4 ms·

I've always believed in the strength and independence of Bitcoin and cryptocoins. But maybe there's just so many evil-doers/criminals out there that the novel

I've always believed in the strength and independence of Bitcoin and cryptocoins. But maybe there's just so many evil-doers/criminals out there that the novel trust free payment network will crumble under the weight of all of the adjacent scams. I hope not, but I find myself in the truly puzzling position of rooting for the regulators sometimes. I can easily partition bitcoin's good qualities from all of the bad things that people do with/for them. But I don't think most people will do that. At the same time, in some ways it's nearly indestructible. So even if it's unpopular it will at the very least continue to serve the black market.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The bad people don't disappear when you create gatekeepers. Their power multiplies exponentially, as they use the regulatory process to suppress competition and hold the consumer captive. Theory would suggest that in a free market, people who act maliciously, and fail to build a positive reputation, would steadily be abandoned for those who act benevolently, and succeed in building a positive reputation. This would be a corrective feedback mechanism which steadily makes the social configuration less exploitive, and I think one could reasonably assume it is a far less failure-prone feedback mechanism than periodic political elections. Beyond the theoretical arguments, the empirical evidence suggests this is what happens. For example, countries with lower levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP have on average higher rates of economic development. For a more relevant example, the quality of project needed for a token sale to be successful massively rose between 2015, when the first token sale was announced, and late 2017, when the SEC shut down token sales. The market was evolving, while massively expanding the number of people participating in early-stage investing: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 >"The average ICO has almost 4700 contributors. The median contributor invests a relatively small amount. The ICO market appears to have successfully given access to the financing of innovation to a new class of investors, which is a long-standing public policy issue"
- tobltobs 5y ago
  "For example, countries with lower levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP having on average higher rates of economic development." Any citation for that?
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I also don't see how this is relevant because you still owe taxes even if you use cryptocurrencies for payments.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...
    - tobltobs 5y ago
      This trash paper doesn't even back your claim.
Closi 5y ago
Unfortunately all this stuff is by design - it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that a non-reversible currency that can be handled in a non-traceable way might be used for crime and scams.
- null0pointer 5y ago
  I don't really think you can claim that the intent of Bitcoins design is to facilitate crime and scams.
  - Closi 5y ago
    I don't think it's the intent, but I don't think it's possible to invent a currency that is non-reversible, globally transferable and not linked to a physical identity without also making it perfect for crime (because those are the same characteristics that would be good for that sector).
  - WickyNilliams 5y ago
    POSIWID is a valid perspective from which to analyse systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...
- rantwasp 5y ago
  that’s simply not true. bitcoin and blockchain is as traceable as it gets. it’s all there in the ledger.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    Yes and no. It's traceable in the sense that pseudonymous public keys are traceable. But generating a public key is cheap, easy and can be done anonymously. As long as the blockchain participant doesn't interact with any party revealing his IRL identity, he can keep his true identity hidden.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
leppr 5y ago
Any ban aimed at Binance or a centralized exchange in particular will not have much to do with Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies themselves.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

The bad people don't disappear when you create gatekeepers. Their power multiplies exponentially, as they use the regulatory process to suppress competition and hold the consumer captive. Theory would suggest that in a free market, people who act maliciously, and fail to build a positive reputation, would steadily be abandoned for those who act benevolently, and succeed in building a positive reputation. This would be a corrective feedback mechanism which steadily makes the social configuration less exploitive, and I think one could reasonably assume it is a far less failure-prone feedback mechanism than periodic political elections. Beyond the theoretical arguments, the empirical evidence suggests this is what happens. For example, countries with lower levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP have on average higher rates of economic development. For a more relevant example, the quality of project needed for a token sale to be successful massively rose between 2015, when the first token sale was announced, and late 2017, when the SEC shut down token sales. The market was evolving, while massively expanding the number of people participating in early-stage investing: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0 >"The average ICO has almost 4700 contributors. The median contributor invests a relatively small amount. The ICO market appears to have successfully given access to the financing of innovation to a new class of investors, which is a long-standing public policy issue"

tobltobs 5y ago
"For example, countries with lower levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP having on average higher rates of economic development." Any citation for that?
- imtringued 5y ago
  I also don't see how this is relevant because you still owe taxes even if you use cryptocurrencies for payments.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...
  - tobltobs 5y ago
    This trash paper doesn't even back your claim.

Closi 5y ago

Unfortunately all this stuff is by design - it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that a non-reversible currency that can be handled in a non-traceable way might be used for crime and scams.

null0pointer 5y ago
I don't really think you can claim that the intent of Bitcoins design is to facilitate crime and scams.
- Closi 5y ago
  I don't think it's the intent, but I don't think it's possible to invent a currency that is non-reversible, globally transferable and not linked to a physical identity without also making it perfect for crime (because those are the same characteristics that would be good for that sector).
- WickyNilliams 5y ago
  POSIWID is a valid perspective from which to analyse systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...
rantwasp 5y ago
that’s simply not true. bitcoin and blockchain is as traceable as it gets. it’s all there in the ledger.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  Yes and no. It's traceable in the sense that pseudonymous public keys are traceable. But generating a public key is cheap, easy and can be done anonymously. As long as the blockchain participant doesn't interact with any party revealing his IRL identity, he can keep his true identity hidden.
  - rantwasp 5y ago

leppr 5y ago

Any ban aimed at Binance or a centralized exchange in particular will not have much to do with Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies themselves.