6 ms·

I think the entire crypto portfolio is not just completely worthless, but actually has a negative value. It’s worth less than nothing.

• cinntaile 4y ago
  How? And please don't tell me you achieve this by redefining the meaning of value in this context, that would be very boring.
  • lolc 4y ago
    It can be argued that the resources spent on keeping Bitcoin running are disproportionately high to the utility it provides. Some would even say that the utility is negative, as it facilitates money-laundering.
    • taolegal 4y ago
      Criminals wear shoes and need shoes. We should ban shoes.
    • cinntaile 4y ago
      Those are valid points but that's a different meaning of value as used in the article.
      • BLKNSLVR 4y ago
        No they're not valid points, they're purely subjective and with no comparison.
        • cinntaile 4y ago
          He said "one can argue", he did not claim he was 100% right. They are definitely points that you can debate around, they are different from what The Economist was talking about.
          • BLKNSLVR 4y ago
            Ironically, then, that "one can argue" is 100% correct :)
            • cinntaile 4y ago
              I don't get what you're trying to say.
              • BLKNSLVR 4y ago
                Apologies, I was being facetious because I was tired, and I think your previous comment was correct. I did the non-HN thing and misinterpreted (towards negativity) the original to which I first replied.
    • irusensei 4y ago
      Let me guess. From the time you are replying you are probably from west Europe, live under a stable democracy and financial system and have very broad interpretation of what constitutes money laundering - that is anything outside the current financial panopticon. You probably cannot imagine why permissionless currency that can't be controlled by government is a desirable thing. After all you've never lived under tyrannical governments. It's not like there are say 45 countries in this planet where woman are forbidden to manage money, have a company or even a bank account. Pff... preposterous right? Why should allow Mohamed to send money to his mother in Palest... I mean commit money laundering?
      • Tesl 4y ago
        Oh and you are from one of those countries right? No, your interest is most likely the same as almost everyone else in crypto - seeing the line go up.
        • irusensei 4y ago
          I actually am from a country in South America with very weak democratic values. I've been blessed with skills that are marketable. I might or might not commit """money laundering""" every month to feed my mother and brother.
          • Yizahi 4y ago
            I hope you do realise that while you are saving lets say half of your money from the incompetent government or whatever is the case there, at the same time your South American oligarchs are using the same token system to steal billions from yours country, and from you indirectly. What you are proposing is eventually devolves to the social darwinism. You have a global aggressor - your government. You have a lot of citizens i nthe country, both rich and poor. All were hurt by aggressor (financially), rich less so, poor - a lot. Now you introduce a new system in the equation - tokens. It works like a private pipe from a shared pool. Now the individuals are are more proactive, smarter, and richer will utilise such pipes earlier and more thoroughly, funneling money to the offshores. And people not utilising such pipes/tokens are left "having fun staying poor". You personally is simply hoping to save your own money faster than aggressor takes them from you. The problem is that you country will be in the worse position when such "money saving" system will be working at scale.
    • zarzavat 4y ago
      “Facilitates money laundering” is another way of saying “preserves freedom”, they are two sides of the same bitcoin. The argument of whether governments and payment processors should have the power of prior restraint on all transactions (e.g. by going cashless) or not is older than cryptocurrency.
      • BLKNSLVR 4y ago
        And the US dollar punches well above its weight in "preserving freedom", despite all the rules, all the enforcement, all the regulation, all the threat of violence, all the drug wars. Theatre.
      • Yizahi 4y ago
        The question is - are benefits of token systems outweigh the negatives? Since the purpose of all these systems is law avoidance (both "legitimate" and "oppressive", all of laws), then in my opinion negatives are much much bigger than benefits. And I say this as a person who can benefit from tokens, i.e. send my money cross border without any legal oversight. But in reality for a the few grey private transaction, the majority of this system usage will be utilised by corporations, billionaires, shady governments, mafia etc. Tokens in the current state are net negative for humans. And hypothetically tokens with control and oversight and protections are just overall worse and more limited digital "money".
    • garydevenay 4y ago
      I argue that it's the best value exchange that humans have found since turning wood in to fire.
  • Yizahi 4y ago
    Since the only possible real use case of tokens is law avoidance, then it is logical that we collectively as humanity are worse off while select tokenbros are legalising stolen money or skipping paying taxes/fees and profiting from this scheme. It's a tragedy of commons case.
    • taolegal 4y ago
      Since fiat is mostly just used to enable war, and most all war, especially in modern history, is senseless slaughter: we should do everything we can to subvert fiat.
      • Yizahi 4y ago
        First - I think you are wrong about "war" part. I'm reasonably sure that global military industrial complex mostly uses digital money transfers. I think what you were talking about was a small scale rebel or terrorist armed operations, but those are rounding errors in the scale of proper war industry. Second - you are quite right that cash is used for that and without it such activities will greatly diminish. Though I suspect that they will switch to barter economy. Third - that will happen soon. Some governments are already restricting cash, though mostly the ones that are doing so are fighting not against wars or cartels, but against their local oligarchs funneling money from the country (the same problem I described in other comments). Many countries have already restricted moving cash across the border, so there it's not used for this a lot.
        • taolegal 4y ago
          > I'm reasonably sure that global military industrial complex mostly uses digital money transfers. It seems like your concept of fiat might be wrong. Fiat isn't synonymous with physical tender. Fiat is just sovereign money in whatever form it takes, digital or otherwise. Governments enforce fiat as money because it allows them to finance whatever war and other endeavor they want with an endless supply of money that they conjure out of thin air. Whereas taxes are at least paid by people, fiat is a way to steal money from ordinary people by debasing their money.
    • 4y ago
• x-complexity 4y ago
  > I think the entire crypto portfolio is not just completely worthless, but actually has a negative value. It’s worth less than nothing. If this is the case, then I would like to propose the following: Following the axiom that "It's worth less than nothing" & "crypto has negative value", that would mean that you'd be willing to pay other people to own crypto, since it's deemed to be negative value. To prove this claim, a payment of $100 made out to me would suffice.
  • less_less 4y ago
    Obviously not. If something has a negative value for society, it doesn't make sense to incentivize its ownership or use. I also think methamphetamine has a net negative value (perhaps outside of certain narrow medical uses), but I won't pay you $100 to take meth. But if you manage to abolish cryptocurrency, or meth for that matter, then I will gladly pay you $100.