5 ms·

> while stealing crypto may be hard or impossible to prosecute in many jurisdictions. This is one of the inherent contradictions of crypto. If the ultimate go

> while stealing crypto may be hard or impossible to prosecute in many jurisdictions. This is one of the inherent contradictions of crypto. If the ultimate goal of crypto is to create a financial system that is free of government control, then that system must also be free of the justice system because that's the government too. Asking people whose salaries are paid for with tax dollars to help you recover stolen crypto while simultaneously trying to avoid taxes and government oversight is so ironic.

reisse 4y ago
It's not really a contradiction. People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. The latter usually care about 100% APR on dollar and other scammy promises, and not about any real crypto benefits. When they get burned, they want government to step in and regulate. The former don't care much that system allows to scam people (the "it's your fault if you were scammed" attitude), they care more that it's free from regulations.
- knorker 4y ago
  > People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. Are they? I'm not so sure. Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. Traditional banking is not a natural law. It's man-made. The benefits cryptocurrencies have over traditional banking seem to all come either directly or indirectly from the extent to which they do not have the man-made rules and laws. Basically: It is hard to send money from A to B because of laws. The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. The number of anarchists is vanishingly small. People want anarchism (complete freedom) and unregulated cryptocurrency until someone else uses that anarchism against them, and then they want regulation, post-facto. It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not.
  - reisse 4y ago
    > Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. > The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. There are two sets of people who like cryptocurrency. First ones like crypto because of better yields than traditional bank accounts or investments. But they want to live in a miracle pinky unicorn world where they can have better yields risk-free by having government protections. Other than better yields, they're completely fine with traditional banking system. Second ones like crypto because it allows for easy money transfer from A to B. These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. > It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not. That's your assumptions about some people. Sure, from my side it's also only assumptions and personal anecdata, but most of the guys I know that use crypto for something useful wants government to stay away from it as far as possible, despite all the scams around. Some of them lost money on FTX, and that didn't change their position.
    - knorker 4y ago
      I see what you mean. I guess in my mind "people who like cryptocurrency" like it for reasons other than its bigger-fool value proposition. Yes, I agree that there are many many people out there who don't care one bit for e.g. bitcoin itself, but would be perfectly happy buying a regulated ETF that tracked the price of bitcoin. I implicitly did not count these people as "liking cryptocurrencies". What they like is money, in particular fiat money. > These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. These are the people I was referring to, who want "no regulation" when they want to do something fine, but "full regulation" if and when they get screwed. They want insurance only when things go poorly, and see insurance as a waste of money the days when they don't have accidents.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    The rule of law, police and investigations pre-date KYC/AML regulations by decades if not centuries. It's possible to fight crime without them. Would you say being in favor of HTTPS or encrypted messaging is equally incompatible with believing in a justice system?
pcthrowaway 4y ago
If your goal is to avoid taxes, you're better off using cash than crypto. And not everyone using crypto is a diehard libertarian.
overthrow 4y ago
Being free of government control doesn't imply lawlessness. I wouldn't want the government to control jeans manufacturing, but if someone steals your jeans, that's still a crime. There are laws against theft, and crypto and jeans are just different kinds of property.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pasc1878 4y ago
  So it is OK to have your jeans made by children and in a factory that pours toxic waste into a river used for drinking water?
  - overthrow 4y ago
    If you read my post, I said laws should apply equally to jeans and crypto. That includes child labor laws.
    - r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
      So you do want the government to control jeans manufacturing then?
      - overthrow 4y ago
        You're being silly, but I'll humor you. The world "control" has multiple meanings. In the communist sense: the government should not control the means of production for jeans or crypto. In the social welfare sense: the government should "control" whether people are allowed to steal others' jeans and crypto, and the government should "control" whether you can abuse children in connection with your jeans or crypto company. You can play with the meaning of the word, but whatever meaning you choose, jeans and crypto shouldn't be treated any differently.
- knorker 4y ago
  > I wouldn't want the government to control jeans manufacturing Of course you do. You want asbestos to be banned in the clothes you buy. You want labelling of material to not be lies. You want child labour banned. You want slavery banned. You want trademark protection. You want the factory to not dump toxic waste in the nearby river. And you say "well, of course I want that, but not... I dunno..." and give some hypothetical. Well, the same with cryptocurrency. If you think you want to get rid of all financial regulation, including AML/KYC, then I don't think you've thought about the issue for more than a fleeting moment.
olalonde 4y ago
That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. A significant portion of the economy functions with limited government intervention, as the government sucks at managing the economy. However, money is an exception in this regard, and many cryptocurrency advocates argue that it could be better managed outside of government control. This does not imply that a justice system is unnecessary; rather, it emphasizes diverse roles of government. In other words, one can agree with certain roles for government (e.g. justice system) while not agreeing with others (e.g. managing money). I don't see the irony or the contradiction.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  I think the contradiction is that if you don't allow the government access to the financial system then there is little it can do for you to get your money back or investigate financial crimes.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    The government has access to Bitcoin... Everyone has. You need to be more precise in what you mean there.
- LapsangGuzzler 4y ago
  > A significant portion of the economy functions with limited government intervention, as the government sucks at managing the economy. This just isn't true, government participation can be found throughout the entire US economy. Import and export controls, labor force participation and visas, a massive small business loan portfolio, R&D investments in things like clean technology (e.g. Tesla was initially funded by a government clean energy grant), on and on and on. The assertion that the government just lets the economy run itself is laughable. > In other words, one can agree with certain roles for government (e.g. justice system) while not agreeing with others (e.g. managing money). I don't see the irony or the contradiction. It's not a question of what the ideal role of government should be, the question hinges on the government's legitimacy and ability to do things like collect taxes (which is an important function of a government). Lots of participants in crypto believe that taxation is theft and that government is an inherently wasteful entity, all while continuing to enjoy the largely invisible benefits that government policy and enforcement provides them. This is the contradiction. EDIT: The government is the only reason that FAANG and other tech companies aren't bringing in foreign software developers who will work for $15/hr en masse. You know that if they could, they 100% would.

reisse 4y ago

It's not really a contradiction. People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. The latter usually care about 100% APR on dollar and other scammy promises, and not about any real crypto benefits. When they get burned, they want government to step in and regulate. The former don't care much that system allows to scam people (the "it's your fault if you were scammed" attitude), they care more that it's free from regulations.

knorker 4y ago
> People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. Are they? I'm not so sure. Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. Traditional banking is not a natural law. It's man-made. The benefits cryptocurrencies have over traditional banking seem to all come either directly or indirectly from the extent to which they do not have the man-made rules and laws. Basically: It is hard to send money from A to B because of laws. The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. The number of anarchists is vanishingly small. People want anarchism (complete freedom) and unregulated cryptocurrency until someone else uses that anarchism against them, and then they want regulation, post-facto. It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not.
- reisse 4y ago
  > Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. > The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. There are two sets of people who like cryptocurrency. First ones like crypto because of better yields than traditional bank accounts or investments. But they want to live in a miracle pinky unicorn world where they can have better yields risk-free by having government protections. Other than better yields, they're completely fine with traditional banking system. Second ones like crypto because it allows for easy money transfer from A to B. These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. > It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not. That's your assumptions about some people. Sure, from my side it's also only assumptions and personal anecdata, but most of the guys I know that use crypto for something useful wants government to stay away from it as far as possible, despite all the scams around. Some of them lost money on FTX, and that didn't change their position.
  - knorker 4y ago
    I see what you mean. I guess in my mind "people who like cryptocurrency" like it for reasons other than its bigger-fool value proposition. Yes, I agree that there are many many people out there who don't care one bit for e.g. bitcoin itself, but would be perfectly happy buying a regulated ETF that tracked the price of bitcoin. I implicitly did not count these people as "liking cryptocurrencies". What they like is money, in particular fiat money. > These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. These are the people I was referring to, who want "no regulation" when they want to do something fine, but "full regulation" if and when they get screwed. They want insurance only when things go poorly, and see insurance as a waste of money the days when they don't have accidents.
- olalonde 4y ago
  The rule of law, police and investigations pre-date KYC/AML regulations by decades if not centuries. It's possible to fight crime without them. Would you say being in favor of HTTPS or encrypted messaging is equally incompatible with believing in a justice system?

pcthrowaway 4y ago

If your goal is to avoid taxes, you're better off using cash than crypto. And not everyone using crypto is a diehard libertarian.

overthrow 4y ago

Being free of government control doesn't imply lawlessness. I wouldn't want the government to control jeans manufacturing, but if someone steals your jeans, that's still a crime. There are laws against theft, and crypto and jeans are just different kinds of property.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pasc1878 4y ago
So it is OK to have your jeans made by children and in a factory that pours toxic waste into a river used for drinking water?
- overthrow 4y ago
  If you read my post, I said laws should apply equally to jeans and crypto. That includes child labor laws.
  - r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
    So you do want the government to control jeans manufacturing then?
    - overthrow 4y ago
      You're being silly, but I'll humor you. The world "control" has multiple meanings. In the communist sense: the government should not control the means of production for jeans or crypto. In the social welfare sense: the government should "control" whether people are allowed to steal others' jeans and crypto, and the government should "control" whether you can abuse children in connection with your jeans or crypto company. You can play with the meaning of the word, but whatever meaning you choose, jeans and crypto shouldn't be treated any differently.
knorker 4y ago
> I wouldn't want the government to control jeans manufacturing Of course you do. You want asbestos to be banned in the clothes you buy. You want labelling of material to not be lies. You want child labour banned. You want slavery banned. You want trademark protection. You want the factory to not dump toxic waste in the nearby river. And you say "well, of course I want that, but not... I dunno..." and give some hypothetical. Well, the same with cryptocurrency. If you think you want to get rid of all financial regulation, including AML/KYC, then I don't think you've thought about the issue for more than a fleeting moment.

olalonde 4y ago

That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. A significant portion of the economy functions with limited government intervention, as the government sucks at managing the economy. However, money is an exception in this regard, and many cryptocurrency advocates argue that it could be better managed outside of government control. This does not imply that a justice system is unnecessary; rather, it emphasizes diverse roles of government. In other words, one can agree with certain roles for government (e.g. justice system) while not agreeing with others (e.g. managing money). I don't see the irony or the contradiction.

Eisenstein 4y ago
I think the contradiction is that if you don't allow the government access to the financial system then there is little it can do for you to get your money back or investigate financial crimes.
- olalonde 4y ago
  The government has access to Bitcoin... Everyone has. You need to be more precise in what you mean there.
LapsangGuzzler 4y ago
> A significant portion of the economy functions with limited government intervention, as the government sucks at managing the economy. This just isn't true, government participation can be found throughout the entire US economy. Import and export controls, labor force participation and visas, a massive small business loan portfolio, R&D investments in things like clean technology (e.g. Tesla was initially funded by a government clean energy grant), on and on and on. The assertion that the government just lets the economy run itself is laughable. > In other words, one can agree with certain roles for government (e.g. justice system) while not agreeing with others (e.g. managing money). I don't see the irony or the contradiction. It's not a question of what the ideal role of government should be, the question hinges on the government's legitimacy and ability to do things like collect taxes (which is an important function of a government). Lots of participants in crypto believe that taxation is theft and that government is an inherently wasteful entity, all while continuing to enjoy the largely invisible benefits that government policy and enforcement provides them. This is the contradiction. EDIT: The government is the only reason that FAANG and other tech companies aren't bringing in foreign software developers who will work for $15/hr en masse. You know that if they could, they 100% would.