4 ms·

The HN headline is a bit alarmist. The headline I see is "CPB director: The Netherlands must ban bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies". This is the opinion of th

by 22c 5y ago

The HN headline is a bit alarmist. The headline I see is "CPB director: The Netherlands must ban bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies". This is the opinion of the CPB director in a letter, so it's not binding in any way. > A cryptocurrency crash is inevitable, he says. That is why the Netherlands must intervene. Should the government be banning any speculative investment that appears to be in a bubble?

skrebbel 5y ago
Well, pyramid games are routinely banned. There are good arguments to be made that Bitcoin is a pyramid game much more than a "asset class in a bubble".
- 22c 5y ago
  I'm only talking about Pieter Hasekamp's arguments, which don't seem to be good ones. If he wants to argue that Bitcoin is a pyramid game, that's a different argument, but I can't see many people taking him seriously. Pieter's arguments are along the lines of a "Think of the Children"[1] style argument, or an appeal to consequences[2]. "We must ban cryptocurrency because if we don't, people might lose their money!" [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
  - teekert 5y ago
    Well if they ban it we know for sure people will loose money.
  - skrebbel 5y ago
    Isn't he just trying to call it a pyramid game without actually calling it a pyramid game? (or ponzi scheme, etc etc same same). I don't know the nuances of his position but maybe him calling it what it is (ie a scam) can get them into all kinds of legal trouble if they don't have hard proof. And because the fraudsters are as distributed as the ledger, it's hard to come by hard proof. I mean, I think that Jack Dorsey is banking hard on bitcoin because he knows he's near the top of the pyramid and he wants as many fools as possible beneath him, but there's absolutely no way to prove that he's not just a soft idiot. Just guessing though, all I mean is "if we don't, people might lose their money!" would have applied to Bernie Madoff too.
    - 22c 5y ago
      It's hard to know what his true intentions are, perhaps it's altruistic or perhaps he has his own reasons for being bearish. If he has hard evidence, he should present it, if he doesn't, perhaps he could instead use his position to call for an investigation or inquiry.
- teekert 5y ago
  What is this bubble? I’ve been having and using (ordered some RPi’s and sushi mainly) since 2014. And I makes some money here and there. I can’t really feel sorry for people who go all in now and lose later. It’s a casino people!
- tluyben2 5y ago
  He does not say that though: he acts like he wants to protect the 'dumb people' (dumb is mine: but what else fits?) by banning stuff (which NL seems to want to do more and more) (I am Dutch). Does not explain why he would not want to ban stock markets as assets like MSFT are massively overvalued as well and will crash badly next crisis. Sure cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value and energy waste etc etc but banning something because it might crash... is somewhat weird. Especially as you screw over all people who currently are in it. So you protected far too late. And actually hurt a lot of people. Make the ponzi/pyramid scheme case from top to bottom and educate people if you cannot make a case for illegal practice.
  - Bishizel 5y ago
    I think it’s tough to assign value like this. People argued that the internet had no real value for basically all of the late 90s.
    - skrebbel 5y ago
      People keep repeating this but bitcoin is well over a decade old now. And it still has no value other than, well, "value". That first day you got internet in, say, 1997, you were in touch with people far away and could look all kinds of shit up and make webpages and pull godwins on usenet and download winzip from tucows and it was amazing. I think your only argument holds, slightly, if by "real value" you mean "money".
    - tluyben2 5y ago
      My accountant was saying in 1998 he never bought stock but this eternal new money machine he could not miss out on. I made a shitload those days because I invest but am a huge stoploss fan; I did not advise him anything but he lost a few 100k and only recently recovered. The internet was a good idea though (he sold the shares though at about the lowest point so recovered is not from shares). As were tulip bulbs were but just not at that price. So who knows this will stabilize at $2/btc in 20 years and it will be normal. In the meanwhile, I buy and set stoploss and invest long sure bets, like msft in, well msft and such. But those have stoploss as well as this will all crash. The real question is: which assets will crash to $0 and which don't. As the latter you can just hold and you get your money back eventually. I had oracle (forgive me) and msft as cases of the latter in the 2000 crash and Borland/inprise as cases of the former. I had stoploss high on inprise and low on the others and made bizarre profits on inprise and higher but more long term profits on the others. If you ask me, these 'look over periods of 20-30 years' are smart with some assets and basically, imho, insane with others and I believe inprise and btc belong in the latter category. Stoploss (and you just adjust it UP over time) will save your hide. Noone listens though as it is not 'what real traders do'. Good luck with that.
BreathHiker 5y ago
That's right, edited the headline.

by 22c 5y ago

skrebbel 5y ago

Well, pyramid games are routinely banned. There are good arguments to be made that Bitcoin is a pyramid game much more than a "asset class in a bubble".

22c 5y ago
I'm only talking about Pieter Hasekamp's arguments, which don't seem to be good ones. If he wants to argue that Bitcoin is a pyramid game, that's a different argument, but I can't see many people taking him seriously. Pieter's arguments are along the lines of a "Think of the Children"[1] style argument, or an appeal to consequences[2]. "We must ban cryptocurrency because if we don't, people might lose their money!" [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
- teekert 5y ago
  Well if they ban it we know for sure people will loose money.
- skrebbel 5y ago
  Isn't he just trying to call it a pyramid game without actually calling it a pyramid game? (or ponzi scheme, etc etc same same). I don't know the nuances of his position but maybe him calling it what it is (ie a scam) can get them into all kinds of legal trouble if they don't have hard proof. And because the fraudsters are as distributed as the ledger, it's hard to come by hard proof. I mean, I think that Jack Dorsey is banking hard on bitcoin because he knows he's near the top of the pyramid and he wants as many fools as possible beneath him, but there's absolutely no way to prove that he's not just a soft idiot. Just guessing though, all I mean is "if we don't, people might lose their money!" would have applied to Bernie Madoff too.
  - 22c 5y ago
    It's hard to know what his true intentions are, perhaps it's altruistic or perhaps he has his own reasons for being bearish. If he has hard evidence, he should present it, if he doesn't, perhaps he could instead use his position to call for an investigation or inquiry.
teekert 5y ago
What is this bubble? I’ve been having and using (ordered some RPi’s and sushi mainly) since 2014. And I makes some money here and there. I can’t really feel sorry for people who go all in now and lose later. It’s a casino people!
tluyben2 5y ago
He does not say that though: he acts like he wants to protect the 'dumb people' (dumb is mine: but what else fits?) by banning stuff (which NL seems to want to do more and more) (I am Dutch). Does not explain why he would not want to ban stock markets as assets like MSFT are massively overvalued as well and will crash badly next crisis. Sure cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value and energy waste etc etc but banning something because it might crash... is somewhat weird. Especially as you screw over all people who currently are in it. So you protected far too late. And actually hurt a lot of people. Make the ponzi/pyramid scheme case from top to bottom and educate people if you cannot make a case for illegal practice.
- Bishizel 5y ago
  I think it’s tough to assign value like this. People argued that the internet had no real value for basically all of the late 90s.
  - skrebbel 5y ago
    People keep repeating this but bitcoin is well over a decade old now. And it still has no value other than, well, "value". That first day you got internet in, say, 1997, you were in touch with people far away and could look all kinds of shit up and make webpages and pull godwins on usenet and download winzip from tucows and it was amazing. I think your only argument holds, slightly, if by "real value" you mean "money".
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    My accountant was saying in 1998 he never bought stock but this eternal new money machine he could not miss out on. I made a shitload those days because I invest but am a huge stoploss fan; I did not advise him anything but he lost a few 100k and only recently recovered. The internet was a good idea though (he sold the shares though at about the lowest point so recovered is not from shares). As were tulip bulbs were but just not at that price. So who knows this will stabilize at $2/btc in 20 years and it will be normal. In the meanwhile, I buy and set stoploss and invest long sure bets, like msft in, well msft and such. But those have stoploss as well as this will all crash. The real question is: which assets will crash to $0 and which don't. As the latter you can just hold and you get your money back eventually. I had oracle (forgive me) and msft as cases of the latter in the 2000 crash and Borland/inprise as cases of the former. I had stoploss high on inprise and low on the others and made bizarre profits on inprise and higher but more long term profits on the others. If you ask me, these 'look over periods of 20-30 years' are smart with some assets and basically, imho, insane with others and I believe inprise and btc belong in the latter category. Stoploss (and you just adjust it UP over time) will save your hide. Noone listens though as it is not 'what real traders do'. Good luck with that.

BreathHiker 5y ago

That's right, edited the headline.