7 ms·

The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that

by reedf1 5y ago

The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization. I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.

maxqin1 5y ago
Except the primary use of the dollar is good. The same can't be said about the primary use for Bitcoin (which is, at best, speculation).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- neals 5y ago
  Have you traveled? Enough places where the dollar is not the national currency but still accepted and used for purchasing drug and weapons.
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with foreign drug and weapons markets, but even so, That is still a significant minority compared to USD as a whole. BTC as a whole is used for just that and gambling.
    - adamhp 5y ago
      I'm not even pro-crypto really, but you keep making this wild claim without substantiating it. You're speculating anecdotally on the majority usage pattern of Bitcoin.
      - maxqin1 5y ago
        Come on, are you really going to argue this well-known fact without providing any examples to the contrary? Well guess what, I have a Q story and I'll sell it for your BTC!
    - jl2718 5y ago
      Even the most Pollyanna reports from firms that exist to ‘fight’ crime say it 2% criminal. I don’t know how much of that is illegal source versus regulatory evasion. World black market GDP is estimated somewhere around 25%. And it make sense that it would be so low. Let’s say you just got $1M in Bitcoin and you have to pay your suppliers $500k in cold cash. Not going to happen. Only from other criminals that take profits in cash. But there is obviously a limit to that. I think the point is that those 2% can help a lot in fighting the 25%. The fear is that illegal commerce could be conducted without fiat conversion. That would require that regular commerce would also be done in the same currency that the criminals use. This is fiat’s game to lose. And by the way, this is why I love crypto. It has promise as an amazing technology for choosing financial participation according to personal and private community values. Although I’ll admit we’re not there yet, and a lot of the stuff might now be owned by people we wouldn’t want to have power over us. We’re still in the phase of speculation and fear and power struggles. I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
      - maxqin1 5y ago
        > I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system. That's why people need to call BS on the current hype train. Otherwise, when a sufficient solution surfaces, people are going to distrust it just as much as the old power structures. And I'd say we're already getting close to that point. The problem is, with equal distrust, people will tend to choose the option that doesn't require change.
        jl2718 5y ago
        It is getting pretty ridiculous out there. The gas price today was higher than recent memory with about half of it spent on dog coins. Also, Vitalik is now far wealthier in dog coins than Ethereum. If he was a US citizen he would owe billions on that, and last I checked, the treasury doesn’t accept dog coins. I’m kind of neutral on which financial system prevails so long as it’s the best for society. I stand to gain a lot more if it’s the cypherpunk version, but, I’m not sure that the conditions that would bring that on would be good. The rule of all aspects of society by a maniacal banking elite is pretty dystopic too though. Ultimately I think the best monetary system will emerge through competition among societies. Obsolescence more than decision. That might take a long time, and perhaps it’s too hopeful. What evidence do I have for that?
    - neals 5y ago
      Looking at your comment history, it's too bad we're seeing this type of trolling leak out of Reddit onto HN.
- dsco 5y ago
  Isn’t that the same for gold? That it’s for speculation? Or stocks.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    Gold has a practical application creating demand, in addition to it being a speculative product. I guess you could argue the same for BTC in that you can put short messages in it, but I don't think that's a very valuable thing to have.
    - disruptalot 5y ago
      You forget the payment network without a third party.
  - robjan 5y ago
    Stocks represent an ownership in a company. They can be speculated on but that's not the primary purpose.
    - ragnese 5y ago
      I very much disagree. How many people with 401ks and/or other retirement vehicles actually know what companies they "own"? How many of them vote? How many of them actually have enough of the right kinds of shares to vote? To say that stocks are about owning a company in practice is the same as saying bitcoin is just money like the dollar. It's true in theory, but it's not the practical reality of this moment in history.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.
- mmahut 5y ago
  I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal (doesn't necessary mean immoral) activity, it helps a lot free press in oppressed regimes (also illegal, but by western standards moral).
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    Bitcoin doesn't have the equivalent of a "free press." And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now. Absolutely not. Internet censorship is growing rapidly - worldwide. A lot of "legitimate" websites like newspapers get blocked around the world and can only be accessed over Tor.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      In Russia a few independent newspapers were killed by arresting their bank accounts. Signal does not let public fund jurnalists.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal I very much doubt that. Its primary uses are probably porn and researching embarrassing medical conditions.
- passtheglass 5y ago
  I'm confused by this statement. The primary use of the dollar is as a currency. The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency. The fact that so much of Bitcoin's traded volume is used for speculation is actually an issue with excess dollar liquidity available for speculation, not because of some problem inherent to Bitcoin. That liquidity would just move to some other financial product that probably wouldn't make the news because the concept is too complicated to grok, unlike "BITCOIN BAD AND NOT REAL MONEY".
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency An intended hypothetical use, or actual use in paying for goods or services now?
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometimes that’s bad (Nazis seizing wealth of targeted groups). Sometimes it depends on your perspective (governments preventing the trade in illicit drugs). Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism. It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    > It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying. And how'd that work out for you guys on January 6th?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jl2718 5y ago
      It worked out horribly. They were shot, prosecuted, embarrassed, fired from their jobs, and forever surveilled and hunted by the entire domestic apparatus. Your othering use of ‘you guys’ suggests a derogatory view of this event, but your suggestion of its applicability to the text implies that it was a failed protest against ‘would be tyrants’. So it’s a little confusing ideologically, but your rational point is spot on. The notion of any kind of physical power held by citizens over the government was overwhelmingly refuted. Any weakness shown by lack of enforcement against the prior summer of violence, was shown to be fully at their discretion. Absolute physical power. No more delusions. But we’re talking about crypto here, and the international response to this has apparently been an unprecedented wave of panic crypto buying, or equivalently, state fiat selling. Imagine what they must think. I believe the markets; not the ‘official’ sources, not the press, and definitely not social media.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smt88 5y ago
Dollars are inflationary and therefore primarily currency, not assets. They're also far more useful, so people are likely to only pay the massive crypto tax (exchange fee, loss of liquidity) if they need to be outside of a legal system. Also, is it "in extremis"? It seems like the vast majority of transactions of crypto are for ransomware, contraband (guns, drugs, humans), or exchange between speculators.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > the vast majority of transactions Are transactions relevant though? A lot of BTC is just being held, presumably for the sake of future popularity. You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency. Yes, I totally agree. The question is: what has to happen before it's a common currency? See my other comment for my thoughts on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27104956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27104956
jl6 5y ago
For any thing that has both positive uses and negative uses, it seems reasonable to weigh the positives against the negatives. The dollar has substantial non-infringing uses that benefit people. Bitcoin less so, and particularly when weighed against the great harms (environmental or criminal) that Bitcoin brings, I don’t find the criticism baseless.
- disruptalot 5y ago
  Now imagine comparing child pornography (and other things) in mediums before the internet and after. These comparisons are not useful for exponential, paradigm changing technology.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    Child pornography was never a significant use of the Internet.
    - read_if_gay_ 5y ago
      Facilitating CP wasn't the intent behind the internet, but there is significant use, at least if you believe the government when they're trying to justify new regulations. The same thing holds for BTC and illicit transactions.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- ragnese 5y ago
  I don't disagree about weighing pros and cons, of course. But I think that bitcoin advocates would argue that the bitcoin has the same "non-infringing uses that benefit people" and that it's simply a matter of time/popularity until the proportion of "good" uses vs. "bad" uses is similar to the dollar. Not saying that it's true, necessarily. Just that the current balance isn't the end game and it's not totally fair to criticize a brand new tech/tool/whatever against well-established and well-optimized status quo.
betterunix2 5y ago
The difference is that someone can safely collect a Bitcoin ransom far from the police and can use it far from the police (no way to freeze a wallet etc.). This is called the "perfect crime" in research on ecash dating back to the early 90s.
- whoisjohnkid 5y ago
  criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin because of how easy it is to track bitcoin transfers. If any of their bitcoin transfers ever touches a KYC wallet they are screwed; until taproot gets activated for bitcoin it requires a ton of work to truly stay anonymous
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    > criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin This is speculation with very little connection to reality. If you actually go on crime forums you will see that privacy coins are not as widely used as you might think.
    - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
      As far as known darknet markets go they've all switched from Bitcoin to Monero. If we're talking bigger fish it's speculation that they prefer cryptocurrency over traditional assets or cash in the first place. Follow the money and it often leads you to illegal activity. Banks like HSBC know all about laundering drug money and enabling scams. https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
      - ryanlol 5y ago
        > As far as known darknet markets go they've all switched from Bitcoin to Monero. This is not true. A few big markets have switched, not “all”. Besides drug markets, all the conventional cybercrime markets and forums still run on bitcoin.
kypro 5y ago
To steelman the argument here, it sounds me like the concerns isn't in how it's used, but it's usefulness in certain applications. Bitcoin has many of the traceability problems as cash, while also being easier to transact. While I personally think it's a good thing that companies banned from traditional banking / merchant services are using Bitcoin to fund their operations, there is a reason for them using it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
agotterer 5y ago
I also find it strange. The same thing could be said of airplanes, slow cookers, and propane tanks.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  There are harmful, fringe, uses of those items but the vast majority of the use-cases fit a slow cooker aren’t harmful. The same cannot be said of bitcoin, where the primary use-case is facilitating nefarious business.
  - agotterer 5y ago
    For better it worse, the primary use case of Bitcoin is as a store of value. I find it misleading to tell people that the “primary use-case is facilitating nefarious business”. Do you have some data to back up a statement which says that the vast majority of Bitcoin is used in that way? I’m not suggesting there aren’t bad actors out there. But there are plenty of bad actors who deal in fiat as well. But this was the point I was trying to make. The nefarious actors are an edge case.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Bitcoin wouldn't function as a store of value if it didn't have an underlying use case. This is true of all stores of value - with gold it's shiny and useful, with cash you can pay taxes, with a home you can live in it, etc. In Bitcoin that use case is wealth transfer that is uninhibited by law. That essentially makes it kind of like an index tracker for the underground economy.
      - agotterer 5y ago
        Something is valuable because someone else also believes it has value. Have you considered that people put their money in Bitcoin to avoid it being stolen by nefarious/oppressive governments or to hedge against inflation or as speculative investment that Bitcoin will offer additional use cases in the future? Those all seem like legitimate use cases to me. I don't disagree that it's an underground economy, but that's only because it hasn't hit the mainstream. But being underground doesn't necessarily mean nefarious or illegal. Those bad actors definitely exist in the Bitcoin economy and all other economies. But without some data I'm having trouble coming around to the idea that the majority of Bitcoin is used for illegal purposes.
bob33212 5y ago
A major talking point of the pro bitcoin people is that it is "permissionless and decentralized". And it is a good way to bypass governmental interference. They usually talk about the FED in this capacity, but it also applies to drug and ransomware legal controls as well. I think that is what he is talking about here. He isn't saying that cartels don't deal in cash. I'm sure he understands that.
dTal 5y ago
The explicit purpose of bitcoin is to avoid government interference. In all other respects, it is inferior to standard government-backed currency, with slow transactions and huge amounts of wasted electricity. We should therefore expect BTC's primary use-case to be activity the government would interfere with, i.e. illegal activity.
- ryanlol 5y ago
  > with slow transactions How are bitcoin transactions slow? Bank transfers and credit card payments take forever to settle.
  - fanf2 5y ago
    Bank settlement is basically instant in Europe
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      So? It’s not instant for most of the world.
    - dTal 5y ago
      And cash is instant everywhere.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Chris2048 5y ago
  True, but "illegal" is dependant on the nation it is relevant to, as an international currency legality is relative. Another way of seeing this: the benefits of global government / infrastructure without the need for global control - few nations are so democratically representative that the tax laws well represent the wills of the people.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Also true - but you might call that a separate problem, and one for which the solution is very unlikely to be "no government at all". Bitcoin takes currency permanently out of the purview of all forms of organized governance, barring unreasonable invasion of privacy. All of us now have to live in that world, and none of us were consulted - Satoshi didn't take a vote. That is far less democratic. Deliberately and unilaterally undermining our organized institutions - flawed as they are - is, if not illegal, then certainly antisocial. Of course, you could say all the same things about e2e encryption, which society seems to have decided - grudgingly, and with much pushback - is ultimately a good thing. But perhaps free speech and financial exchange are different animals, McCutcheon vs. the Federal Election Commission notwithstanding.
mondoshawan 5y ago
Just bear in mind, what he says you probably shouldn't take at face value. After all, he is king of shorting currencies that has actively ruined lives.
banbanbang 5y ago
Yes, great logic there. Wonder why whataboutism is constantly used to defend crypto. I guess crypto does NOT solve anything.
kwdc 5y ago
Especially how at one point apparently a high percentage of US currency had traces of cocaine and other drugs on them.
Chris2048 5y ago
extremis? And the petrodollar is useful to slavers, murderers and colonialists; Show me a currency-issuing superpower with no blood on its hands. Much like piracy prevented the most deranged attempts of the copyright industry - cyber-currency may put limits on state seizures and overtaxing. At least for now BTC isn't anonymous (leaves a public paper trail) so it's not so perfect for crime. And an anonymous currency will still be liable at the entry/exit points.
airhead969 5y ago
I think they're envious and jealous because they didn't think of it and didn't get in on it. (Sour grapes) In that context, associating a financial instrument with particular real-world crimes seems like throwing FUD.

by reedf1 5y ago

maxqin1 5y ago

Except the primary use of the dollar is good. The same can't be said about the primary use for Bitcoin (which is, at best, speculation).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
neals 5y ago
Have you traveled? Enough places where the dollar is not the national currency but still accepted and used for purchasing drug and weapons.
- maxqin1 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with foreign drug and weapons markets, but even so, That is still a significant minority compared to USD as a whole. BTC as a whole is used for just that and gambling.
  - adamhp 5y ago
    I'm not even pro-crypto really, but you keep making this wild claim without substantiating it. You're speculating anecdotally on the majority usage pattern of Bitcoin.
    - maxqin1 5y ago
      Come on, are you really going to argue this well-known fact without providing any examples to the contrary? Well guess what, I have a Q story and I'll sell it for your BTC!
  - jl2718 5y ago
    Even the most Pollyanna reports from firms that exist to ‘fight’ crime say it 2% criminal. I don’t know how much of that is illegal source versus regulatory evasion. World black market GDP is estimated somewhere around 25%. And it make sense that it would be so low. Let’s say you just got $1M in Bitcoin and you have to pay your suppliers $500k in cold cash. Not going to happen. Only from other criminals that take profits in cash. But there is obviously a limit to that. I think the point is that those 2% can help a lot in fighting the 25%. The fear is that illegal commerce could be conducted without fiat conversion. That would require that regular commerce would also be done in the same currency that the criminals use. This is fiat’s game to lose. And by the way, this is why I love crypto. It has promise as an amazing technology for choosing financial participation according to personal and private community values. Although I’ll admit we’re not there yet, and a lot of the stuff might now be owned by people we wouldn’t want to have power over us. We’re still in the phase of speculation and fear and power struggles. I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system.
    - maxqin1 5y ago
      > I just hope that fear of the old power structures doesn’t bring good people to ally with values that we would not want in a new system. That's why people need to call BS on the current hype train. Otherwise, when a sufficient solution surfaces, people are going to distrust it just as much as the old power structures. And I'd say we're already getting close to that point. The problem is, with equal distrust, people will tend to choose the option that doesn't require change.
      - jl2718 5y ago
        It is getting pretty ridiculous out there. The gas price today was higher than recent memory with about half of it spent on dog coins. Also, Vitalik is now far wealthier in dog coins than Ethereum. If he was a US citizen he would owe billions on that, and last I checked, the treasury doesn’t accept dog coins. I’m kind of neutral on which financial system prevails so long as it’s the best for society. I stand to gain a lot more if it’s the cypherpunk version, but, I’m not sure that the conditions that would bring that on would be good. The rule of all aspects of society by a maniacal banking elite is pretty dystopic too though. Ultimately I think the best monetary system will emerge through competition among societies. Obsolescence more than decision. That might take a long time, and perhaps it’s too hopeful. What evidence do I have for that?
  - neals 5y ago
    Looking at your comment history, it's too bad we're seeing this type of trolling leak out of Reddit onto HN.
dsco 5y ago
Isn’t that the same for gold? That it’s for speculation? Or stocks.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Gold has a practical application creating demand, in addition to it being a speculative product. I guess you could argue the same for BTC in that you can put short messages in it, but I don't think that's a very valuable thing to have.
  - disruptalot 5y ago
    You forget the payment network without a third party.
- robjan 5y ago
  Stocks represent an ownership in a company. They can be speculated on but that's not the primary purpose.
  - ragnese 5y ago
    I very much disagree. How many people with 401ks and/or other retirement vehicles actually know what companies they "own"? How many of them vote? How many of them actually have enough of the right kinds of shares to vote? To say that stocks are about owning a company in practice is the same as saying bitcoin is just money like the dollar. It's true in theory, but it's not the practical reality of this moment in history.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.
mmahut 5y ago
I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal (doesn't necessary mean immoral) activity, it helps a lot free press in oppressed regimes (also illegal, but by western standards moral).
- maxqin1 5y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't have the equivalent of a "free press." And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > And TOR is rarely used. Journalists use apps like Signal now. Absolutely not. Internet censorship is growing rapidly - worldwide. A lot of "legitimate" websites like newspapers get blocked around the world and can only be accessed over Tor.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    In Russia a few independent newspapers were killed by arresting their bank accounts. Signal does not let public fund jurnalists.
- pydry 5y ago
  >I feel the same argument can be make about Tor. While it primary uses are probably illegal I very much doubt that. Its primary uses are probably porn and researching embarrassing medical conditions.
passtheglass 5y ago
I'm confused by this statement. The primary use of the dollar is as a currency. The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency. The fact that so much of Bitcoin's traded volume is used for speculation is actually an issue with excess dollar liquidity available for speculation, not because of some problem inherent to Bitcoin. That liquidity would just move to some other financial product that probably wouldn't make the news because the concept is too complicated to grok, unlike "BITCOIN BAD AND NOT REAL MONEY".
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > The primary use of Bitcoin is as a currency An intended hypothetical use, or actual use in paying for goods or services now?
dcolkitt 5y ago
The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometimes that’s bad (Nazis seizing wealth of targeted groups). Sometimes it depends on your perspective (governments preventing the trade in illicit drugs). Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism. It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.
- maxqin1 5y ago
  > It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying. And how'd that work out for you guys on January 6th?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jl2718 5y ago
    It worked out horribly. They were shot, prosecuted, embarrassed, fired from their jobs, and forever surveilled and hunted by the entire domestic apparatus. Your othering use of ‘you guys’ suggests a derogatory view of this event, but your suggestion of its applicability to the text implies that it was a failed protest against ‘would be tyrants’. So it’s a little confusing ideologically, but your rational point is spot on. The notion of any kind of physical power held by citizens over the government was overwhelmingly refuted. Any weakness shown by lack of enforcement against the prior summer of violence, was shown to be fully at their discretion. Absolute physical power. No more delusions. But we’re talking about crypto here, and the international response to this has apparently been an unprecedented wave of panic crypto buying, or equivalently, state fiat selling. Imagine what they must think. I believe the markets; not the ‘official’ sources, not the press, and definitely not social media.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smt88 5y ago

Dollars are inflationary and therefore primarily currency, not assets. They're also far more useful, so people are likely to only pay the massive crypto tax (exchange fee, loss of liquidity) if they need to be outside of a legal system. Also, is it "in extremis"? It seems like the vast majority of transactions of crypto are for ransomware, contraband (guns, drugs, humans), or exchange between speculators.

Chris2048 5y ago
> the vast majority of transactions Are transactions relevant though? A lot of BTC is just being held, presumably for the sake of future popularity. You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency.
- smt88 5y ago
  > You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency. Yes, I totally agree. The question is: what has to happen before it's a common currency? See my other comment for my thoughts on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27104956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27104956

jl6 5y ago

For any thing that has both positive uses and negative uses, it seems reasonable to weigh the positives against the negatives. The dollar has substantial non-infringing uses that benefit people. Bitcoin less so, and particularly when weighed against the great harms (environmental or criminal) that Bitcoin brings, I don’t find the criticism baseless.

disruptalot 5y ago
Now imagine comparing child pornography (and other things) in mediums before the internet and after. These comparisons are not useful for exponential, paradigm changing technology.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  Child pornography was never a significant use of the Internet.
  - read_if_gay_ 5y ago
    Facilitating CP wasn't the intent behind the internet, but there is significant use, at least if you believe the government when they're trying to justify new regulations. The same thing holds for BTC and illicit transactions.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
ragnese 5y ago
I don't disagree about weighing pros and cons, of course. But I think that bitcoin advocates would argue that the bitcoin has the same "non-infringing uses that benefit people" and that it's simply a matter of time/popularity until the proportion of "good" uses vs. "bad" uses is similar to the dollar. Not saying that it's true, necessarily. Just that the current balance isn't the end game and it's not totally fair to criticize a brand new tech/tool/whatever against well-established and well-optimized status quo.

betterunix2 5y ago

The difference is that someone can safely collect a Bitcoin ransom far from the police and can use it far from the police (no way to freeze a wallet etc.). This is called the "perfect crime" in research on ecash dating back to the early 90s.

whoisjohnkid 5y ago
criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin because of how easy it is to track bitcoin transfers. If any of their bitcoin transfers ever touches a KYC wallet they are screwed; until taproot gets activated for bitcoin it requires a ton of work to truly stay anonymous
- ryanlol 5y ago
  > criminals tend to prefer privacy coins like monero over bitcoin This is speculation with very little connection to reality. If you actually go on crime forums you will see that privacy coins are not as widely used as you might think.
  - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
    As far as known darknet markets go they've all switched from Bitcoin to Monero. If we're talking bigger fish it's speculation that they prefer cryptocurrency over traditional assets or cash in the first place. Follow the money and it often leads you to illegal activity. Banks like HSBC know all about laundering drug money and enabling scams. https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      > As far as known darknet markets go they've all switched from Bitcoin to Monero. This is not true. A few big markets have switched, not “all”. Besides drug markets, all the conventional cybercrime markets and forums still run on bitcoin.

kypro 5y ago

To steelman the argument here, it sounds me like the concerns isn't in how it's used, but it's usefulness in certain applications. Bitcoin has many of the traceability problems as cash, while also being easier to transact. While I personally think it's a good thing that companies banned from traditional banking / merchant services are using Bitcoin to fund their operations, there is a reason for them using it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

agotterer 5y ago

I also find it strange. The same thing could be said of airplanes, slow cookers, and propane tanks.

elliekelly 5y ago
There are harmful, fringe, uses of those items but the vast majority of the use-cases fit a slow cooker aren’t harmful. The same cannot be said of bitcoin, where the primary use-case is facilitating nefarious business.
- agotterer 5y ago
  For better it worse, the primary use case of Bitcoin is as a store of value. I find it misleading to tell people that the “primary use-case is facilitating nefarious business”. Do you have some data to back up a statement which says that the vast majority of Bitcoin is used in that way? I’m not suggesting there aren’t bad actors out there. But there are plenty of bad actors who deal in fiat as well. But this was the point I was trying to make. The nefarious actors are an edge case.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Bitcoin wouldn't function as a store of value if it didn't have an underlying use case. This is true of all stores of value - with gold it's shiny and useful, with cash you can pay taxes, with a home you can live in it, etc. In Bitcoin that use case is wealth transfer that is uninhibited by law. That essentially makes it kind of like an index tracker for the underground economy.
    - agotterer 5y ago
      Something is valuable because someone else also believes it has value. Have you considered that people put their money in Bitcoin to avoid it being stolen by nefarious/oppressive governments or to hedge against inflation or as speculative investment that Bitcoin will offer additional use cases in the future? Those all seem like legitimate use cases to me. I don't disagree that it's an underground economy, but that's only because it hasn't hit the mainstream. But being underground doesn't necessarily mean nefarious or illegal. Those bad actors definitely exist in the Bitcoin economy and all other economies. But without some data I'm having trouble coming around to the idea that the majority of Bitcoin is used for illegal purposes.

bob33212 5y ago

A major talking point of the pro bitcoin people is that it is "permissionless and decentralized". And it is a good way to bypass governmental interference. They usually talk about the FED in this capacity, but it also applies to drug and ransomware legal controls as well. I think that is what he is talking about here. He isn't saying that cartels don't deal in cash. I'm sure he understands that.

dTal 5y ago

The explicit purpose of bitcoin is to avoid government interference. In all other respects, it is inferior to standard government-backed currency, with slow transactions and huge amounts of wasted electricity. We should therefore expect BTC's primary use-case to be activity the government would interfere with, i.e. illegal activity.

ryanlol 5y ago
> with slow transactions How are bitcoin transactions slow? Bank transfers and credit card payments take forever to settle.
- fanf2 5y ago
  Bank settlement is basically instant in Europe
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    So? It’s not instant for most of the world.
  - dTal 5y ago
    And cash is instant everywhere.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Chris2048 5y ago
True, but "illegal" is dependant on the nation it is relevant to, as an international currency legality is relative. Another way of seeing this: the benefits of global government / infrastructure without the need for global control - few nations are so democratically representative that the tax laws well represent the wills of the people.
- dTal 5y ago
  Also true - but you might call that a separate problem, and one for which the solution is very unlikely to be "no government at all". Bitcoin takes currency permanently out of the purview of all forms of organized governance, barring unreasonable invasion of privacy. All of us now have to live in that world, and none of us were consulted - Satoshi didn't take a vote. That is far less democratic. Deliberately and unilaterally undermining our organized institutions - flawed as they are - is, if not illegal, then certainly antisocial. Of course, you could say all the same things about e2e encryption, which society seems to have decided - grudgingly, and with much pushback - is ultimately a good thing. But perhaps free speech and financial exchange are different animals, McCutcheon vs. the Federal Election Commission notwithstanding.

mondoshawan 5y ago

Just bear in mind, what he says you probably shouldn't take at face value. After all, he is king of shorting currencies that has actively ruined lives.

banbanbang 5y ago

Yes, great logic there. Wonder why whataboutism is constantly used to defend crypto. I guess crypto does NOT solve anything.

kwdc 5y ago

Especially how at one point apparently a high percentage of US currency had traces of cocaine and other drugs on them.

Chris2048 5y ago

extremis? And the petrodollar is useful to slavers, murderers and colonialists; Show me a currency-issuing superpower with no blood on its hands. Much like piracy prevented the most deranged attempts of the copyright industry - cyber-currency may put limits on state seizures and overtaxing. At least for now BTC isn't anonymous (leaves a public paper trail) so it's not so perfect for crime. And an anonymous currency will still be liable at the entry/exit points.

airhead969 5y ago

I think they're envious and jealous because they didn't think of it and didn't get in on it. (Sour grapes) In that context, associating a financial instrument with particular real-world crimes seems like throwing FUD.