4 ms·

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 c

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.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
That's reductio ad absurdum ... a logical fallacy. It's like saying restrictions on digital child pornography are doomed to failure because they're about controlling certain bit strings. But as it turns out, people involved in that kind of stuff get identified; get arrested; go to prison; and society abhors and rejects their behavior.
- Joeboy 5y ago
  I don't think reductio ad absurdum is normally considered a logical fallacy? Maybe it's more like the fallacy of composition.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    You're right; it's only an informal fallacy; my bad!
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      It's not a fallacy of any kind. It's a form of logical argument. If A implies B and B is absurd then A is absurd.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      Whats the fallacy called when CSAM is used as an argument by authoritarians wanting to ban math?
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        I have literally no idea what you're talking about; but the fallacy that's about implying someones argument is bad because they're a bad person is called ad hominem, HTH HAND.
        rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        I think you do. It's appeal to emotion, and appeal to authority. HAND
hinkley 5y ago
It was nonsensical in 1995 as well, and Gore’s key escrow bullshit cost him some votes. As you can guess I’m still salty about that.
rich_sasha 5y ago
> Its trying to make some math illegal. You don’t outlaw the maths. You outlaw people holding assets in wallets. Courts will have no trouble distinguishing that from a ban in maths.
dasil003 5y ago
Efforts to control cryptocurrency may be doomed to failure but the reason would be because a critical mass of rich and powerful people own them and thus will not allow them to be de-valued. Your reasoning that it's "the maths" that makes crypto unassailable shows a lack of understanding of how governments exercise power and control. The law does not care about your worldview and geeky conception of the abstract mathematical nature of cryptography—and guess what—they don't have to: it's purely a question of enforceability. The different between encryption and cryptocurrency is that the former cannot be targeted, but the latter can. Consider the purpose of encryption: to make communication between 2 or more individuals private. This can happen in many different ways, from whispering in ones ear, to using postcards w/ one-time pads. It can't be regulated because there's no stable target, any group of people that needs privacy can rig up their own scheme independent of all others and change it as necessary. The value they derive is directly from the privacy and depends unqiuely on each situation. The only way for a government to defeat this is through oppressive totalitarianism with direct threat of violence and imprisonment. Cryptocurrency on the other hand has no direct utility other than its monetary value, and that monetary value is a direct function of the global belief in that value. It would be exceedingly easy for a government to make a specific cryptocurrency illegal because the mechanisms are concrete and public—you can't just swap out the maths for a new implementation. In other words governments can outlaw and devalue cryptocurrencies faster than you can establish and build trust in them. Not that I think this will happen in practice because governments are already taxing cryptocurrency and riding that gravy train as well. But the fact that they are able to tax it is clear evidence that cryptocurrency is not in fact above the law.
- lowkey 5y ago
  I don’t buy the position that government bans automatically cause the market price to crash. See marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, heroine, etc. None of those saw market demand, nor price crash. Also, unlike drugs and alcohol, Bitcoin is a digital good with no physical footprint, making enforcement much more difficult. With an open-source protocol running on some 12k nodes as well as thousands of miners, most running on Tor - it seems unlikely that a gov could take the network down or even prevent their citizens from participating in the network. At best, governments could block fiat on/off ramps, pushing bitcoin trading to decentralized exchanges or p2p transactions for trading to/from fiat. There would also be black markets for Bitcoin just as there are black markets for many other things banned by governments. Ultimately governments banning fiat on/off ramps for Bitcoin could help achieve a goal shared by Bitcoiners of a native Bitcoin currency-based economy. Governments banning bitcoin may even be good for Bitcoin adoption, though it would negatively impact price in the short term.

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.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

That's reductio ad absurdum ... a logical fallacy. It's like saying restrictions on digital child pornography are doomed to failure because they're about controlling certain bit strings. But as it turns out, people involved in that kind of stuff get identified; get arrested; go to prison; and society abhors and rejects their behavior.

Joeboy 5y ago
I don't think reductio ad absurdum is normally considered a logical fallacy? Maybe it's more like the fallacy of composition.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  You're right; it's only an informal fallacy; my bad!
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It's not a fallacy of any kind. It's a form of logical argument. If A implies B and B is absurd then A is absurd.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    Whats the fallacy called when CSAM is used as an argument by authoritarians wanting to ban math?
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      I have literally no idea what you're talking about; but the fallacy that's about implying someones argument is bad because they're a bad person is called ad hominem, HTH HAND.
      - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        I think you do. It's appeal to emotion, and appeal to authority. HAND

hinkley 5y ago

It was nonsensical in 1995 as well, and Gore’s key escrow bullshit cost him some votes. As you can guess I’m still salty about that.

rich_sasha 5y ago

> Its trying to make some math illegal. You don’t outlaw the maths. You outlaw people holding assets in wallets. Courts will have no trouble distinguishing that from a ban in maths.

dasil003 5y ago

Efforts to control cryptocurrency may be doomed to failure but the reason would be because a critical mass of rich and powerful people own them and thus will not allow them to be de-valued. Your reasoning that it's "the maths" that makes crypto unassailable shows a lack of understanding of how governments exercise power and control. The law does not care about your worldview and geeky conception of the abstract mathematical nature of cryptography—and guess what—they don't have to: it's purely a question of enforceability. The different between encryption and cryptocurrency is that the former cannot be targeted, but the latter can. Consider the purpose of encryption: to make communication between 2 or more individuals private. This can happen in many different ways, from whispering in ones ear, to using postcards w/ one-time pads. It can't be regulated because there's no stable target, any group of people that needs privacy can rig up their own scheme independent of all others and change it as necessary. The value they derive is directly from the privacy and depends unqiuely on each situation. The only way for a government to defeat this is through oppressive totalitarianism with direct threat of violence and imprisonment. Cryptocurrency on the other hand has no direct utility other than its monetary value, and that monetary value is a direct function of the global belief in that value. It would be exceedingly easy for a government to make a specific cryptocurrency illegal because the mechanisms are concrete and public—you can't just swap out the maths for a new implementation. In other words governments can outlaw and devalue cryptocurrencies faster than you can establish and build trust in them. Not that I think this will happen in practice because governments are already taxing cryptocurrency and riding that gravy train as well. But the fact that they are able to tax it is clear evidence that cryptocurrency is not in fact above the law.

lowkey 5y ago
I don’t buy the position that government bans automatically cause the market price to crash. See marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, heroine, etc. None of those saw market demand, nor price crash. Also, unlike drugs and alcohol, Bitcoin is a digital good with no physical footprint, making enforcement much more difficult. With an open-source protocol running on some 12k nodes as well as thousands of miners, most running on Tor - it seems unlikely that a gov could take the network down or even prevent their citizens from participating in the network. At best, governments could block fiat on/off ramps, pushing bitcoin trading to decentralized exchanges or p2p transactions for trading to/from fiat. There would also be black markets for Bitcoin just as there are black markets for many other things banned by governments. Ultimately governments banning fiat on/off ramps for Bitcoin could help achieve a goal shared by Bitcoiners of a native Bitcoin currency-based economy. Governments banning bitcoin may even be good for Bitcoin adoption, though it would negatively impact price in the short term.