not doing anything to stop this ‘ponzi scheme’. They’re just making sure they can profit from it.

bafumio 5y ago

I'm not following your argument. One issue if bitcoin is that countries will block it because countries don't want to loose the co trol over currency. It is also purely against btc not the idea of cryptocurrency or the thought of having one global trusty cryptocurrency. My personal btc hatred comes from the huge energy waste though.

wmf 5y ago
If Bitcoin is a total failure then it can't threaten sovereign currencies. If Bitcoin is actually causing the Turkish government to lose control over money then it can't be a failure.
- bafumio 5y ago
  It's just getting attention now. Something like this needs time. Normal government does not monitor btc as closely as people on hn.
- Shorel 5y ago
  Turkish people want their savings not to lose that much value. So they get USD, gold, BTC, what they can. This is more about Erdogan destroying democracy and the secular state than anything else.

rspeele 5y ago

If smoking is so bad for you, how come the government has to tax cigarettes and put warning labels on them?

vincnetas 5y ago

Same as cigaretes. No matter how much someone from tobaco industry tells you in what ways cigaretes are useful to you, goverment wants to ban (limit) how much you use them. Does not make cigaretes useful.

elif 5y ago
Your comparison fails because 'Causing the 2nd most preventable deaths' is far from "useless" it's just an undesirable use.
- m00dy 5y ago
  Agreed!
temp8964 5y ago
Lol. If cigarettes are truly useless and government wants to ban it, why would anyone want to use it? Usefulness must have a very strange meaning to you.
- karpierz 5y ago
  People use Ponzi schemes, would you consider them useful?
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Yes. Useful to the people who use them. Does useful equal to ethical? No.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

game_the0ry 5y ago

Yes, that is a fundamental question that governments will need to grapple with: If bitcoin is inconsequential, why regulate / ban it? And why are institutional asset manager trying to figure out how to profit off of it? [1] Well, is the answer not becoming overwhelmingly obvious? [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/jp-morgan-launches-bitcoin-fund-rich-clients-after-years-bashing-crypto https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/jp-morgan-launches-bitcoin-...

jwhitlark 5y ago
Useful, inconsequential, and profitable are orthogonal. Useful has a positive effect, inconsequential has no effect, and profitable is something else entirely.
purple_ferret 5y ago
At a trillion dollar marketcap (more for the whole crypto sphere), it's obviously not inconsequential. If you believe it's a speculative, ponzi scheme (not saying it actually is) where the money winds up in Singapore or wherever, do you want your population investing in it? >[In 2018] Some estimates state at least 30 percent of South Koreans have invested in them. Simon Kim, CEO of Hashed (Korea’s leading crypto fund) told me that number could be as high as 50 percent among white-collared professionals.[0] Would you not be worried about this? [0]https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/14/why-south-korea-is-crypto-crazy-and-what-that-means-for-the-rest-of-the-world/ https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/14/why-south-korea-is-crypto...
mywittyname 5y ago
Inconsequential is a mutable state of being. Governments are probably worried about what "consequential" looks like. And they could be coming from a benevolent point of view (might be used to aid in the commission of a crime/evade taxes/etc), from a malevolent PoV (could be used to expatriate capital), or even from a position of ignorance, laziness, and/or position of weakness (we just don't want to deal with the BS, especially objections from large international trade partners). The USA and China are powerful trading partners. If one of them says, "ban crypto," the smaller country is likely to comply.

purple_ferret 5y ago

Because they don't want their money flowing out of the country

SigmundA 5y ago

Ponzi schemes are outlawed as is most fraud. Are they useful?

me_me_me 5y ago
Its a Ponzi scheme that uses as much energy as Argentina, has insignificant market cap $1T, on top of that btc is useless small gimmick that governments are trying to ban because how unthreatening it is. This is a gist of all anti-btc posts. Make up you mind people. Or maybe BTC is a Schrödinger's new cat.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  > governments are trying to ban because how unthreatening it is. Replace "unthreatening" with "harmful" and you'll have a more accurate reason for governments to ban it, and no contradiction.

KingMachiavelli 5y ago

A lot of these places have subsidized energy which is what makes them attractive for crypto mining in the first place. The majority of the crypto revenue is not going to be spent in their local economy so its a net negative activity. The other factor is crypto is a very easy way to launder and move money outside of the government's view so pretty much any government hates it from that perspective.

nprz 5y ago
> crypto is a very easy way to launder and move money outside of the government's view I so often here the complete opposite, that the blockchain is all public and provides no anonymity at all. No one can make up their mind on why they hate crypto.

pkulak 5y ago

Really? I mostly see issues with the energy cost. It can be useful and terribly inefficient.

humaniania 5y ago

The only thing that bitcoin is better at than Paypal is ransomware and that's not a good thing.