10 ms·

There are several things happening, which is reducing confidence. Of course, as a permabull, I believe that these things are transitory. Here are some more macr

• Grustaf 5y ago
  > trying to make math illegal This is a non-sensical but very common expression from crypto-bros. It's like saying that gun control is to "make steel illegal".
  • kaetemi 5y ago
    Similar style of argument that was used for piracy back in the day. It's just copying bytes.
    • jtbayly 5y ago
      I thought pirates were people who violently boarded ships, killed, ransomed and/or sold those on board and stole the ship and its contents.
      • kaetemi 5y ago
        Yes, just moving items from one place to another. How dare they make that illegal.
    • kjksf 5y ago
      Exactly. Governments will successfully ban Bitcoin, just like they successfully banned piracy. Things like https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=category:401 https://thepiratebay.org/search.php?q=category:401 are long gone now, successfully banned.
      • Joeboy 5y ago
        If this is sarcasm, then I'd point out that link doesn't work here. If it isn't, I'd point out there are still numerous Pirate Bay mirrors I can access. Either way, I wish it were generally easier to discern which comments on this page are intended literally and which are sarcastic.
      • missedthecue 5y ago
        You can easily imagine a situation though where the government bans crypto and as a result, Bitcoin crashes irrecoverably and trades for maybe a few hundred dollars a coin at best. Think about it - all of the legitimate institutional money would have to divest, all of the loosely interested Coinbase users would sell because they don't want fines/jail, the only way to buy the coin would be with cash because your bank and credit card would report any BTC purchases to the feds... It would be a much smaller and less liquid market. Bitcoin isn't going away obviously, but that doesn't mean it's worth $50k a coin in the event it's banned.
      • kaetemi 5y ago
        Oh, yes, very successfully.
  • rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    I'm not a crypto-bro. The crypto(graphy)wars of the 90s were doomed to failure. Restrictions on cryptography were ultimately about controlling algorithms with certain sized inputs. Its trying to make some math illegal. It seems nonsensical in 2021. The crypto(currency) wars of 20s ARE doomed to failure. Restrictions on cryptocurrency were ultimately about controlling algorithms with certain inputs. Its trying to make some math illegal.
    • Ekaros 5y ago
      There is no banning crypto-currencies. Making the on and off ramps too hard for majority is a real possibility on other hand.
      • singlow 5y ago
        By that logic, there is no banning murder.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • Ekaros 5y ago
          Getting away with murder isn't exactly simple. I think majority of cases are found out eventually and then there is whole process. So there is point banning it as it clearly results in less murders.
          • singlow 5y ago
            And banning cryptocurrency could be done just as effectively. If exchanging US dollars for crypto was illegal. The value would drop overnight because most of the investors would not be interested in doing something illegal.
      • Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Unless people will eventually do without on and off ramps.
  • reginold 5y ago
    This point is meant to be more about the futility of making Bitcoin illegal because it's just math and code. Similar to how strong encryption was an "illegal munitions export" from the USA in the 90s. In a world where CNC machines were in every house, the same thing would apply re: gun control. People could just make their own guns. I'm not saying it's a super effective point, but just making sure you get the framing.
    • afavour 5y ago
      I guess the comparison breaks down when it comes to usability. If you could make a gun and bullets at home there’d be nothing stopping you from using it. But if India bans apps that allow you to pay with Bitcoin then it becomes a far less viable proposition.
      • reginold 5y ago
        How can you ban an app? Another way centralized app stores can backfire!
    • Grustaf 5y ago
      Anyone can make their own alcohol at home, without any kind of expensive machine, but in many places that's quite successfully outlawed.
  • willmadden 5y ago
    It’s more legislating that only the government should be able to use steel and math. I think those are both terrible ideas. Ask the people in an Australian concentration camp or that were jailed/fined for organizing peaceful protests on Facebook how they feel about gun control and encryption backdoors.
    • pfisch 5y ago
      "Australian concentration camp" do you mean temporary quarantine to stop the spread of Covid? People who were held in real concentration camps would be disgusted with this comparison.
      • willmadden 5y ago
        [flagged]
  • motoboi 5y ago
    I think a better metaphor to gun control is "trying to make physics illegal". This is because you can ban people from buying guns. But you certainly won't be able to stop people from creating their own weapons. Obviously too little people have the capability, but yes, then can. With bitcoin is more complicated, because trying to control self-custody is basically trying to ban maths. All you need is an internet connection and some google to find software capable of self-custody. Hell, you can do that with excel if you really want to. So, as hard as trying to ban math.
    • Grustaf 5y ago
      Haha yes, banning physics is the perfect metaphor here!
    • littlestymaar 5y ago
      > With bitcoin is more complicated, because trying to control self-custody is basically trying to ban maths. All you need is an internet connection and some google to find software capable of self-custody. Hell, you can do that with excel if you really want to. That would be a shame if the software you downloaded stole the coins from you wouldn't it? Or if your ECDSA implementation in Excel contained a typo and you lost everything. The only reason cryptography ban in the 90s failed was because everybody in the business world needed to have access to strong crypto for to use security reasons. If people had to roll their own crypto, the NSA cryptanalysts would have had a really fun time because almost all of them would have been utterly broken.
      • lowkey 5y ago
        > The only reason cryptography ban in the 90s failed was because everybody in the business world needed to have access to strong crypto for to use security reasons. If people had to roll their own crypto, the NSA cryptanalysts would have had a really fun time because almost all of them would have been utterly broken. You wouldn’t really need to roll your own crypto to post transactions to the Bitcoin network, a Bitcoin hash is basically sha256 done twice. Bitcoin uses much the same cryptography that most banks, ssl certs and other internet cryptography use. Unless you plan to memory hole the entire topic of sha256 and bitcoin hash algorithms, it seems unlikely that any government operating on the premise of a citizenry with the right to free speech, could prevent it.
  • littlestymaar 5y ago
    Yes, this is missing the point that bitcoin isn't only about “Math”. Bitcoin is a peer to peer protocol even more than it is a cryptographic protocol. If you have a private key but no access to the peer to peer network, you're not gonna do much with your bag of bytes. (Btw, the enormous majority of bitcoin usage already goes through exchanges, just because it's almost the only practical way to use it so I don't really think this law is gonna change anything in itself)
    • rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      I would say that as long as there is a communication channel provided to a person, they can interact with the bitcoin network. That is the great invention, a boring grey (digital) metal that can be transmitted over a communication channel. Plaintext channel level censorship can be circumvented by encryption and steganography. The blocks can be received by satellite today. Sending Transactions over SMS is a thing. This may exist today, but I assume in the future bots on WhatsApp will broadcast raw hex/base64 encoded transactions to the network for peers in restricted countries. Policing WhatsApp content is extremely difficult, we have seen in the recent years. One can restrict the centralized exchanges. One cannot control every communication channel, or prevent every ECDSA signature from being signed.
      • littlestymaar 5y ago
        Having full node connected to the chain through some whatsapp proxy is making exchange-less bitcoin usage even more cumbersome and dangerous than it already is. And it assume you can get this whatsapp proxy from a reliable source because it would be a pity if it was in fact a honeypot run by the government to find you (EncroChat-like).
      • hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        > Sending Transactions over SMS is a thing. This may exist today, but I assume in the future bots on WhatsApp will broadcast raw hex/base64 encoded transactions to the network for peers in restricted countries. Policing WhatsApp content is extremely difficult, we have seen in the recent years. If someone trusts a WhatsApp bot with their bitcoins, they brought it upon themselves.
  • rsync 5y ago
    "This is a non-sensical but very common expression from crypto-bros." It is sensible. Properly designed cryptosystems produce ciphertext that is indistinguishable from a random number. So, at the very end of it all, the possession of random numbers would need to be regulated. This is unenforceable (of course) and absurd. The analogy you make to (physical goods) is a poor one. Regardless of how you feel about restrictions on physical items or how difficult they might be to enforce, it is at least plausible that these restrictions could be enforced. Not so with a prohibition on random numbers.
    • Grustaf 5y ago
      > Properly designed cryptosystems produce ciphertext that is indistinguishable from a random number. It's also impossible to tell from a 100 dollar bill if it has been taxed or not, yet taxes are enforceable. Almost no law enforcement relies on physically preventing something from existing, especially in any kind of automated manner. So yes, they can't stop people from possessing private keys that correspond to wallets, or whatever, but they can stop banks from working with crypto related business, force google to block results, force ISPs to take down crypto sites, block any kind of crypto app from both app stores, etc etc. Even block foreign sites. Not to mention, jail people who touch crypto. Not saying they will or that they should, but "crypto is math" is not a relevant argument.
• NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  That's a long list of things that looks hardly any different today than it did yesterday; unlike the price of BTC.
• anm89 5y ago
  These are all good and totally valid points but in the end I don't think they explain why crypto is down. I think it is pure risk off.
  • NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    I mean I'm sure that's right in some sense; when the only trade is the momentum trade it only takes a small amount of change in sentiment to trigger these kind of large moves. I guess? I just don't understand at all what the structure of the bitcoin market is supposed to be.
• NicoJuicy 5y ago
  * Custodial Bitcoin loaning service reported losing (wrapped) Bitcoin when defi platform was compromised. I don't remember a time they weren't compromised - https://rekt.news https://rekt.news
• skybrian 5y ago
  If, say, India makes the apps illegal, some people will find them anyway, but they won't be as popular. (And they won't run on an iPhone.) This will give other kinds of financial apps and investments an advantage. This all depends on how motivated people are and how readily they will switch to alternatives.
• impulser_ 5y ago
  I think the biggest problem with crypto is leverage. Over 2 billion liquidated in 12 hours. This is how a normal 5% drop turns into a 20% drop. One person selling a few million in Bitcoin can cause a few billion drop in the whole market lol. I think regulations on leverage would be the best thing for the crypto market as a whole. You can sign up for an account at an exchange and get 10x leverage without KYC or anything. That's insane.
  • SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
    Who is covering that credit risk? Or is your point that no one is, and that if enough levered trades go the wrong way, the whole system is at risk?
    • impulser_ 5y ago
      Pretty much. Most exchanges will automatically sell your position at market price if you reach a certain percentage of margin. That how you get the massive dips that get bought very quickly. You have tens of thousands of Bitcoin being sold at market price. It causes a domino effect across the whole crypto market because people are using leverage to buy any coin even shitcoins like Doge and Shib.
• _Nat_ 5y ago
  I don't get why someone would think that Bitcoin would have long-term viability. Seems like it's more of a question of when/how it'll fade out rather than if. The only real unique property that Bitcoin would seem to have in the long-term would be its history, especially its initial-distribution that concentrates wealth in the hands of few. And that's not an advantage but a liability: if it went mainstream, most folks would probably just say, hey, let's use some alt-coin instead so we all have more wealth (which obviously wouldn't be true for the minority of people who are Bitcoin whales, but why would the majority of people who aren't care?). Anyway, just commenting to ask: > There are several things happening, which is reducing confidence. Of course, as a permabull, I believe that these things are transitory. As far as I can tell, it's all transitory; that much seems plainly obvious. So if you're a permabull, well, why? What future might you imagine in which Bitcoin, specifically, remains a preferred system? In particular, what reason might you have to believe that a Bitcoin you might buy today would have any significant value in systems 20 years from now? I'm not even asking for a reasonable prediction, but what's even a plausible best-case scenario? For example, let's say cryptocurrency goes mainstream, and everyone everywhere starts using it -- what sequence of events might lead to Bitcoins available today being relevant in such a future system?
  • reginold 5y ago
    This seems like a massive question outside the scope of what this thread can deliver. Recommend reading "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas Antonopoulos!
    • _Nat_ 5y ago
      Reading a pop-culture piece won't help; I get the technical stuff. Rather, I'm curious why someone who appears to have followed Bitcoin a bit might self-identify as a "permabull".
      • reginold 5y ago
        Ah okay! Well, in case the OP doesn't respond, and because this is a much larger question, perhaps there's another book that fits the bill. I haven't read "The Bitcoin Standard" but believe it addresses some of your curiosities.
• Jansen312 5y ago
  Enforceable just not 100%. If they take out main investors, crypto will have a cap that will be way lower than now. Then control gpu where enforce gpu to stop working if it detects crypto usage, a bit like printers unable to print money. Next, stop all exchanges making crypto has no monetary exchange capabilities other than another crypto. Drive all crypto activities to underground and send in the law enforcers as hound to send ordinary citizens to mandatory 10+ years jail term. With math, you just need a pencil and some papers. With crypto you need gpus, electricity and exchange. You do the math how easy to crack down on crypto miners.
  • reginold 5y ago
    Bitcoin mining can be done with pen and paper: http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and-paper.html?m=1 http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and... 0.67 hashes per day!