4 ms·

Imagine when they can limit the trade of crypto to people who have certain ideas. Or limit the percentage of your wealth you can spend on certain items (games,

Imagine when they can limit the trade of crypto to people who have certain ideas. Or limit the percentage of your wealth you can spend on certain items (games, movies, ... food). Many experts, including in this article, are describing that future. It’s why crypto and what not are a highly risky long-terms solution. If it can be abused, it will by a political actor at some point.

hotpotamus 5y ago
I've heard a landlord justify rent increases because the tenants were just going to spend the money on tattoos anyway. Seems like the present.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  That’s the whole idea behind tax cuts and increasing income share for rich people and stagnating wages for everybody else. Only rich people can use money in a productive way. Giving it to the rest is just wasted.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    I'm assuming this is a positive statement, not a normative one. I love how this undermines the basic functioning of the market via supply/demand. If demand is artificially restricted by taking money out of the pockets of consumers, how is "what to produce" decided? I think increasingly that decision is pseudo-centralized in VCs and other large investors who decide what businesses to fund.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Long term the system still works - if those VCs et al back bad ideas, they lose their money
      - spaetzleesser 5y ago
        Even if the VCs lose money that money still mostly circulates among the wealthy and well connected.
- spaginal 5y ago
  That attitude has always existed in an economy to some degree, but you still retain the option to move to something else and get away from it. A digital centrally controlled currency means you never get to escape it. Even if you switch landlords for example, it would be inescapable, you have the masters of the universe doing it to you, not just one person you can move away from.
- ykevinator2 5y ago
turtledove 5y ago
Also, monied interests will be able to buy the initial stake in currencies and be the primary beneficiaries when the price for a currency goes up. It's the same system we have today at the large scale - wealthy folks extracting money from the poor and middle class.
walkhour 5y ago
> Imagine when they can limit the trade of crypto to people who have certain ideas. You're referring to projects other than for example Bitcoin right? Since the whole purpose of Bitcoin is that it shouldn't be possible to control it centrally. Or are you saying Bitcoin will inevitably be controlled by a single entity? If that happens I expect its value to be zero.
- mateuszf 5y ago
  It seems to me that other cryptos or even CBDCs in the form of centralized databases will be used for that - to distract people from Bitcoin. Even Varoufakis understands that Bitcoin is good for the individuals, but not for the governments because it can't be controlled.
  - armitron 5y ago
    He said Bitcoin is not good at the macro-level, where it has catastrophic effects for society at large. That's quite a long way from "good for the invidivuals, but not for the governments".
  - espadrine 5y ago
    > Even Varoufakis understands that Bitcoin is good for the individuals He is not saying that. He states that individuals that own a lot of it are incentivized to like its fixed monetary policy, at the expense of the safety of the majority. > If you have gold, it is good for you if its supply is limited, fixed if possible. Same with Bitcoin, silver, dollars. (Nb. It is why the rich and powerful traditionally opposed expansionary monetary policy, crying ‘hyperinflation’ at the drop of a hat.) > A fixed money supply translates into a deflationary dynamic which, in a system prone to under-employing its people and under-investing in things society needs (i.e. capitalism), is a catastrophe in the making.
  - lottin 5y ago
    You misunderstood everything Varoufakis said.
    - 5y ago
rdbell 5y ago
This already happened to Canadians and Russians earlier this year with traditional banks & payment systems. How would this be achieved in the world of Bitcoin and Lightning Network?
peter303 5y ago
Call that technototalinarism then. An east Asian country is pioneering that.
analog31 5y ago
This could happen by public consensus if it's widely agreed (for instance) that certain coins are tainted by their use for some atrocious thing. Your coins could be cancelled.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be widely agreed to be painful. Like say the US government accepted some coin for tax payments but tainted some of them. Lots of people wouldn't want the tainted coins if they couldn't use them for a payment like that. (taxes are just one example, say a payment processor did the same thing, or whatever)
Epiphany21 5y ago
>Imagine when they can limit the trade of crypto to people who have certain ideas. Or limit the percentage of your wealth you can spend on certain items (games, movies, ... food). Do you think this can't be done already with credit cards?
- ethanbond 5y ago
  No because you can (almost) always use cash. This is one of the reasons people push back on the cashless trend, and bitcoin obviously goes way further than that.
  - hanniabu 5y ago
    You can also use P2P networks to transact crypto

hotpotamus 5y ago

I've heard a landlord justify rent increases because the tenants were just going to spend the money on tattoos anyway. Seems like the present.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
That’s the whole idea behind tax cuts and increasing income share for rich people and stagnating wages for everybody else. Only rich people can use money in a productive way. Giving it to the rest is just wasted.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  I'm assuming this is a positive statement, not a normative one. I love how this undermines the basic functioning of the market via supply/demand. If demand is artificially restricted by taking money out of the pockets of consumers, how is "what to produce" decided? I think increasingly that decision is pseudo-centralized in VCs and other large investors who decide what businesses to fund.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Long term the system still works - if those VCs et al back bad ideas, they lose their money
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      Even if the VCs lose money that money still mostly circulates among the wealthy and well connected.
spaginal 5y ago
That attitude has always existed in an economy to some degree, but you still retain the option to move to something else and get away from it. A digital centrally controlled currency means you never get to escape it. Even if you switch landlords for example, it would be inescapable, you have the masters of the universe doing it to you, not just one person you can move away from.
ykevinator2 5y ago

turtledove 5y ago

Also, monied interests will be able to buy the initial stake in currencies and be the primary beneficiaries when the price for a currency goes up. It's the same system we have today at the large scale - wealthy folks extracting money from the poor and middle class.

walkhour 5y ago

> Imagine when they can limit the trade of crypto to people who have certain ideas. You're referring to projects other than for example Bitcoin right? Since the whole purpose of Bitcoin is that it shouldn't be possible to control it centrally. Or are you saying Bitcoin will inevitably be controlled by a single entity? If that happens I expect its value to be zero.

mateuszf 5y ago
It seems to me that other cryptos or even CBDCs in the form of centralized databases will be used for that - to distract people from Bitcoin. Even Varoufakis understands that Bitcoin is good for the individuals, but not for the governments because it can't be controlled.
- armitron 5y ago
  He said Bitcoin is not good at the macro-level, where it has catastrophic effects for society at large. That's quite a long way from "good for the invidivuals, but not for the governments".
- espadrine 5y ago
  > Even Varoufakis understands that Bitcoin is good for the individuals He is not saying that. He states that individuals that own a lot of it are incentivized to like its fixed monetary policy, at the expense of the safety of the majority. > If you have gold, it is good for you if its supply is limited, fixed if possible. Same with Bitcoin, silver, dollars. (Nb. It is why the rich and powerful traditionally opposed expansionary monetary policy, crying ‘hyperinflation’ at the drop of a hat.) > A fixed money supply translates into a deflationary dynamic which, in a system prone to under-employing its people and under-investing in things society needs (i.e. capitalism), is a catastrophe in the making.
- lottin 5y ago
  You misunderstood everything Varoufakis said.
  - 5y ago

rdbell 5y ago

This already happened to Canadians and Russians earlier this year with traditional banks & payment systems. How would this be achieved in the world of Bitcoin and Lightning Network?

peter303 5y ago

Call that technototalinarism then. An east Asian country is pioneering that.

analog31 5y ago

This could happen by public consensus if it's widely agreed (for instance) that certain coins are tainted by their use for some atrocious thing. Your coins could be cancelled.

maxerickson 5y ago
It doesn't have to be widely agreed to be painful. Like say the US government accepted some coin for tax payments but tainted some of them. Lots of people wouldn't want the tainted coins if they couldn't use them for a payment like that. (taxes are just one example, say a payment processor did the same thing, or whatever)

Epiphany21 5y ago

>Imagine when they can limit the trade of crypto to people who have certain ideas. Or limit the percentage of your wealth you can spend on certain items (games, movies, ... food). Do you think this can't be done already with credit cards?

ethanbond 5y ago
No because you can (almost) always use cash. This is one of the reasons people push back on the cashless trend, and bitcoin obviously goes way further than that.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  You can also use P2P networks to transact crypto