6 ms·

If you're an immigrant working in the US, the rules don't apply to you?

by lottin 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago
Even though I could just tell you that blindly following rules is a trait of morons and authoritarians who have a control fetish, or go on a diatribe about "legal != moral"... notice how I didn't say anything about not following the rules. The point was about the cost of doing large transfers with crypto vs a traditional bank or currency exchange shop. You can report the crypto transactions just the same, you know? (Maybe it is time to change HackerNews' name to something more reflective of the current audience. What do you think of "Conformist 'R Us"?)
- lottin 4y ago
  Of course you didn't say explicitly, you implied it... since if you add the bureaucratic costs of international money transfers, then crypto is much more expensive than a wire transfer, it would make absolutely no sense to use crypto if you followed the rules.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > since if you add the bureaucratic costs of international money transfers it will be more expensive That is plain, utterly, provably wrong. You have no idea of what kind of fees a bank will charge to exchange a wire of tens of thousands of dollars. > it would make absolutely no sense to use crypto if you followed the rules. Some of the rules are very specific at about the source and means of the funds. E.g, some taxes in Brazil are applied only for purchases done through credit cards. Others apply for financial operations between different banks. It is not illegal (and much less immoral) to know about the loopholes that allows you to avoid paying the exorbitant fees.
    - lottin 4y ago
      > provably wrong A distributed system that employs a consensus mechanism where service providers compete by wasting as much electricity as possible is provably less expensive that a centralised system where providers compete by trying to become more efficient at providing services? Then prove it.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Nice gaslighting. We were talking about the cost of sending a transaction vs the fees that a bank will charge to make an international transfer. Now, if you really want to talk about the cost of blockchains: Ethereum's transition to PoS will mean a 10000x reduction in electricity consumption. If you look at the total number of validators vs the required power to run one, the most pessimistic estimation puts the cost of securing the whole network at $8M/year. That would be less that the amount that banks spend on physical security of their armored cars alone.
        lottin 4y ago
        Ethereum doesn't use PoS. We're not discussing science fiction or hypothetical scenarios, here. We are discussing the reality of crypto-currencies vis-a-vis the banking industry. As I mentioned, when you remove trade barriers, such as the EU did, the cost of international transactions falls to zero. This is because 1) the technology that banks use to transfer money is efficient, and 2) competition drives prices down to the average cost per transactions (which is near zero, thanks to 1). Now, in the crypto-currency industry you do have competition among crypto-currency transmitters, but you don't have an efficient technology to transfer crypto-currencies, instead you have a technology that performs horrendously in terms of cost-effectiveness, so transacting in crypto-currencies will always be more expensive than using banks. If this is the case, why do international transactions sometimes cost more if you use a bank? I already explained, it's because governments require banks to perform a series of checks therefore incurring additional costs that they pass on to customers. Transmitters of crypto-currencies don't perform these checks, and therefore they don't incur these extra costs, but of course this results in transactions that are not compliant with financial laws and regulations, and so the end-user will likely have to spend additional money laundering the funds and evading law enforcement. If you say that you can prove me wrong (this is what 'provably' means), then prove me wrong.

If you're an immigrant working in the US, the rules don't apply to you?

by lottin 4y ago

If you're an immigrant working in the US, the rules don't apply to you?

Even though I could just tell you that blindly following rules is a trait of morons and authoritarians who have a control fetish, or go on a diatribe about "legal != moral"... notice how I didn't say anything about not following the rules. The point was about the cost of doing large transfers with crypto vs a traditional bank or currency exchange shop. You can report the crypto transactions just the same, you know? (Maybe it is time to change HackerNews' name to something more reflective of the current audience. What do you think of "Conformist 'R Us"?)

lottin 4y ago
Of course you didn't say explicitly, you implied it... since if you add the bureaucratic costs of international money transfers, then crypto is much more expensive than a wire transfer, it would make absolutely no sense to use crypto if you followed the rules.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > since if you add the bureaucratic costs of international money transfers it will be more expensive That is plain, utterly, provably wrong. You have no idea of what kind of fees a bank will charge to exchange a wire of tens of thousands of dollars. > it would make absolutely no sense to use crypto if you followed the rules. Some of the rules are very specific at about the source and means of the funds. E.g, some taxes in Brazil are applied only for purchases done through credit cards. Others apply for financial operations between different banks. It is not illegal (and much less immoral) to know about the loopholes that allows you to avoid paying the exorbitant fees.
  - lottin 4y ago
    > provably wrong A distributed system that employs a consensus mechanism where service providers compete by wasting as much electricity as possible is provably less expensive that a centralised system where providers compete by trying to become more efficient at providing services? Then prove it.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Nice gaslighting. We were talking about the cost of sending a transaction vs the fees that a bank will charge to make an international transfer. Now, if you really want to talk about the cost of blockchains: Ethereum's transition to PoS will mean a 10000x reduction in electricity consumption. If you look at the total number of validators vs the required power to run one, the most pessimistic estimation puts the cost of securing the whole network at $8M/year. That would be less that the amount that banks spend on physical security of their armored cars alone.
      - lottin 4y ago
        Ethereum doesn't use PoS. We're not discussing science fiction or hypothetical scenarios, here. We are discussing the reality of crypto-currencies vis-a-vis the banking industry. As I mentioned, when you remove trade barriers, such as the EU did, the cost of international transactions falls to zero. This is because 1) the technology that banks use to transfer money is efficient, and 2) competition drives prices down to the average cost per transactions (which is near zero, thanks to 1). Now, in the crypto-currency industry you do have competition among crypto-currency transmitters, but you don't have an efficient technology to transfer crypto-currencies, instead you have a technology that performs horrendously in terms of cost-effectiveness, so transacting in crypto-currencies will always be more expensive than using banks. If this is the case, why do international transactions sometimes cost more if you use a bank? I already explained, it's because governments require banks to perform a series of checks therefore incurring additional costs that they pass on to customers. Transmitters of crypto-currencies don't perform these checks, and therefore they don't incur these extra costs, but of course this results in transactions that are not compliant with financial laws and regulations, and so the end-user will likely have to spend additional money laundering the funds and evading law enforcement. If you say that you can prove me wrong (this is what 'provably' means), then prove me wrong.