11 ms·

Bye-bye, Bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies

112 points by turtlegrids 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago
> Of course, the untraceable payments .... Undermined his credibility right there. Not worth reading the rest.
- Mtinie 5y ago
  I just figured he was referring to USD.
  - ionwake 5y ago
    lol
- jamal-kumar 5y ago
  Considering how Coinbase was coerced into being let to continue to exist in order to undermine exactly this
tofuahdude 5y ago
Yawn. How many times do we have to read this article?
- jamal-kumar 5y ago
  Huge agree. When are re-iterations of this going to start to be considered spam?
- pmastela 5y ago
  As long as it’s advantageous to those who own these publications to accumulate their share of BTC, ETH, or what have you, and once they’re satisfied the narrative will change.
simonw 5y ago
What's interesting about this article isn't so much the contents as the biography of the author: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/robert-a-manning/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/robert-a-manning/ - Atlantic Council, ODNI, US National Intelligence Council, US Secretary of State's staff, Council on Foreign Relations and more. I'm not sure how much attention the idea of banning cryptocurrency has had from these kind of circles before.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  If you view banning cryptocurrencies as a prerequisite to CBDC, social credit scores and negative interests rates, there are volumes of policy papers from the WEF and others.
- jimbilly22 5y ago
  agreed, that is certainly the most noteworthy aspect. I can't say im surprised. Financial hegemony is critical for state apparatuses to maintain power. Frankly I'm more surprised it's taken them this long to begin the crusade against crypto currencies. I only expect it to ramp up further.
- kragen 5y ago
  Yeah, when the pipeline ransomware thing happened, I figured that we'd see some big crackdowns on internet freedom as a result. And he mentions the pipeline early on in the article. CFR folks like Bob might be equally interested in stopping cryptocurrency as a way for countries subject to US sanctions, like Iran and Venezuela, to have access to the international payment system. But that's probably not as appealing a pitch for the UN Security Council, the G7, and the G20, who I think are his real audience here. He knows a unilateral move against cryptocurrency by USG would be not only very difficult because of domestic opposition but also a bit of an own goal, cutting the US off from the developing permissionless international economy. But if he can convince other governments' advisors that Bitcoin poses a threat to them that outweighs any potential protection it grants them from the US, then those concerns go away. PRC is already on board; Russia and India could maybe be persuaded, having flirted with total cryptocurrency bans and then backed away from them; Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the EU and Commonwealth countries are likely to be more difficult. No idea about Mexico, the Saudis, Turkey, and Indonesia—they've all been rather nervous about it, except in Mexico where it's fully legal.
leothecool 5y ago
Ban credit card reward air miles while we are at it, right?
carlosdp 5y ago
The only way you are going to "ban" cryptocurrencies is if you shut down the internet, and even that doesn't really go all the way, so good luck with that...
- RodgerTheGreat 5y ago
  You can make it illegal for legitimate financial institutions to perform transactions related to cryptocurrency, crippling or outright destroying many of its applications. Sucking all the air out of the room is sufficient to address the negative externalities.
  - lancemurdock 5y ago
    this would indeed be a serious blow to current price of crypto. Many projects would die and tons of liquidity would leave. Liken to a mass extinction event. But like all gov attempts to ban something, there would still be a cohort who believe in the product and keep it alive. And over time, from the ashes, the value would grow again
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Just like POGs. haha
      - RodgerTheGreat 5y ago
        Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue...
nscalf 5y ago
This is some of the worst junk writing I've seen on the hill. Some pretty wrong things in here, like insinuating that the only value of crypto is to criminals, and all but saying that the reason there are hackings to things like critical infrastructure is because crypto exists, which is just silly. Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. I would label that as a bad faith argument because there isn't really a standardized basis of measuring things by energy consumption (what's the energy consumption to mine for gold? Create plastics? Etc.). All of this coupled with support for a government cryptocurrency? By a person who says they don't understand crypto or its value prop in the first sentence. That probably means they should go learn more before having an opinion... For people not in this world, cryptocurrency does NOT mean digital money. It needs to be rebranding. It's a wave of projects building (mostly) decentralized tools or things secured by a blockchain secured through some protocol, such as finance exchanges, art minting and exchanging for digital scarcity, video games, real world supply chain tracking, music creation + tracking (hard to determine who is in every song and what sampling they used to pay artists), general contract writing with built in logic to be able to have trust in an interaction without having to involve a third party. There are many more examples, but it's more apt to call it Web 3.0 than cryptocurrency at this point.
- jandrese 5y ago
  > Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. Is Bitcoin offsetting other uses that those renewables would have gone for or are people building solar farms out of their Bitcoin gains to fund more Bitcoin?
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Bitcoin mining can serve as a price floor to incentivize green energy production - ex. An otherwise unprofitable solar farm could be profitable because instead of peak production getting sent to the grid at low or negative rates, they can mine Bitcoin and monetize that energy that doesn't have other demand. This is certainly not universally the case at the moment. It is probably offsetting in the majority of cases currently. But I bet there are a non-zero number of renewable energy products that were able to get greenlit purely because crypto mining can function as a buyer of last resort, and this number will continue increasing. Bitcoin mining uses a higher proportion of green energy than most other industries though, so I think this energy use criticism is pretty shallow. Some people just don't like Bitcoin and so are enthusiastic to have a reason to complain about it that doesn't require any critical thinking about energy markets. These people believe Bitcoin is entirely worthless, so they'd complain about any level of energy usage, because there is no upside in their calculus.
westcort 5y ago
Too late. It is already integrated into the financial system.
fksadfji12 5y ago
lmao, salty tears
Lukeas14 5y ago
> But dollars, euros and yen are backed by nations’ respective treasuries. If someone invents a cryptocurrency, any value is based solely on convincing others it has value. They lost me here. Most countries indeed have currency that is backed by their nation's respective treasuries. However, those treasuries are filled dollars, euros and yen. All fiat money no longer backed by gold or anything tangible and whose values are based solely convincing others they have value.
- leereeves 5y ago
  No, the value of fiat money is backed by being the only means of paying taxes. If you do anything productive in America, you'll have to find dollars to pay taxes, or you'll go to jail.
- sidlls 5y ago
  The notion that nation-state issued fiat currency is based “solely” on convincing others they have value is quite a reductive over-simplification. The existence of organized societies with some central government body has shown value, and the means of exchange amongst citizens and with citizens of other societies is backed in part by that value. It’s quite a bit more complex than you suggest.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    The value of fiat currencies is "based solely convincing others they have value" - it is trust in the issuer. You are arguing that trusting issuers has been societal valuable, which sure - historically it has been for the fiat currencies that still exist (if you ignore survivorship bias). Not sure what handwaving "society is valuable and that value is what backs fiat currencies" even means in concrete terms. The government has the power to print as much fiat currency as they want (and they frequently do with intentional inflation targets). There is nothing that stops governments from printing more money except fear that it will damage trust in their currency, leading to devaluation.
    - sidlls 5y ago
dannypovolotski 5y ago
He lost me at "untraceable"
trident5000 5y ago
lol that ship has sailed.
echelon 5y ago
The US government should replicate the success of crypto, then ban it entirely. > How should governments respond? > Wolf argues that central banks (e.g., the U.S. Federal > Reserve) should create their own official digital > currencies — central bank digital currencies (CBDC) > and make cryptocurrencies illegal. This is a solution that works. Cryptocurrencies are borne out of a desire to be rid of governments. They're the ultimate libertarian dream of a stateless world. Bitcoin and its ilk award the early adopters and pre-miners. They are not vehicles of economic empowerment. In fact, unsophisticated and poor investors can be ruined by moving their assets into crypto when subject to wild price swings, pump and dumps, and HFT/finance operations. Fiat is a system of levers that betters the health of the government that mints it. They can be used to defer recessions, hedge inflations, fund infrastructure and investments, and increase the wealth of the populace. Bitcoin cannot do this. The crypto system rewards the whales, hucksters, and scammers. Money printing also correlates with the productivity of the population, otherwise it becomes unhealthy. Taxes reap a portion of the growth and reinvest them. USD comes with assurances. FDIC and a wealth of other measures are in place to protect individuals. If it's attacked, the government will respond. If you lose your crypto wallet, you're screwed. No government backs BTC, so if the crypto is defeated (as nation state actors may have already done), everyone's investments crash to zero with no restitution. One crypto attack destroys the entire house of cards, and it is coming. It's also reassuring to know that the USD is backed by a democratically elected governance. Crypto makes hacking and cybercrime easier. It isn't untraceable like many USD transactions leveraging layering/integration and similar techniques, but it certainly doesn't require the same level of financial crime sophistication as moving money in fiat does. You don't need vast networks of physical money laundering machinery and real people in the loop. Crypto burns energy, wastes GPU resources, drives up prices, and puts our brightest minds to the task of solving stupid and meaningless problems. Crypto does not benefit society and the US government needs to step in with an alternative to meet the demand. Once they've become the de facto standard, then they can ban crypto.
nprz 5y ago
Who knew a distributed/decentralized database could be so threatening.
surfingdino 5y ago
"I’ve never quite understood why cryptocurrencies are worth anything." The first sentence is the summary of the rest of the article.
iammisc 5y ago
I think bitcoin is dumb, but this makes me want to buy it just to say a big F U to the central banks. Even stupid fake money should be legal. How authoritarian can we get?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nikolay 5y ago
Yes, it's about time. These steamy piles need to be banned - it's the only way to cut down on the greed-fueled scams. They solve no problems - despite of their "whitepapers"! They are the Rube Goldberg machine of the 21st century - invented as a honeypot by NSA or as means for the Chinese to export capital. Note: Dear HODLers, instead of downvoting me, get lives!
okareaman 5y ago
I'm curious if crypto enthusiasts believe crypto currencies won't be as regulated as other currencies and if not, in what way will it be more free and open in a beneficial manner?
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Right now, the government taxes USD cash savings at 5.4% (current inflation rate). There are good reasons for fiat currencies to continue existing, but it is also easy to understand why savers find a currency that cannot be devalued by federal reserve policy appealing. Personally, I also think the transparency of Bitcoin is a positive quality. Even the federal reserve does not have the capability to trace exactly where a given dollar has been - they are just integers in black box databases owned by banks. They settle net amounts, but enumerating the history of any particular dollar is impossible - even an accurate approximation would be prohibitively expensive. History is integral to the architecture of Bitcoin, so being able to trace where exactly money came from is much easier to do than for the dollar. If governments were forced to use crypto for expenses, it would provide much more transparency into government spending. I think this is especially beneficial to NGOs - they can publish their addresses and the public can audit their income and expenses directly.
  - okareaman 5y ago
    Thanks, I see, especially that the govt can't print more Bitcoin
  - verdverm 5y ago
    Govt transparency does not require Blockchain to happen, this could be done with any database. The hard part is recording everything. Imagine what happens when some agency loses their wallet key...
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      Technically, you're right, but I think a centralized database doesn't provide much trust beyond current govt reporting methods. The nice thing about decentralized blockchains for government transparency is that it is absolute and mandatory. I'd worry that a centralized database would simply omit some expenditures if they were used for black-ops or things that could otherwise hurt the reputation of the government.
brodo 5y ago
For a more interesting critique check out this podcast titled “Bitcoin is right-wing technology” https://overcast.fm/+ZpQA7ciS0 https://overcast.fm/+ZpQA7ciS0
epaga 5y ago
Pretty bold to lead the article with “I‘ve never quite understood.“ I think the article would have been way better if the author would have taken the time to at least understand a bit why cryptocurrencies are worth a lot to a lot of people.
_def 5y ago
I'm not entirely sure what to think of cryptocurrencies but I'm pretty sure ransomware predates them and banning them wouldn't eliminate ransomware.
am33 5y ago
Why write an article if you quite literally have zero understanding of the basic benefits of crypto?
- t0mbstone 5y ago
  Because... The Hill
casi18 5y ago
ah yes the war on money, because the war on drugs went so well. moral panic has never helped anyone. appeals to authority and banning peoples jobs and hobbies wont get anyone on your side. prove your way is better, we'll keep building ours too.
myhf 5y ago
banning bitcoin is actually GOOD for bitcoin
- agloeregrets 5y ago
  Good for bitcoin the concept, bad for the gold-chasing crypto-geeks who want their 10,000% return get-rich-quick scheme. If mining was banned, it would force a move to a POS system like ETH 2.0 and would solve most of the environmental problem. Just the people who hold it and the miners would lose their income source. This should make it clear that you have the people who want crypto as a currency and people who just want profits and they don't know they are enemies.
underseacables 5y ago
I’m making an excellent side income with cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin boom and bubble allowed us to get a down payment for the house we live in. I don’t know where the money came from but cryptocurrency investment has been a boon for out fiancees.
kjksf 5y ago
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” We're at the "they fight you" stage. Yesterday it was energy usage FUD. Today it's cybercriminals FUD. I'm buying because there's only one stage left: "you win" and we're not there yet.
- avgDev 5y ago
  So, just something to think about, let's say I start a MLM(reverse funnel) scheme. I will tell everyone "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". When I am taken to court for running a pyramid scheme and maybe doing a little fraud along the way, I can just shout we are at the "they fight you" stage. Hopefully, everyone keeps investing in my next scheme. In reality, "they fight you" doesn't validate whatever you are doing in any way. If you get a positive court ruling, then maybe whatever you are doing is legit. Many schemes go on for a long time. I used to have quite a bit of crypto. Btc helped pay for my education, but there are better investment vehicles out there.
- skytreader 5y ago
  > "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” Great wisdom from Gandhi but I prefer the Silicon Valley way of saying things. More inspiring. "This is what happens when you work to change things. First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world." From Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos.
  - nyrosis 5y ago
    What is the return on investment of a decentralized world? What is the return on investment of a centralized world?
abeppu 5y ago
If "banning" bitcoin really meant saying that exchanges can't let you turn dollars into bitcoins and vice versa ... could that finally make bitcoin an actual currency, where to get it you exchanged a good or service for it? Would the disconnect from the rest of the financial system mean that it wouldn't just be a vehicle for speculation? I still think it's a silly system, where an extravagant amount of work is done so no one has to trust any central party (but all the speculators had to trust the exchanges). But I wonder if "banning" it could be the thing that actually lets it fulfill a little more of its original promise.
fellellor 5y ago
What an idiot. As an ignorant fool myself I was hoping for a coherent argument that would confirm my own gut instinct against bitcoin, only to be served with this!
noxer 5y ago
And another useless article of crypto (bitcoin) hate. It was getting boring the last 10 times already can HN move on? Thanks.
atc 5y ago
Clueless. Awful. This belongs in the dustbin.

112 points by turtlegrids 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago

> Of course, the untraceable payments .... Undermined his credibility right there. Not worth reading the rest.

Mtinie 5y ago
I just figured he was referring to USD.
- ionwake 5y ago
  lol
jamal-kumar 5y ago
Considering how Coinbase was coerced into being let to continue to exist in order to undermine exactly this

tofuahdude 5y ago

Yawn. How many times do we have to read this article?

jamal-kumar 5y ago
Huge agree. When are re-iterations of this going to start to be considered spam?
pmastela 5y ago
As long as it’s advantageous to those who own these publications to accumulate their share of BTC, ETH, or what have you, and once they’re satisfied the narrative will change.

simonw 5y ago

What's interesting about this article isn't so much the contents as the biography of the author: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/robert-a-manning/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/robert-a-manning/ - Atlantic Council, ODNI, US National Intelligence Council, US Secretary of State's staff, Council on Foreign Relations and more. I'm not sure how much attention the idea of banning cryptocurrency has had from these kind of circles before.

aww_dang 5y ago
If you view banning cryptocurrencies as a prerequisite to CBDC, social credit scores and negative interests rates, there are volumes of policy papers from the WEF and others.
jimbilly22 5y ago
agreed, that is certainly the most noteworthy aspect. I can't say im surprised. Financial hegemony is critical for state apparatuses to maintain power. Frankly I'm more surprised it's taken them this long to begin the crusade against crypto currencies. I only expect it to ramp up further.
kragen 5y ago
Yeah, when the pipeline ransomware thing happened, I figured that we'd see some big crackdowns on internet freedom as a result. And he mentions the pipeline early on in the article. CFR folks like Bob might be equally interested in stopping cryptocurrency as a way for countries subject to US sanctions, like Iran and Venezuela, to have access to the international payment system. But that's probably not as appealing a pitch for the UN Security Council, the G7, and the G20, who I think are his real audience here. He knows a unilateral move against cryptocurrency by USG would be not only very difficult because of domestic opposition but also a bit of an own goal, cutting the US off from the developing permissionless international economy. But if he can convince other governments' advisors that Bitcoin poses a threat to them that outweighs any potential protection it grants them from the US, then those concerns go away. PRC is already on board; Russia and India could maybe be persuaded, having flirted with total cryptocurrency bans and then backed away from them; Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the EU and Commonwealth countries are likely to be more difficult. No idea about Mexico, the Saudis, Turkey, and Indonesia—they've all been rather nervous about it, except in Mexico where it's fully legal.

leothecool 5y ago

Ban credit card reward air miles while we are at it, right?

carlosdp 5y ago

The only way you are going to "ban" cryptocurrencies is if you shut down the internet, and even that doesn't really go all the way, so good luck with that...

RodgerTheGreat 5y ago
You can make it illegal for legitimate financial institutions to perform transactions related to cryptocurrency, crippling or outright destroying many of its applications. Sucking all the air out of the room is sufficient to address the negative externalities.
- lancemurdock 5y ago
  this would indeed be a serious blow to current price of crypto. Many projects would die and tons of liquidity would leave. Liken to a mass extinction event. But like all gov attempts to ban something, there would still be a cohort who believe in the product and keep it alive. And over time, from the ashes, the value would grow again
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Just like POGs. haha
    - RodgerTheGreat 5y ago
      Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue...

nscalf 5y ago

This is some of the worst junk writing I've seen on the hill. Some pretty wrong things in here, like insinuating that the only value of crypto is to criminals, and all but saying that the reason there are hackings to things like critical infrastructure is because crypto exists, which is just silly. Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. I would label that as a bad faith argument because there isn't really a standardized basis of measuring things by energy consumption (what's the energy consumption to mine for gold? Create plastics? Etc.). All of this coupled with support for a government cryptocurrency? By a person who says they don't understand crypto or its value prop in the first sentence. That probably means they should go learn more before having an opinion... For people not in this world, cryptocurrency does NOT mean digital money. It needs to be rebranding. It's a wave of projects building (mostly) decentralized tools or things secured by a blockchain secured through some protocol, such as finance exchanges, art minting and exchanging for digital scarcity, video games, real world supply chain tracking, music creation + tracking (hard to determine who is in every song and what sampling they used to pay artists), general contract writing with built in logic to be able to have trust in an interaction without having to involve a third party. There are many more examples, but it's more apt to call it Web 3.0 than cryptocurrency at this point.

jandrese 5y ago
> Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. Is Bitcoin offsetting other uses that those renewables would have gone for or are people building solar farms out of their Bitcoin gains to fund more Bitcoin?
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Bitcoin mining can serve as a price floor to incentivize green energy production - ex. An otherwise unprofitable solar farm could be profitable because instead of peak production getting sent to the grid at low or negative rates, they can mine Bitcoin and monetize that energy that doesn't have other demand. This is certainly not universally the case at the moment. It is probably offsetting in the majority of cases currently. But I bet there are a non-zero number of renewable energy products that were able to get greenlit purely because crypto mining can function as a buyer of last resort, and this number will continue increasing. Bitcoin mining uses a higher proportion of green energy than most other industries though, so I think this energy use criticism is pretty shallow. Some people just don't like Bitcoin and so are enthusiastic to have a reason to complain about it that doesn't require any critical thinking about energy markets. These people believe Bitcoin is entirely worthless, so they'd complain about any level of energy usage, because there is no upside in their calculus.

westcort 5y ago

Too late. It is already integrated into the financial system.

fksadfji12 5y ago

lmao, salty tears

Lukeas14 5y ago

> But dollars, euros and yen are backed by nations’ respective treasuries. If someone invents a cryptocurrency, any value is based solely on convincing others it has value. They lost me here. Most countries indeed have currency that is backed by their nation's respective treasuries. However, those treasuries are filled dollars, euros and yen. All fiat money no longer backed by gold or anything tangible and whose values are based solely convincing others they have value.

leereeves 5y ago
No, the value of fiat money is backed by being the only means of paying taxes. If you do anything productive in America, you'll have to find dollars to pay taxes, or you'll go to jail.
sidlls 5y ago
The notion that nation-state issued fiat currency is based “solely” on convincing others they have value is quite a reductive over-simplification. The existence of organized societies with some central government body has shown value, and the means of exchange amongst citizens and with citizens of other societies is backed in part by that value. It’s quite a bit more complex than you suggest.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  The value of fiat currencies is "based solely convincing others they have value" - it is trust in the issuer. You are arguing that trusting issuers has been societal valuable, which sure - historically it has been for the fiat currencies that still exist (if you ignore survivorship bias). Not sure what handwaving "society is valuable and that value is what backs fiat currencies" even means in concrete terms. The government has the power to print as much fiat currency as they want (and they frequently do with intentional inflation targets). There is nothing that stops governments from printing more money except fear that it will damage trust in their currency, leading to devaluation.
  - sidlls 5y ago

dannypovolotski 5y ago

He lost me at "untraceable"

trident5000 5y ago

lol that ship has sailed.

echelon 5y ago

The US government should replicate the success of crypto, then ban it entirely. > How should governments respond? > Wolf argues that central banks (e.g., the U.S. Federal > Reserve) should create their own official digital > currencies — central bank digital currencies (CBDC) > and make cryptocurrencies illegal. This is a solution that works. Cryptocurrencies are borne out of a desire to be rid of governments. They're the ultimate libertarian dream of a stateless world. Bitcoin and its ilk award the early adopters and pre-miners. They are not vehicles of economic empowerment. In fact, unsophisticated and poor investors can be ruined by moving their assets into crypto when subject to wild price swings, pump and dumps, and HFT/finance operations. Fiat is a system of levers that betters the health of the government that mints it. They can be used to defer recessions, hedge inflations, fund infrastructure and investments, and increase the wealth of the populace. Bitcoin cannot do this. The crypto system rewards the whales, hucksters, and scammers. Money printing also correlates with the productivity of the population, otherwise it becomes unhealthy. Taxes reap a portion of the growth and reinvest them. USD comes with assurances. FDIC and a wealth of other measures are in place to protect individuals. If it's attacked, the government will respond. If you lose your crypto wallet, you're screwed. No government backs BTC, so if the crypto is defeated (as nation state actors may have already done), everyone's investments crash to zero with no restitution. One crypto attack destroys the entire house of cards, and it is coming. It's also reassuring to know that the USD is backed by a democratically elected governance. Crypto makes hacking and cybercrime easier. It isn't untraceable like many USD transactions leveraging layering/integration and similar techniques, but it certainly doesn't require the same level of financial crime sophistication as moving money in fiat does. You don't need vast networks of physical money laundering machinery and real people in the loop. Crypto burns energy, wastes GPU resources, drives up prices, and puts our brightest minds to the task of solving stupid and meaningless problems. Crypto does not benefit society and the US government needs to step in with an alternative to meet the demand. Once they've become the de facto standard, then they can ban crypto.

nprz 5y ago

Who knew a distributed/decentralized database could be so threatening.

surfingdino 5y ago

"I’ve never quite understood why cryptocurrencies are worth anything." The first sentence is the summary of the rest of the article.

iammisc 5y ago

I think bitcoin is dumb, but this makes me want to buy it just to say a big F U to the central banks. Even stupid fake money should be legal. How authoritarian can we get?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nikolay 5y ago

Yes, it's about time. These steamy piles need to be banned - it's the only way to cut down on the greed-fueled scams. They solve no problems - despite of their "whitepapers"! They are the Rube Goldberg machine of the 21st century - invented as a honeypot by NSA or as means for the Chinese to export capital. Note: Dear HODLers, instead of downvoting me, get lives!

okareaman 5y ago

I'm curious if crypto enthusiasts believe crypto currencies won't be as regulated as other currencies and if not, in what way will it be more free and open in a beneficial manner?

cwkoss 5y ago
Right now, the government taxes USD cash savings at 5.4% (current inflation rate). There are good reasons for fiat currencies to continue existing, but it is also easy to understand why savers find a currency that cannot be devalued by federal reserve policy appealing. Personally, I also think the transparency of Bitcoin is a positive quality. Even the federal reserve does not have the capability to trace exactly where a given dollar has been - they are just integers in black box databases owned by banks. They settle net amounts, but enumerating the history of any particular dollar is impossible - even an accurate approximation would be prohibitively expensive. History is integral to the architecture of Bitcoin, so being able to trace where exactly money came from is much easier to do than for the dollar. If governments were forced to use crypto for expenses, it would provide much more transparency into government spending. I think this is especially beneficial to NGOs - they can publish their addresses and the public can audit their income and expenses directly.
- okareaman 5y ago
  Thanks, I see, especially that the govt can't print more Bitcoin
- verdverm 5y ago
  Govt transparency does not require Blockchain to happen, this could be done with any database. The hard part is recording everything. Imagine what happens when some agency loses their wallet key...
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Technically, you're right, but I think a centralized database doesn't provide much trust beyond current govt reporting methods. The nice thing about decentralized blockchains for government transparency is that it is absolute and mandatory. I'd worry that a centralized database would simply omit some expenditures if they were used for black-ops or things that could otherwise hurt the reputation of the government.

brodo 5y ago

For a more interesting critique check out this podcast titled “Bitcoin is right-wing technology” https://overcast.fm/+ZpQA7ciS0 https://overcast.fm/+ZpQA7ciS0

epaga 5y ago

Pretty bold to lead the article with “I‘ve never quite understood.“ I think the article would have been way better if the author would have taken the time to at least understand a bit why cryptocurrencies are worth a lot to a lot of people.

_def 5y ago

I'm not entirely sure what to think of cryptocurrencies but I'm pretty sure ransomware predates them and banning them wouldn't eliminate ransomware.

am33 5y ago

Why write an article if you quite literally have zero understanding of the basic benefits of crypto?

t0mbstone 5y ago
Because... The Hill

casi18 5y ago

ah yes the war on money, because the war on drugs went so well. moral panic has never helped anyone. appeals to authority and banning peoples jobs and hobbies wont get anyone on your side. prove your way is better, we'll keep building ours too.

myhf 5y ago

banning bitcoin is actually GOOD for bitcoin

agloeregrets 5y ago
Good for bitcoin the concept, bad for the gold-chasing crypto-geeks who want their 10,000% return get-rich-quick scheme. If mining was banned, it would force a move to a POS system like ETH 2.0 and would solve most of the environmental problem. Just the people who hold it and the miners would lose their income source. This should make it clear that you have the people who want crypto as a currency and people who just want profits and they don't know they are enemies.

underseacables 5y ago

I’m making an excellent side income with cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin boom and bubble allowed us to get a down payment for the house we live in. I don’t know where the money came from but cryptocurrency investment has been a boon for out fiancees.

kjksf 5y ago

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” We're at the "they fight you" stage. Yesterday it was energy usage FUD. Today it's cybercriminals FUD. I'm buying because there's only one stage left: "you win" and we're not there yet.

avgDev 5y ago
So, just something to think about, let's say I start a MLM(reverse funnel) scheme. I will tell everyone "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". When I am taken to court for running a pyramid scheme and maybe doing a little fraud along the way, I can just shout we are at the "they fight you" stage. Hopefully, everyone keeps investing in my next scheme. In reality, "they fight you" doesn't validate whatever you are doing in any way. If you get a positive court ruling, then maybe whatever you are doing is legit. Many schemes go on for a long time. I used to have quite a bit of crypto. Btc helped pay for my education, but there are better investment vehicles out there.
skytreader 5y ago
> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” Great wisdom from Gandhi but I prefer the Silicon Valley way of saying things. More inspiring. "This is what happens when you work to change things. First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world." From Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos.
- nyrosis 5y ago
  What is the return on investment of a decentralized world? What is the return on investment of a centralized world?

abeppu 5y ago

If "banning" bitcoin really meant saying that exchanges can't let you turn dollars into bitcoins and vice versa ... could that finally make bitcoin an actual currency, where to get it you exchanged a good or service for it? Would the disconnect from the rest of the financial system mean that it wouldn't just be a vehicle for speculation? I still think it's a silly system, where an extravagant amount of work is done so no one has to trust any central party (but all the speculators had to trust the exchanges). But I wonder if "banning" it could be the thing that actually lets it fulfill a little more of its original promise.

fellellor 5y ago

What an idiot. As an ignorant fool myself I was hoping for a coherent argument that would confirm my own gut instinct against bitcoin, only to be served with this!

noxer 5y ago

And another useless article of crypto (bitcoin) hate. It was getting boring the last 10 times already can HN move on? Thanks.

atc 5y ago

Clueless. Awful. This belongs in the dustbin.