4 ms·

Can’t agree more. The tech is interesting, but it is the same greed behind it which is old as mankind. It solves absolutely nothing, does nothing of value and a

by prox 5y ago

Can’t agree more. The tech is interesting, but it is the same greed behind it which is old as mankind. It solves absolutely nothing, does nothing of value and adds none. Crypto is quickly becoming a failure of immense proportions. The externalities of cryptocurrencies include: Massive carbon emissions. Funding "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran. Tax evasion. Laundering the proceeds of crime, including the drug trade, theft and fraud, and armed robbery. An epidemic of ransomware. A wave of securities fraud targeting the greedy and vulnerable. Shortages of products including graphics cards, hard disks, and chips in general as limited fab capacity is diverted to mining ASICS. Abuse of free tiers of Web services. Noise pollution.

baby 5y ago
Obviously many people disagree. Just to pick on one issue, carbon emission is negligible (unless you talk about bitcoin). Many people also rely on transfers of cryptocurrency. Just not you or your entourage.
- nikanj 5y ago
  Obviously people who have money to launder don’t like the idea of stopping money laundering. The same for people doing drug trade, avoiding international sanctions, tax evasion, etc.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mjfern 5y ago
  Yes, the people who disagree are those pumping and dumping and the bag holders. And cryptocurrency mining consumes as much electricity annually as the country of Argentina. Country scale emissions is not at all negligible, particularly in light of catastrophic global warming.
  - baby 5y ago
    That’s your opinion. And I guess that’s all you have when you can’t talk about the tech.
    - kgraves 5y ago
      In reality, nobody actually cares about the tech, Not even the VCs care, they're just buying into a project for an exit. The general public are even more oblivious to the tech, all they want. to know is 'How do I 100x my money? When is coin X going to the moon?'. They all want the 'moon' more than the tech.
      - baby 5y ago
        I care. I thought HN would as well.
        kgraves 5y ago
        You are in the .00001% minority that cares about the tech and everyone else is making millions on the backs of cryptocurrencies.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Notice what you did here is the same subtle disinformation tactic that every major news story about crypto mining employs. 1. Compare crypto energy usage to something huge (small country, big tech companies, etc). 2. Don't put that into context of whole of human civilization. It's <1% of global electricity consumption. 3. Don't clarify that this is comparing to electricity consumption, excluding other major energy uses like transportation, heating, and shipping which are generally non electric and necessarily carbon emitting. 4. Imply that cryptocurrency electricity usage is creating tons of carbon emissions, even though it consumes electricity and only seeks the cheapest source. When it comes to carbon emissions and the resulting climate catastrophe, we could shut down every cryptocurrency tomorrow and we'd still be fucked. Attacking cryptocurrency for it's energy use is a horrible waste of political and social capital that could be put toward actually solving the problem rather than engaging in moral masturbation.
miohtama 5y ago
Please read the article and study the underlying technology. Most of your statement is incorrect and lacks insight and facts. Solana uses proof of stake and does not have the energy consumption issue, or does not use graphics card. It is cost and energy efficient alternative for Bitcoin and other proof of work public blockchains. More about the history of proof of stake here: https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/ https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/
- dvt 5y ago
  > Most of your statement is incorrect and lacks insight and facts. You expertly avoid all arguments except that Solana uses proof of stake. Who cares. Prox's point still stands: folks will continue to use blockchain-powered "pseudo-currencies" for illegal drugs, murder-for-hire, money laundering, ransomware, and speculation. No one's buying groceries with BTC.
  - haswell 5y ago
    Replace ‘blockchain-powered “pseudo-currencies”’ with “cash”, and the same is true. Better outlaw cash. This thread is not about BTC…
    - crummy 5y ago
      Isn't that why we don't have $10,000 notes? Or even $500? To make illegal activity more difficult?
    - dvt 5y ago
      > Replace ‘blockchain-powered “pseudo-currencies”’ with “cash”, and the same is true. Better outlaw cash. You can't be serious. Ad hoc cash transfers are regulated (can't bring more than $10k across borders without declaring, for example), supply is limited, and bills have literal serial numbers on them.
      - haswell 5y ago
        Crypto is a relatively new technology. Illegal money is as old as civilization. Yes, there are regulations to make it harder to carry out elicit business, but that doesn’t change history, nor does it invalidate the point I was trying to make.
vmception 5y ago
is this copypasta for every crypto thread?
schrijver 5y ago
> Funding "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran Not a big fan of crypto, but this is one of the less convincing arguments against it—as the current situation where the US more or less gets to decide who are the rogue states, because of the global financial system’s dependency on the US dollar, doesn’t seem all that great. For example, the US have ruled: “Saudi Arabia good, Iran bad” for a long time now. Since the signing of the nuclear treaty with Iran, the EU had been trying to normalise trade relations, but this has proven exceedingly complicated since the US pulled out, since most financial transactions at some point pass through a US based financial institution that are beholden to sanctions towards Iran. I don’t think crypto is the ideal answer for this problem, I would prefer a financial system that can deal with multiple fiat currencies and has less reliance on the USD, but that won’t happen overnight. cf https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-finance-idUSKBN29O1ZI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-finance-idUSKBN29O1ZI

by prox 5y ago

baby 5y ago

Obviously many people disagree. Just to pick on one issue, carbon emission is negligible (unless you talk about bitcoin). Many people also rely on transfers of cryptocurrency. Just not you or your entourage.

nikanj 5y ago
Obviously people who have money to launder don’t like the idea of stopping money laundering. The same for people doing drug trade, avoiding international sanctions, tax evasion, etc.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mjfern 5y ago
Yes, the people who disagree are those pumping and dumping and the bag holders. And cryptocurrency mining consumes as much electricity annually as the country of Argentina. Country scale emissions is not at all negligible, particularly in light of catastrophic global warming.
- baby 5y ago
  That’s your opinion. And I guess that’s all you have when you can’t talk about the tech.
  - kgraves 5y ago
    In reality, nobody actually cares about the tech, Not even the VCs care, they're just buying into a project for an exit. The general public are even more oblivious to the tech, all they want. to know is 'How do I 100x my money? When is coin X going to the moon?'. They all want the 'moon' more than the tech.
    - baby 5y ago
      I care. I thought HN would as well.
      - kgraves 5y ago
        You are in the .00001% minority that cares about the tech and everyone else is making millions on the backs of cryptocurrencies.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Notice what you did here is the same subtle disinformation tactic that every major news story about crypto mining employs. 1. Compare crypto energy usage to something huge (small country, big tech companies, etc). 2. Don't put that into context of whole of human civilization. It's <1% of global electricity consumption. 3. Don't clarify that this is comparing to electricity consumption, excluding other major energy uses like transportation, heating, and shipping which are generally non electric and necessarily carbon emitting. 4. Imply that cryptocurrency electricity usage is creating tons of carbon emissions, even though it consumes electricity and only seeks the cheapest source. When it comes to carbon emissions and the resulting climate catastrophe, we could shut down every cryptocurrency tomorrow and we'd still be fucked. Attacking cryptocurrency for it's energy use is a horrible waste of political and social capital that could be put toward actually solving the problem rather than engaging in moral masturbation.

miohtama 5y ago

Please read the article and study the underlying technology. Most of your statement is incorrect and lacks insight and facts. Solana uses proof of stake and does not have the energy consumption issue, or does not use graphics card. It is cost and energy efficient alternative for Bitcoin and other proof of work public blockchains. More about the history of proof of stake here: https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/ https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/

dvt 5y ago
> Most of your statement is incorrect and lacks insight and facts. You expertly avoid all arguments except that Solana uses proof of stake. Who cares. Prox's point still stands: folks will continue to use blockchain-powered "pseudo-currencies" for illegal drugs, murder-for-hire, money laundering, ransomware, and speculation. No one's buying groceries with BTC.
- haswell 5y ago
  Replace ‘blockchain-powered “pseudo-currencies”’ with “cash”, and the same is true. Better outlaw cash. This thread is not about BTC…
  - crummy 5y ago
    Isn't that why we don't have $10,000 notes? Or even $500? To make illegal activity more difficult?
  - dvt 5y ago
    > Replace ‘blockchain-powered “pseudo-currencies”’ with “cash”, and the same is true. Better outlaw cash. You can't be serious. Ad hoc cash transfers are regulated (can't bring more than $10k across borders without declaring, for example), supply is limited, and bills have literal serial numbers on them.
    - haswell 5y ago
      Crypto is a relatively new technology. Illegal money is as old as civilization. Yes, there are regulations to make it harder to carry out elicit business, but that doesn’t change history, nor does it invalidate the point I was trying to make.

vmception 5y ago

is this copypasta for every crypto thread?

schrijver 5y ago

> Funding "rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran Not a big fan of crypto, but this is one of the less convincing arguments against it—as the current situation where the US more or less gets to decide who are the rogue states, because of the global financial system’s dependency on the US dollar, doesn’t seem all that great. For example, the US have ruled: “Saudi Arabia good, Iran bad” for a long time now. Since the signing of the nuclear treaty with Iran, the EU had been trying to normalise trade relations, but this has proven exceedingly complicated since the US pulled out, since most financial transactions at some point pass through a US based financial institution that are beholden to sanctions towards Iran. I don’t think crypto is the ideal answer for this problem, I would prefer a financial system that can deal with multiple fiat currencies and has less reliance on the USD, but that won’t happen overnight. cf https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-finance-idUSKBN29O1ZI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-finance-idUSKBN29O1ZI