12 ms·

The downsides listed are just cryptocurrency lobbyist talking points. “Require new surveillance of everyday users of cryptocurrency;” What everyday users? The

by pavlov 5y ago

The downsides listed are just cryptocurrency lobbyist talking points. “Require new surveillance of everyday users of cryptocurrency;” What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. ”Force software creators and others who do not custody cryptocurrency for their users to implement cumbersome surveillance systems or stop offering services in the United States;” Not offering these services seems like a positive outcome. ”Create more honeypots of private information about cryptocurrency users that could attract malicious actors;” Losing your money to malicious actors is a standard part of the crypto experience already. Endless scams and ransomware don’t seem to worry the author. ”Create more legal complexity to developing blockchain projects or verifying transactions in the United States—likely leading to more innovation moving overseas.” Ah, blockchain innovation, which is somehow so vital to the shining future of mankind, yet has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value with the billions already invested. Overseas sounds like a fine place to continue this pseudoinnovation charade.

colechristensen 5y ago
>has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value with the billions already invested. Overseas sounds like a fine place to continue this pseudoinnovation charade. One quiet place where blockchain makes sense is shared ledgers between large financial institutions, JPMorgan for example is working a lot on this. It's not about privacy or usurping the social order or whatever imaginative solution to all of society's problems that gets attached to so many other things... it's just a better API between institutions for transferring ownership between themselves, which is a frequent and often awkward (and ancient) tech. With blockchain you don't need a third party, with big institutions "theft" doesn't make sense. If there is an error and a transaction needs to be reversed it's in everybody's interest to do so and expected to happen from time to time and likely a built in feature. Simplifying way back end transactions between banks is pretty nice... for banks, but pretty uninteresting to most people because it's just about settling daily balances between institutions and the like which is really boring.
- pavlov 5y ago
  This use case wouldn’t be affected in any way by the proposed legislation because banks already know their customers.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > One quiet place where blockchain makes sense is shared ledgers between large financial institutions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Services_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Services_Directive Usually refusing to share information or API is a business choice. Besides, once you have a closed group, you just have signed transactions ("permissioned blockchain"), and can (must) ditch proof-of-waste. So it barely resembles what people normally think of as blockchain and starts to look more like signed git commits.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  It's a worse API. In that situation, you have trusted parties. You don't need a blockchain, and the absolutely crippling tradeoffs it brings with it.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Sometimes the “API” in these circumstances is CSV files sent by FTP nightly over private fiber links. When all parties are trusted there aren’t necessarily any crippling tradeoffs, you get mathematically provable ledgers with no need for a central trusted clearinghouse.
dannyw 5y ago
A vague, extraordinarily broad, and difficult to interpret statement is absolutely a disaster. You might not like cryptocurrency, but this is akin to the infrastructure bill having a provision classifying anyone "responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating encryption of information" as a munitions-dealer -- with wide downstream implications on (1) open source software, and libraries like OpenSSL, etc, and (2) vague enough to cover pretty much every webmaster who uses TLS certificates.
- trasz 5y ago
  Developing Open Source software is not “services”, unless you have a customer paying for it.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Plenty of open source projects receive funding for their work. Just running ads on your site to defray hosting expenses can be enough to get you classified as a commercial service these days.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Sure, but by “service” I mean “service to someone”, not “a commercial service”. It’s about who you work for and what for, not whether you provide a commercial service at all.
- asah 5y ago
  In case readers don't remember: https://www.google.com/search?q=encryption+munitions+1990s https://www.google.com/search?q=encryption+munitions+1990s And of course the t-shirt: https://www.google.com/search?q=perl+rsa+munitions+t+shirt https://www.google.com/search?q=perl+rsa+munitions+t+shirt
- pydry 5y ago
  Disaster for whom? If the side effect of this ambiguity is a mass exodus from crypto who loses out apart from speculators and the black market? I'd feel a lot more sympathetic if crypto uses cases didnt predominantly fall into those two camps (as is the case for cryptography).
eingaeKaiy8ujie 5y ago
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
- herendin2 5y ago
  IMO, you're probably right, but what you've written is even worse than the comment you're replying to. At least the OP tries to argue a point and offer some vague evidence. So please don't do this type of lazy driveby sniping here. Flagged.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how ignorant someone is or you feel they are. If you know more than someone else, that's great—please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but then please don't post. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=share%20know%20learn%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
trophycase 5y ago
This won't age well
aww_dang 5y ago
Have you considered the possibility that existing regulation is one of the barriers to use of cryptocurrencies? Is it possible that there are uses for cryptocurrencies you have not iterated over in your comment? If I suggest that sub-cent microtransactions are a use of cryptocurrency that I find useful and have implemented in a hobby project, I predict the response will be, "but that's not wildly popular, speculation and gambling are widespread!" I don't accept that these widespread uses justify prohibition or over regulation. Even if we accept that these popular uses are worthy of prohibition, other developers should not be punished or unduly burdened because of the actions of the majority. This brings us back to the first point, if regulatory burdens are too high, individuals won't innovate. >There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. >Not offering these services seems like a positive outcome. >has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value This reads as, "Prohibit everything I personally dislike or can't fully appreciate" >Overseas sounds like a fine place to continue this... "If you don't like it leave the USA", this ignores the chilling effects the US's regulations have around the globe.
- davidcbc 5y ago
  > Have you considered the possibility that existing regulation is one of the barriers to use of cryptocurrencies? Cryptocurrency has been largely unregulated since its inception and it's almost exclusively used for speculation and criminal activity. The barrier to use of cryptocurrency is that it provides nothing of value outside of those use cases, not regulation.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Look at the regulations already imposed on exchanges. Consider the legal and tax liabilities businesses take on by involving themselves with cryptocurrencies. Some nations have outright banned exchange of their national currency for cryptocurrency. If cryptocurrencies were not burdened by regulations, there wouldn't be the same informal market for person to person, cash to cryptocurrency transactions.
zeofig 5y ago
Another fantastically ignorant pontification on crypto, right here on Hacker News. Whether you like crypto or not (or whether you know anything about it or not), little of what you said is relevant to the point of the article in question.
MelonTree 5y ago
> Ah, blockchain innovation, which is somehow so vital to the shining future of mankind, yet has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value with the billions already invested. Cryptocurrencies have allowed me to feed my family back home in Lebanon, in a way that would simply not be possible with out it. I'm not sure if you don't think this happens on a daily basis, or is not of economic value.
whitepaint 5y ago
> What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. ... https://compound.finance/ https://compound.finance/ https://pooltogether.com/ https://pooltogether.com/ https://polymarket.com/ https://polymarket.com/ https://app.uniswap.org/ https://app.uniswap.org/ https://rarible.com/ https://rarible.com/ https://axieinfinity.com/ https://axieinfinity.com/ ... Anyone who has access to the internet can use the above (and it's just few examples, more on https://ethereum.org/ https://ethereum.org/) without any arbitrary restrictions set by any governments. How can you look at these things and not be in awe? And how on earth can somebody be so confident about something yet know so little about it?
- nprz 5y ago
  Because the original commenter is not arguing in good faith. There are countless examples of crypto and bitcoin helping civilians escape tyrannical states, conveniently non were mentioned.
  - foepys 5y ago
    I read this all the time but have never seen proof of this. Can somebody please name a few if they are so countless?
    - nprz 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYYh4aPXAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYYh4aPXAM https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/31/out-of-control-and-rising-why-bitcoin-has-nigerias-government-in-a-panic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/31/out-of-co...
  - bordercases 5y ago
    Well let's see if they help now.
  - penultimatename 5y ago
    Countless examples, yet you failed to name a single specific example.
nprz 5y ago
Bitcoin is a technology that improves individual freedoms. No institution can prevent you from holding or transferring bitcoin. When you buy a bitcoin you can remain confident there will never be more than 21 million btc minted, btc will never become diluted. Claiming the BTC protocol is without utility is completely disingenuous.
- goatmeal 5y ago
  a big chunk of the population believes that the government should have a total monopoly over the issuance of currency and they should be able to control every aspect of how it gets accounted for and who should facilitate transactions, in order to prevent crime. these people have a complete disregard for individuals who are treated unfairly by the financial system. when some people are shut out of their access to banking and payment processing despite not doing anything illegal, and when others are unable to do business due to too much administrative overhead imposed by financial regulation, their suffering is excusable because crime is being prevented.
- acdha 5y ago
  > Bitcoin is a technology that improves individual freedoms. No institution can prevent you from holding or transferring bitcoin. This is a common sales pitch but it's relying on the listener not thinking about the problem. Any government can prevent you from using Bitcoin by blocking your transactions: every transaction requires a network exchange and the same infrastructure which is used for things like the Great Firewall can trivially stop that as well. More importantly, however, that's a hypothetical situation for most people here. The realistic threats to think about stem from the difference between you being able to _make_ a transaction and not have any consequences for doing so. Bitcoin requires you to publish a full log of your transactions for your government to see — if you don't report transactions, skip paying taxes, or conduct a transfer with someone on a blacklist, they can use the public ledger as a signed confession. Every transaction you make can be used to deanonymize you, and that sharply limits the use of Bitcoin because there's no demand for random numbers — only real things you can do with them, which require physical presences which governments control. If your goal is to transfer money and flee the country, never coming back and writing off any friends or family left behind, Bitcoin might help. If your usage is anything else, you're just counting down until you or someone you interact with has their data compromised. Now, maybe you've also heard the marketing claims about mixers. Think about that a bit more carefully and you'll also realize the problems which make those unsafe in practice: beyond the expense, you're trusting the mixer operator not to be compromised, simply having any transaction linked to one is evidence that you're doing something illegal, and you have to worry about other users of the service using it for crimes which are serious enough to get more investigation than you personally are worth and proving that you were not knowingly helping those people. If you were running the secret police somewhere, one of the best things you could do would be set up Bitcoin exchange and mixer services and promote them in your country so you'd have people giving you signed evidence of things you probably weren't even aware of.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
> What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. I literally know someone who pays their rent with zcash. It is possible to use it as, y'know, currency.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
> What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. Lie. I can receive payments from my foreign customers in a matter of 30 minutes instead of many days via traditional banking services or Draconian fees line PayPal. I can also safely donate to anti-Putin opposition.
dbsmith83 5y ago
> Ah, blockchain innovation, which is somehow so vital to the shining future of mankind, yet has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value Do you know what economic value means? If there was no economic value, then it wouldn't be used. Your comment sounds like one that will be hilarious in the not-so-distant future. It's analogous to the whole trope "X technology is useless" or "People will never need more than X amount of memory" type of thing.

by pavlov 5y ago

colechristensen 5y ago

>has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value with the billions already invested. Overseas sounds like a fine place to continue this pseudoinnovation charade. One quiet place where blockchain makes sense is shared ledgers between large financial institutions, JPMorgan for example is working a lot on this. It's not about privacy or usurping the social order or whatever imaginative solution to all of society's problems that gets attached to so many other things... it's just a better API between institutions for transferring ownership between themselves, which is a frequent and often awkward (and ancient) tech. With blockchain you don't need a third party, with big institutions "theft" doesn't make sense. If there is an error and a transaction needs to be reversed it's in everybody's interest to do so and expected to happen from time to time and likely a built in feature. Simplifying way back end transactions between banks is pretty nice... for banks, but pretty uninteresting to most people because it's just about settling daily balances between institutions and the like which is really boring.

pavlov 5y ago
This use case wouldn’t be affected in any way by the proposed legislation because banks already know their customers.
pjc50 5y ago
> One quiet place where blockchain makes sense is shared ledgers between large financial institutions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Services_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Services_Directive Usually refusing to share information or API is a business choice. Besides, once you have a closed group, you just have signed transactions ("permissioned blockchain"), and can (must) ditch proof-of-waste. So it barely resembles what people normally think of as blockchain and starts to look more like signed git commits.
user-the-name 5y ago
It's a worse API. In that situation, you have trusted parties. You don't need a blockchain, and the absolutely crippling tradeoffs it brings with it.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Sometimes the “API” in these circumstances is CSV files sent by FTP nightly over private fiber links. When all parties are trusted there aren’t necessarily any crippling tradeoffs, you get mathematically provable ledgers with no need for a central trusted clearinghouse.

dannyw 5y ago

A vague, extraordinarily broad, and difficult to interpret statement is absolutely a disaster. You might not like cryptocurrency, but this is akin to the infrastructure bill having a provision classifying anyone "responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating encryption of information" as a munitions-dealer -- with wide downstream implications on (1) open source software, and libraries like OpenSSL, etc, and (2) vague enough to cover pretty much every webmaster who uses TLS certificates.

trasz 5y ago
Developing Open Source software is not “services”, unless you have a customer paying for it.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Plenty of open source projects receive funding for their work. Just running ads on your site to defray hosting expenses can be enough to get you classified as a commercial service these days.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Sure, but by “service” I mean “service to someone”, not “a commercial service”. It’s about who you work for and what for, not whether you provide a commercial service at all.
asah 5y ago
In case readers don't remember: https://www.google.com/search?q=encryption+munitions+1990s https://www.google.com/search?q=encryption+munitions+1990s And of course the t-shirt: https://www.google.com/search?q=perl+rsa+munitions+t+shirt https://www.google.com/search?q=perl+rsa+munitions+t+shirt
pydry 5y ago
Disaster for whom? If the side effect of this ambiguity is a mass exodus from crypto who loses out apart from speculators and the black market? I'd feel a lot more sympathetic if crypto uses cases didnt predominantly fall into those two camps (as is the case for cryptography).

eingaeKaiy8ujie 5y ago

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

herendin2 5y ago
IMO, you're probably right, but what you've written is even worse than the comment you're replying to. At least the OP tries to argue a point and offer some vague evidence. So please don't do this type of lazy driveby sniping here. Flagged.
dang 5y ago
Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how ignorant someone is or you feel they are. If you know more than someone else, that's great—please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but then please don't post. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=share%20know%20learn%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

trophycase 5y ago

This won't age well

aww_dang 5y ago

Have you considered the possibility that existing regulation is one of the barriers to use of cryptocurrencies? Is it possible that there are uses for cryptocurrencies you have not iterated over in your comment? If I suggest that sub-cent microtransactions are a use of cryptocurrency that I find useful and have implemented in a hobby project, I predict the response will be, "but that's not wildly popular, speculation and gambling are widespread!" I don't accept that these widespread uses justify prohibition or over regulation. Even if we accept that these popular uses are worthy of prohibition, other developers should not be punished or unduly burdened because of the actions of the majority. This brings us back to the first point, if regulatory burdens are too high, individuals won't innovate. >There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. >Not offering these services seems like a positive outcome. >has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value This reads as, "Prohibit everything I personally dislike or can't fully appreciate" >Overseas sounds like a fine place to continue this... "If you don't like it leave the USA", this ignores the chilling effects the US's regulations have around the globe.

davidcbc 5y ago
> Have you considered the possibility that existing regulation is one of the barriers to use of cryptocurrencies? Cryptocurrency has been largely unregulated since its inception and it's almost exclusively used for speculation and criminal activity. The barrier to use of cryptocurrency is that it provides nothing of value outside of those use cases, not regulation.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Look at the regulations already imposed on exchanges. Consider the legal and tax liabilities businesses take on by involving themselves with cryptocurrencies. Some nations have outright banned exchange of their national currency for cryptocurrency. If cryptocurrencies were not burdened by regulations, there wouldn't be the same informal market for person to person, cash to cryptocurrency transactions.

zeofig 5y ago

Another fantastically ignorant pontification on crypto, right here on Hacker News. Whether you like crypto or not (or whether you know anything about it or not), little of what you said is relevant to the point of the article in question.

MelonTree 5y ago

> Ah, blockchain innovation, which is somehow so vital to the shining future of mankind, yet has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value with the billions already invested. Cryptocurrencies have allowed me to feed my family back home in Lebanon, in a way that would simply not be possible with out it. I'm not sure if you don't think this happens on a daily basis, or is not of economic value.

whitepaint 5y ago

> What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. ... https://compound.finance/ https://compound.finance/ https://pooltogether.com/ https://pooltogether.com/ https://polymarket.com/ https://polymarket.com/ https://app.uniswap.org/ https://app.uniswap.org/ https://rarible.com/ https://rarible.com/ https://axieinfinity.com/ https://axieinfinity.com/ ... Anyone who has access to the internet can use the above (and it's just few examples, more on https://ethereum.org/ https://ethereum.org/) without any arbitrary restrictions set by any governments. How can you look at these things and not be in awe? And how on earth can somebody be so confident about something yet know so little about it?

nprz 5y ago
Because the original commenter is not arguing in good faith. There are countless examples of crypto and bitcoin helping civilians escape tyrannical states, conveniently non were mentioned.
- foepys 5y ago
  I read this all the time but have never seen proof of this. Can somebody please name a few if they are so countless?
  - nprz 5y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYYh4aPXAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYYh4aPXAM https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/31/out-of-control-and-rising-why-bitcoin-has-nigerias-government-in-a-panic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/31/out-of-co...
- bordercases 5y ago
  Well let's see if they help now.
- penultimatename 5y ago
  Countless examples, yet you failed to name a single specific example.

nprz 5y ago

Bitcoin is a technology that improves individual freedoms. No institution can prevent you from holding or transferring bitcoin. When you buy a bitcoin you can remain confident there will never be more than 21 million btc minted, btc will never become diluted. Claiming the BTC protocol is without utility is completely disingenuous.

goatmeal 5y ago
a big chunk of the population believes that the government should have a total monopoly over the issuance of currency and they should be able to control every aspect of how it gets accounted for and who should facilitate transactions, in order to prevent crime. these people have a complete disregard for individuals who are treated unfairly by the financial system. when some people are shut out of their access to banking and payment processing despite not doing anything illegal, and when others are unable to do business due to too much administrative overhead imposed by financial regulation, their suffering is excusable because crime is being prevented.
acdha 5y ago
> Bitcoin is a technology that improves individual freedoms. No institution can prevent you from holding or transferring bitcoin. This is a common sales pitch but it's relying on the listener not thinking about the problem. Any government can prevent you from using Bitcoin by blocking your transactions: every transaction requires a network exchange and the same infrastructure which is used for things like the Great Firewall can trivially stop that as well. More importantly, however, that's a hypothetical situation for most people here. The realistic threats to think about stem from the difference between you being able to _make_ a transaction and not have any consequences for doing so. Bitcoin requires you to publish a full log of your transactions for your government to see — if you don't report transactions, skip paying taxes, or conduct a transfer with someone on a blacklist, they can use the public ledger as a signed confession. Every transaction you make can be used to deanonymize you, and that sharply limits the use of Bitcoin because there's no demand for random numbers — only real things you can do with them, which require physical presences which governments control. If your goal is to transfer money and flee the country, never coming back and writing off any friends or family left behind, Bitcoin might help. If your usage is anything else, you're just counting down until you or someone you interact with has their data compromised. Now, maybe you've also heard the marketing claims about mixers. Think about that a bit more carefully and you'll also realize the problems which make those unsafe in practice: beyond the expense, you're trusting the mixer operator not to be compromised, simply having any transaction linked to one is evidence that you're doing something illegal, and you have to worry about other users of the service using it for crimes which are serious enough to get more investigation than you personally are worth and proving that you were not knowingly helping those people. If you were running the secret police somewhere, one of the best things you could do would be set up Bitcoin exchange and mixer services and promote them in your country so you'd have people giving you signed evidence of things you probably weren't even aware of.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

> What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. I literally know someone who pays their rent with zcash. It is possible to use it as, y'know, currency.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

> What everyday users? There’s nothing you can do with this stuff except speculate, gamble and build obfuscated Ponzis. Lie. I can receive payments from my foreign customers in a matter of 30 minutes instead of many days via traditional banking services or Draconian fees line PayPal. I can also safely donate to anti-Putin opposition.

dbsmith83 5y ago

> Ah, blockchain innovation, which is somehow so vital to the shining future of mankind, yet has utterly failed to produce anything of technological or economic value Do you know what economic value means? If there was no economic value, then it wouldn't be used. Your comment sounds like one that will be hilarious in the not-so-distant future. It's analogous to the whole trope "X technology is useless" or "People will never need more than X amount of memory" type of thing.