9 ms·

An argument could be made that the ability to move money shouldn't be restricted to the "law abiding". Governments not only have the power to restrict the move

An argument could be made that the ability to move money shouldn't be restricted to the "law abiding". Governments not only have the power to restrict the movement of money but tax records and transaction details let them know 90% of the most important details about everyone. Additionally, sure without crypto there wouldn't wouldn't be these kinds of ransoms but the same attack could be used for terrorism/warfare. These ransoms just provide the incentive to develop solutions. A terrorist attack that had no option to decrypt the data could completely shut down entire countries.

debrice 5y ago
I believe this is a whole other debate (that I’m not willing to get into)… Still my question remains, this type of currency seems to be mostly benefiting criminals activities.
WhisperingShiba 5y ago
Remember when I a certain notorious government from the 20th century made being born a Jew illegal? I remember that. Governments do stupid things all the time, and Crypto currencies is a great technology to keep governments honest. Even if most activity remained illegal (It won't) it would STILL be a beneficent technology. This illegal business is done with or without crypto, regardless.
- 1ibsq 5y ago
  I'd recommend stop using nazi analogies for the most part. Other than that, you need internet for your transactions. Guess who has the power to control the grid? Crypto does not make you independent in absolut terms. There might always be a way to access the internet, but only for those capable - and this won't be the one you're buying food from.
  - WhisperingShiba 5y ago
    >Guess who has the power to control the grid? For now. Top level domain registration has already moved to crypto. Elon is working on Starlink. Wireless data transfer technologies are coming for a peer based internet infrastructure.
- pcwalton 5y ago
  Can someone defend cryptocurrency to me, a person who emphatically does not believe that the government of the United States is comparable to Nazi Germany?
  - VRay 5y ago
    It kinda sucks in its current state, but theoretically it has a lot of promise as a cheap and open source alternative to PayPal and a lot of banks’ services At this rate, I don’t know if that’s ever going to come about.. looks like it’s just gotten bogged down in ways to increase its value at the cost of its utility..
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      There are to many powerful people with money tied to crypto currencies for it to end. I would bet there's not one politician (state, or federal) who doesn't have a crypto account. If the USA ever outlaws it like China; I might not be so disenfranchised over our government. (I'm all for using crypto to send private messages. It's the money part that I'm on the fence about. Paypal, Credit Cards, etc. should have had strict limits on fees years ago.)
    - debrice 5y ago
      As of today this is my belief too. It’s reached billions of $ of values,I can’t think of a place to use it and all (absolutely all) the persons I know who owns some look at it as an investment not as a currency
    - creato 5y ago
      > but theoretically it has a lot of promise as a cheap and open source alternative to PayPal and a lot of banks’ services Even theoretically, how can they do this? I don't see it happening, even setting aside the much rehashed mining electricity consumption issue.
      - rich_sasha 5y ago
        There are chains where mining costs a fraction of BTC or ETH, both in terms of money and electricity use. Cardano, Polygon.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  > Remember when I a certain notorious government from the 20th century made being born a Jew illegal? A government once made being a Jew illegal and that was bad. Therefore any government making anything illegal is bad. That appears to be your logic, or am I missing something?
  - WhisperingShiba 5y ago
    Yes, you are missing the part where a small group of person making things illegal based on very limited information instead of relying on the total computational system of the human organism is a bad things. Why are drugs illegal? In a large part because black people used them. Also in part, because it threatened the traditional American way of life people were attached to.
- hluska 5y ago
  Remember when someone made a stupid Nazi analogy when the situations are completely different?? It’s incredibly hard to take anything you said after that seriously. Heck, you just made the exact same logical leap that anti-vaxxers are using to oppose vaccine mandates in Canada. That’s not good…either for dialogue or humanity.
  - WhisperingShiba 5y ago
    I don't think the situation is so different from pre-World War 1 Germany that we shouldn't be vigilant. You have to consider that, in the 1930s, we thought WW1 was so horrific that there would never be war again. There are concentration camps in China (A developed nation!) right now, for the Uighurs, yet you still don't see the horrors of WW2 as a possibility? >Heck, you just made the exact same logical leap that anti-vaxxers are using to oppose vaccine mandates in Canada. At least I'm consistent then. Can you point out where my logical leap is?
    - hluska 5y ago
      Sure, it's simple. The Nazi party tried to systematically exterminate Jewish, Roma, gay and disabled people. They stole all their possessions, used them as slave labour and then murdered them in death camps. You're comparing that to the possibility of banning a currency? There are no parallels between this and the Holocaust. You're consistent, but you're still wrong.
      - WhisperingShiba 5y ago
        It was not my intention to compare the magnitudes, you silly head
        hluska 5y ago
        Really?? If that’s the case, you’re unbelievably bad at writing. And the silly head thing makes you seem unbelievably immature. Good for you - you’re bad at communicating and lash out like a child when you’re called out. You’re basically the stereotype of the average cryptocurrency user, and frankly dude, cats like you are why there’s no adoption. You can’t just default to offensive and think people will trust your silly financial ideas. It’s usually the opposite. Good job promoting your ideas.
pcwalton 5y ago
> An argument could be made that the ability to move money shouldn't be restricted to the "law abiding". Which, of course, would not be a very convincing argument to the vast majority of the population who aren't libertarians, including me.
tommu 5y ago
Attackers are being shielded by and adversarial nation states and taking advantage of currency exfiltration via crypto currencies. So, arguably ransomware attacks should be treated as terrorism and, in some cases, acts of war. Whatever 'war' means in this context.
dkersten 5y ago
> Anybody actually uses crypto for legal goods and services? I regularly use my crypto-backed (ie balance is in cryptocurrencies) Binance Visa card to make purchases. I have some money in cryptocurrency exchanges because their lending (used to lend to margin traders) systems have better interest rates than my banks savings accounts do and when I want to use the money I use my crypto-backed Visa card. I suppose you can argue this is only possible because of the margin traders, but for me it acts as a higher interest savings account that’s a good place to keep some money that I don’t need immediately accessible (I need to move it to the card to use it) but is still accessible if I need to make a purchase with it. In the past I’ve also used cryptocurrencies to transfer money between myself (I’m in Europe) and family in Australia, as a cheaper faster means of transfer than international bank transfer or western union. So there are at least some legitimate uses, even if the criminal uses outnumber them.
- DownGoat 5y ago
  Those cards use euro/usd under the hood, so you don't actually send crypto to whoever you buy things from. They get euro/usd.
  - dkersten 5y ago
    I mentioned that in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29158328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29158328 To the user, this is transparent (for some cards anyway, eg Binance), so its effectively the same thing. Yes, I'm not actually sending the merchant crypto, but what does it matter? I am using my crypto balance to buy things, the fact that the merchant isn't receiving crypto is an implementation detail. Conceptually, it could be a choice left up to them. The question was if anyone is using cryptocurrencies for legitimate purposes and I was saying that I am using cryptocurrencies to buy things, I didn't say that the people I'm buying things from are receiving the cryptocurrencies and to me it makes little difference if they are or aren't, I have a crypto balance that I use to buy things.
    - EdwardDiego 5y ago
      > Yes, I'm not actually sending the merchant crypto, but what does it matter? In the context of the question, it matters a lot. You're not using it as tendered currency. The question was who is buying things legitimately with crypto, and your Binance card isn't that. You're buying things legitimately with that card... ...with real currency. Why merchants prefer real currency to crypto is left as an exercise for the reader.

debrice 5y ago

I believe this is a whole other debate (that I’m not willing to get into)… Still my question remains, this type of currency seems to be mostly benefiting criminals activities.

WhisperingShiba 5y ago

Remember when I a certain notorious government from the 20th century made being born a Jew illegal? I remember that. Governments do stupid things all the time, and Crypto currencies is a great technology to keep governments honest. Even if most activity remained illegal (It won't) it would STILL be a beneficent technology. This illegal business is done with or without crypto, regardless.

1ibsq 5y ago
I'd recommend stop using nazi analogies for the most part. Other than that, you need internet for your transactions. Guess who has the power to control the grid? Crypto does not make you independent in absolut terms. There might always be a way to access the internet, but only for those capable - and this won't be the one you're buying food from.
- WhisperingShiba 5y ago
  >Guess who has the power to control the grid? For now. Top level domain registration has already moved to crypto. Elon is working on Starlink. Wireless data transfer technologies are coming for a peer based internet infrastructure.
pcwalton 5y ago
Can someone defend cryptocurrency to me, a person who emphatically does not believe that the government of the United States is comparable to Nazi Germany?
- VRay 5y ago
  It kinda sucks in its current state, but theoretically it has a lot of promise as a cheap and open source alternative to PayPal and a lot of banks’ services At this rate, I don’t know if that’s ever going to come about.. looks like it’s just gotten bogged down in ways to increase its value at the cost of its utility..
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    There are to many powerful people with money tied to crypto currencies for it to end. I would bet there's not one politician (state, or federal) who doesn't have a crypto account. If the USA ever outlaws it like China; I might not be so disenfranchised over our government. (I'm all for using crypto to send private messages. It's the money part that I'm on the fence about. Paypal, Credit Cards, etc. should have had strict limits on fees years ago.)
  - debrice 5y ago
    As of today this is my belief too. It’s reached billions of $ of values,I can’t think of a place to use it and all (absolutely all) the persons I know who owns some look at it as an investment not as a currency
  - creato 5y ago
    > but theoretically it has a lot of promise as a cheap and open source alternative to PayPal and a lot of banks’ services Even theoretically, how can they do this? I don't see it happening, even setting aside the much rehashed mining electricity consumption issue.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      There are chains where mining costs a fraction of BTC or ETH, both in terms of money and electricity use. Cardano, Polygon.
himinlomax 5y ago
> Remember when I a certain notorious government from the 20th century made being born a Jew illegal? A government once made being a Jew illegal and that was bad. Therefore any government making anything illegal is bad. That appears to be your logic, or am I missing something?
- WhisperingShiba 5y ago
  Yes, you are missing the part where a small group of person making things illegal based on very limited information instead of relying on the total computational system of the human organism is a bad things. Why are drugs illegal? In a large part because black people used them. Also in part, because it threatened the traditional American way of life people were attached to.
hluska 5y ago
Remember when someone made a stupid Nazi analogy when the situations are completely different?? It’s incredibly hard to take anything you said after that seriously. Heck, you just made the exact same logical leap that anti-vaxxers are using to oppose vaccine mandates in Canada. That’s not good…either for dialogue or humanity.
- WhisperingShiba 5y ago
  I don't think the situation is so different from pre-World War 1 Germany that we shouldn't be vigilant. You have to consider that, in the 1930s, we thought WW1 was so horrific that there would never be war again. There are concentration camps in China (A developed nation!) right now, for the Uighurs, yet you still don't see the horrors of WW2 as a possibility? >Heck, you just made the exact same logical leap that anti-vaxxers are using to oppose vaccine mandates in Canada. At least I'm consistent then. Can you point out where my logical leap is?
  - hluska 5y ago
    Sure, it's simple. The Nazi party tried to systematically exterminate Jewish, Roma, gay and disabled people. They stole all their possessions, used them as slave labour and then murdered them in death camps. You're comparing that to the possibility of banning a currency? There are no parallels between this and the Holocaust. You're consistent, but you're still wrong.
    - WhisperingShiba 5y ago
      It was not my intention to compare the magnitudes, you silly head
      - hluska 5y ago
        Really?? If that’s the case, you’re unbelievably bad at writing. And the silly head thing makes you seem unbelievably immature. Good for you - you’re bad at communicating and lash out like a child when you’re called out. You’re basically the stereotype of the average cryptocurrency user, and frankly dude, cats like you are why there’s no adoption. You can’t just default to offensive and think people will trust your silly financial ideas. It’s usually the opposite. Good job promoting your ideas.

pcwalton 5y ago

> An argument could be made that the ability to move money shouldn't be restricted to the "law abiding". Which, of course, would not be a very convincing argument to the vast majority of the population who aren't libertarians, including me.

tommu 5y ago

Attackers are being shielded by and adversarial nation states and taking advantage of currency exfiltration via crypto currencies. So, arguably ransomware attacks should be treated as terrorism and, in some cases, acts of war. Whatever 'war' means in this context.

dkersten 5y ago

> Anybody actually uses crypto for legal goods and services? I regularly use my crypto-backed (ie balance is in cryptocurrencies) Binance Visa card to make purchases. I have some money in cryptocurrency exchanges because their lending (used to lend to margin traders) systems have better interest rates than my banks savings accounts do and when I want to use the money I use my crypto-backed Visa card. I suppose you can argue this is only possible because of the margin traders, but for me it acts as a higher interest savings account that’s a good place to keep some money that I don’t need immediately accessible (I need to move it to the card to use it) but is still accessible if I need to make a purchase with it. In the past I’ve also used cryptocurrencies to transfer money between myself (I’m in Europe) and family in Australia, as a cheaper faster means of transfer than international bank transfer or western union. So there are at least some legitimate uses, even if the criminal uses outnumber them.

DownGoat 5y ago
Those cards use euro/usd under the hood, so you don't actually send crypto to whoever you buy things from. They get euro/usd.
- dkersten 5y ago
  I mentioned that in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29158328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29158328 To the user, this is transparent (for some cards anyway, eg Binance), so its effectively the same thing. Yes, I'm not actually sending the merchant crypto, but what does it matter? I am using my crypto balance to buy things, the fact that the merchant isn't receiving crypto is an implementation detail. Conceptually, it could be a choice left up to them. The question was if anyone is using cryptocurrencies for legitimate purposes and I was saying that I am using cryptocurrencies to buy things, I didn't say that the people I'm buying things from are receiving the cryptocurrencies and to me it makes little difference if they are or aren't, I have a crypto balance that I use to buy things.
  - EdwardDiego 5y ago
    > Yes, I'm not actually sending the merchant crypto, but what does it matter? In the context of the question, it matters a lot. You're not using it as tendered currency. The question was who is buying things legitimately with crypto, and your Binance card isn't that. You're buying things legitimately with that card... ...with real currency. Why merchants prefer real currency to crypto is left as an exercise for the reader.