4 ms·
Sunburns are bad, therefore block the sun. When you make too broad arguments like this you risk losing all the benefits associated with the technology you want
by Communitivity 5y ago
Sunburns are bad, therefore block the sun.
When you make too broad arguments like this you risk losing all the benefits associated with the technology you want to ban.
Bitcoin mining is in the process of becoming greener, but it has a long way to go. Some other cryptocurrencies are moving to proof of stake or algorithms instead of proof of work, but these moves are still early stage. The environmental reason is a matter of time - given enough time and public push, all of the cryptocurrencies will be forced to be green.
Any technology will be used by criminals if it's beneficial. I do not subscribe to the 'if you are not guilty then you have nothing to hide, so give me access to all your data' policy. One of the biggest benefits of Bitcoin in my mind is that it is a currency not tied to any given world power.
Cryptocurrency is almost, but not quite, at the alcohol level. Prohibition made alcohol go underground and secret, and not much of a secret. Criminalizing Bitcoin will do the same. Also, what about legitimate people who have invested in what was a legal thing, do you tell them 'Sorry, you are now out all that money?'. That seems a great way to ensure you lose the next election, if there are enough people who have invested (and in my surroundings there are more and more traditional middle-class families investing in cryptocurrency).
Disclaimer: I own a fair bit of cryptocurrency.
- mgh2 5y agoYour argument does not make sense. A lot of things are banned because its negative externalities outweigh its benefits, regardless of how the public uses it (ex. drugs, money laundering, human trafficking, pedophilia, etc). As a call to your conscience, even if you don't directly participate in those activities (in for the money), would you be ok knowing that you are complicit? The evidence is pretty clear on the direct link of cryptocurrencies to organized crime, no matter how the tech industry (which controls the media) slices it. Don't underestimate the Fed, they usually move slow to gather evidence against any case. As for the invested, once corpses pile up, they will flee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27275189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27275189
- jjk166 5y agoWell you're on the internet right now, using a technology which has done more than any other to make selling drugs, money laundering, human trafficking, and pedophilia easier. Are you okay knowing you are complicit in supporting that infrastructure? There is no more a direct link between cryptocurrencies and organized crime than there is between matches and arsonists. The fact that one can be used as a tool by the other is not an indictment of the technology.
- mgh2 5y agoInvesting vs. usage...The crypto argument still does not pass a cost/benefit analysis. *Carefully examine the bias and incentives behind these comments, oppositions in this thread seem to be from people invested in cryptos. People also censor information that run against its views (this will be downvoted)
- jjk166 5y agoAre drugs a technology for supporting peasants? Is there something I said that you would claim to be untrue? If so please present your counter-evidence instead of making baseless ad hominem attacks. It doesn't matter how biased someone is if they're still correct.
- mgh2 5y agoGoing back to the OP. Is there something in the article that you would claim as untrue? Same advice here.
- matt-attack 5y agoBan roads the prevent bank robberies. 100% of bank robberies use a public road for their getaway. This is unacceptable. We need to ban roads immediately or else this rash of robberies will just continue.
- jwozn 5y agoAs the original commenter stated, the negative externalities outweigh its benefits. You and a few others seem to have taken this to mean that a single negative externality should result in a ban.
- Communitivity 5y ago"As a call to your conscience, even if you don't directly participate in those activities (in for the money), would you be ok knowing that you are complicit?" By that reasoning anyone that uses paper money is complicit in cocaine use, because a 2009 study showed that between 85% and 95% of all US paper bills have cocaine on them, in some states averaging as high as 20 nanograms on individual low-denomination bills (it takes 150 nanograms in your system to test positive for cocaine). Almost any technology, including Tide Pods, can be used in the argument anyone that uses and supports a technology for legal uses is complicit in illegal uses of that technology, rendering the argument meaningless. You may use Peer-to-Peer technology, does that mean you support piracy? Many seem to me to be attacking BitCoin and other cryptocurrencies in total rather than attacking the aspects they hate. For example, anonymity is not innately tied to cryptocurrency, just tied to most of the current implementations.
- jwozn 5y agoThe poster you're replying to stated the negative externalities outweigh its benefits, not that there are any negative externalities at all.