5 ms·

I don’t know the content of the bill, but it’s a matter of degree. It’s harder to control your transactions when you have self-custody. It requires a higher le

I don’t know the content of the bill, but it’s a matter of degree. It’s harder to control your transactions when you have self-custody. It requires a higher level of coordination.

Nextgrid 5y ago
You just need to control the onramps and offramps. Bitcoin is of no use if you can't exchange it for anything tangible.
- gonehome 5y ago
  That’s only true if you must transact in fiat. It’s mostly true today, may be less true in a future with this kind of restriction on on-ramps and off-ramps. Even so, it’d have to be a global restriction on all exchanges which is more challenging to coordinate.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    If your tokens become valueless to other Canadians, other Canadians won't accept them. Non-Canadians who trade with Canadians won't accept them because they can't trade them with Canadians. The value goes to zero by induction.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      Yeah, a lot of this assumes you get out of Canada at that point. Just like the people fleeing Russia or Ukraine. The thing crypto gives you is the capability to get your wealth out intact (at least whatever you had moved into self-custody). If you have fiat in banks frozen by the Canadian government your wealth is trapped. You’re right if Canada banned Bitcoin it could influence the value of the coin. Similar to governments refusing transactions in rubles. The difference in capability is in the ability to move your wealth and that short of global coordination a global store of value (controlled supply, non-government etc.) is more resilient. The fiat comparison would be having the entirety of your wealth in cash in your house - obviously not viable (and good luck trying to cross a border with it). Crypto is also more resilient to government meddling in currency production (this is often over-stressed in US, but is a real problem in developing countries where kleptocrats devalue the currency to steal the wealth). It’s more similar to buying gold and having it on you, but with crypto you don’t have to keep it on your person to maintain direct control of it. You just need to know the seed words.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        I wasn't discussing the case of Canada banning Bitcoin but of Canada sanctioning the truckers' wallets. Wherever the truckers go, their Bitcoins would no longer be allowed on Canadian exchanges. The fiat equivalent would be moving money to an overseas account. Before you are sanctioned, doing so is just as easy as buying Bitcoin. After you are sanctioned, both are equally hard. The difference is that your Bitcoins can be demonetized, while your overseas assets can only be seized if the governments cooperate.
        oceanplexian 5y ago
        How is it hard? Canadian sanctions only work in Canada. Say I'm an American, for example. I'd receive "sanctioned" bitcoins from a Canadian and then send them non-sanctioned bitcoins back to a different wallet address. There is no "exchange" being used in this process. I could then happily spend or transfer said coins in the 99% of the world that isn't Canada.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        This is explained in the GGGP comment.
        gonehome 5y ago
        It’s not as easy to move money to an overseas account as it is to buy Bitcoin. Your money on that account is still being trusted to some authority and your guarantees on it are limited. The real fiat equivalent would be moving all your wealth into cash first (literally physical bills in your house), which is obviously worse and harder to move. Your bitcoins cannot also be demonetized any differently than fiat. It’s similar to sanctions on rubles. Both types of value are vulnerable to government bans affecting the price. The difference is with crypto and self-custody you can transact privately despite that (similarly to if you held cash, but holding lots of cash is again harder and more vulnerable to a single government’s stupidity). If your dollars in a bank are frozen you can’t transact at all. Your self-custody BTC can’t be frozen on the blockchain, you retain a lot more ability to transact globally.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- jgod 5y ago
  All that's required for people to exchange it for something tangible, is for people to start.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    And among other things a price that's stable enough that you can actually cost goods without the value spiking upwards or downwards under your feet. Zoom out to the "all" range on https://www.bitcoinprice.com/ https://www.bitcoinprice.com/ and try to tell me with a straight face that you're looking at a graph that belongs to a stable currency. Heck, even just look at the last two years. Part of the problem with Bitcoin in specific among all of these cryptocurrencies is that the Bitcoin community in particular is completely divided on whether they want a speculative asset or a functional currency. You can not have both. A currency that is regularly spiking in value to the degree that Bitcoin spikes (even a currency that spikes upwards in value) is not suitable for everyday transactions. A currency that doubles or even triples its value in 2 years is not a good currency. The bigger thing to understand is that it is impossible to fix this problem with Bitcoin, because a sizable portion of the Bitcoin community doesn't want Bitcoin to be a currency. They want a speculative asset. In my opinion, that portion of the community is significantly larger and has significantly more influence than the portion of the community trying to create a currency.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      That’s not that big of a deal, just move BTC into a stable coin first and then use that for the transaction. Bitcoin is more akin to a gold like store of value than a currency.
      - danShumway 5y ago
        I know that this thread jumps around a lot and you might be responding to multiple people, but quick reminder of the specific comment thread I'm responding to: ---- > You just need to control the onramps and offramps. > Bitcoin is of no use if you can't exchange it for anything tangible. ---- > All that's required for people to exchange it for something tangible, is for people to start. ---- The need to move BTC over to a stable coin before you spend it was part of Nextgrid's criticism to begin with. It requires an off-ramp, a functional exchange that will accept Bitcoin and give you something spendable. I guess to be charitable, maybe the argument you're making is that the stablecoin is the transactable part of all of this and the stablecoin will be accepted ubiquitously and that it will be harder to regulate those kinds of exchanges. However, it's worth asking in that world why anyone would be using Bitcoin for transactions if they're just going to transfer it over to a better cryptocurrency later to spend it? Why wouldn't they just use the stablecoin?
- stale2002 5y ago
  > You just need to control the onramps and offramps. Thats a nice theory, but in reality it is false/implausible to be able to control every single on and off ramp in the world. Evidence: Nobody is currently controlling all the on an off ramps, despite the fact that I have heard the same exact argument that you are making right now, for literally over a decade.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    You don't even need to off-ramp it, which was the whole point of crypto. I could cut your lawn, sell you an Xbox, or buy an old tractor completely with BTC. The government can cry about it all it wants, it can pass a hundred laws, or issue a thousand court orders. But at the end of the day, it has absolutely zero control if two individuals want to voluntarily exchange crypto with each other. We've already seen this play out with the illegal drugs trade and P2P file sharing. Spoiler alert: The government lost.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      What you've really seen play out is that the government hasn't bothered to regulate cryptocurrencies yet. After they regulate cryptocurrencies, this becomes much easier to prevent.
    - leonth 5y ago
      In virtually every country, there exists the definition of legal tender, which basically is the currency that taxes are paid and the currency that courts recognize as viable payment for debts. So really, in FreedomLand, you can work and get paid in BTC, but if FreedomLand only recognizes FreedomDollar as legal tender, then when you need to pay income tax, the government will charge you in FreedomDollar, and you need to exchange your BTC to FreedomDollar. If you cannot or don't want to pay tax, then of course police will prosecute you, and courts will also require settlements in FreedomDollar. Nevermind you have millions of BTC or XBoxes. Now of course, this "problem" would disappear if FreedomLand recognizes BTC as legal tender, but now FreedomLand government loses all monetary control, and then economic activity descends into chaos.

I don’t know the content of the bill, but it’s a matter of degree. It’s harder to control your transactions when you have self-custody. It requires a higher level of coordination.

Nextgrid 5y ago

You just need to control the onramps and offramps. Bitcoin is of no use if you can't exchange it for anything tangible.

gonehome 5y ago
That’s only true if you must transact in fiat. It’s mostly true today, may be less true in a future with this kind of restriction on on-ramps and off-ramps. Even so, it’d have to be a global restriction on all exchanges which is more challenging to coordinate.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  If your tokens become valueless to other Canadians, other Canadians won't accept them. Non-Canadians who trade with Canadians won't accept them because they can't trade them with Canadians. The value goes to zero by induction.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Yeah, a lot of this assumes you get out of Canada at that point. Just like the people fleeing Russia or Ukraine. The thing crypto gives you is the capability to get your wealth out intact (at least whatever you had moved into self-custody). If you have fiat in banks frozen by the Canadian government your wealth is trapped. You’re right if Canada banned Bitcoin it could influence the value of the coin. Similar to governments refusing transactions in rubles. The difference in capability is in the ability to move your wealth and that short of global coordination a global store of value (controlled supply, non-government etc.) is more resilient. The fiat comparison would be having the entirety of your wealth in cash in your house - obviously not viable (and good luck trying to cross a border with it). Crypto is also more resilient to government meddling in currency production (this is often over-stressed in US, but is a real problem in developing countries where kleptocrats devalue the currency to steal the wealth). It’s more similar to buying gold and having it on you, but with crypto you don’t have to keep it on your person to maintain direct control of it. You just need to know the seed words.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      I wasn't discussing the case of Canada banning Bitcoin but of Canada sanctioning the truckers' wallets. Wherever the truckers go, their Bitcoins would no longer be allowed on Canadian exchanges. The fiat equivalent would be moving money to an overseas account. Before you are sanctioned, doing so is just as easy as buying Bitcoin. After you are sanctioned, both are equally hard. The difference is that your Bitcoins can be demonetized, while your overseas assets can only be seized if the governments cooperate.
      - oceanplexian 5y ago
        How is it hard? Canadian sanctions only work in Canada. Say I'm an American, for example. I'd receive "sanctioned" bitcoins from a Canadian and then send them non-sanctioned bitcoins back to a different wallet address. There is no "exchange" being used in this process. I could then happily spend or transfer said coins in the 99% of the world that isn't Canada.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        This is explained in the GGGP comment.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        It’s not as easy to move money to an overseas account as it is to buy Bitcoin. Your money on that account is still being trusted to some authority and your guarantees on it are limited. The real fiat equivalent would be moving all your wealth into cash first (literally physical bills in your house), which is obviously worse and harder to move. Your bitcoins cannot also be demonetized any differently than fiat. It’s similar to sanctions on rubles. Both types of value are vulnerable to government bans affecting the price. The difference is with crypto and self-custody you can transact privately despite that (similarly to if you held cash, but holding lots of cash is again harder and more vulnerable to a single government’s stupidity). If your dollars in a bank are frozen you can’t transact at all. Your self-custody BTC can’t be frozen on the blockchain, you retain a lot more ability to transact globally.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jgod 5y ago
All that's required for people to exchange it for something tangible, is for people to start.
- danShumway 5y ago
  And among other things a price that's stable enough that you can actually cost goods without the value spiking upwards or downwards under your feet. Zoom out to the "all" range on https://www.bitcoinprice.com/ https://www.bitcoinprice.com/ and try to tell me with a straight face that you're looking at a graph that belongs to a stable currency. Heck, even just look at the last two years. Part of the problem with Bitcoin in specific among all of these cryptocurrencies is that the Bitcoin community in particular is completely divided on whether they want a speculative asset or a functional currency. You can not have both. A currency that is regularly spiking in value to the degree that Bitcoin spikes (even a currency that spikes upwards in value) is not suitable for everyday transactions. A currency that doubles or even triples its value in 2 years is not a good currency. The bigger thing to understand is that it is impossible to fix this problem with Bitcoin, because a sizable portion of the Bitcoin community doesn't want Bitcoin to be a currency. They want a speculative asset. In my opinion, that portion of the community is significantly larger and has significantly more influence than the portion of the community trying to create a currency.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    That’s not that big of a deal, just move BTC into a stable coin first and then use that for the transaction. Bitcoin is more akin to a gold like store of value than a currency.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      I know that this thread jumps around a lot and you might be responding to multiple people, but quick reminder of the specific comment thread I'm responding to: ---- > You just need to control the onramps and offramps. > Bitcoin is of no use if you can't exchange it for anything tangible. ---- > All that's required for people to exchange it for something tangible, is for people to start. ---- The need to move BTC over to a stable coin before you spend it was part of Nextgrid's criticism to begin with. It requires an off-ramp, a functional exchange that will accept Bitcoin and give you something spendable. I guess to be charitable, maybe the argument you're making is that the stablecoin is the transactable part of all of this and the stablecoin will be accepted ubiquitously and that it will be harder to regulate those kinds of exchanges. However, it's worth asking in that world why anyone would be using Bitcoin for transactions if they're just going to transfer it over to a better cryptocurrency later to spend it? Why wouldn't they just use the stablecoin?
stale2002 5y ago
> You just need to control the onramps and offramps. Thats a nice theory, but in reality it is false/implausible to be able to control every single on and off ramp in the world. Evidence: Nobody is currently controlling all the on an off ramps, despite the fact that I have heard the same exact argument that you are making right now, for literally over a decade.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  You don't even need to off-ramp it, which was the whole point of crypto. I could cut your lawn, sell you an Xbox, or buy an old tractor completely with BTC. The government can cry about it all it wants, it can pass a hundred laws, or issue a thousand court orders. But at the end of the day, it has absolutely zero control if two individuals want to voluntarily exchange crypto with each other. We've already seen this play out with the illegal drugs trade and P2P file sharing. Spoiler alert: The government lost.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    What you've really seen play out is that the government hasn't bothered to regulate cryptocurrencies yet. After they regulate cryptocurrencies, this becomes much easier to prevent.
  - leonth 5y ago
    In virtually every country, there exists the definition of legal tender, which basically is the currency that taxes are paid and the currency that courts recognize as viable payment for debts. So really, in FreedomLand, you can work and get paid in BTC, but if FreedomLand only recognizes FreedomDollar as legal tender, then when you need to pay income tax, the government will charge you in FreedomDollar, and you need to exchange your BTC to FreedomDollar. If you cannot or don't want to pay tax, then of course police will prosecute you, and courts will also require settlements in FreedomDollar. Nevermind you have millions of BTC or XBoxes. Now of course, this "problem" would disappear if FreedomLand recognizes BTC as legal tender, but now FreedomLand government loses all monetary control, and then economic activity descends into chaos.