5 ms·

You can make the same argument that governments should ban physical cash.

by nroets 3y ago

ryan_lane 3y ago
Crypto scales a lot better than cash, and allows for considerably larger amounts of fraud, and not just locally, but also internationally. I also think that businesses avoiding tax by not reporting cash are putting themselves into an unfair position against businesses that are legally operating, and I'd have a preference that businesses doing this should be shut down. If you're running a thin margin business and your competitor is able to price themselves better by committing tax fraud, then you need to also commit tax fraud to compete, and that's a race to the bottom that's not good for anyone.
mrguyorama 3y ago
You cannot, because the two systems have entirely different sets of pros and cons, for entirely different sets of people. You can also compare apples and oranges, but the comparison might not be useful.
flangola7 3y ago
And many countries are moving in that direction, so what's your point?
- stale2002 3y ago
  So the point is that a large amount of people think that banning cash would be completely absurd and therefore this isn't just some issue that is relegated to obscure crypto fans.
- nroets 3y ago
  For millennia governments survived with cash in circulation. Crypto is no real threat to their existence. Regulating it with a heavy hand will do more harm than good. Those innovators will just move offshore.
  - ryan_lane 3y ago
    > Those innovators will just move offshore. Yes, let them move offshore. Being able to more easily commit tax fraud and money laundering isn't the kind of innovation we need to keep.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    The difference between cash and crypto is like the difference between building a room on top of a tall tower, vs. strapping a few jet engines to it and pointing them downwards. Both methods solve the same problem - but one does it mostly passively, while the other one wastes absurd amount of energy simulating the same thing you normally get for free.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    Crypto's been a think for almost 15 years now. I think we can dispense with the narrative that there's anything innovative going on.
    - codetrotter 3y ago
      Money of account (debits and credits on ledgers) have existed for 30,000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money But a system that takes the concept of ledgers, and makes it tied to pseudonymous addresses instead of persons, is distributed across the world, resilient to tampering, and which gives its users control over their money, and which has been in use for 15 years is 1. “Not innovative”, and 2. That in the span of 30,000 years that 15 years is enough time to really tell if this is something that will survive or if it’s just a dumb idea that will die out. I think that Bitcoin is a wonderful system, and I think that more people should take time to study Bitcoin in detail. Do not let the crypto bros and the people that only care about measuring Bitcoin in dollars distract you from the real point of Bitcoin.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        > But a system that takes the concept of ledgers, and makes it tied to pseudonymous addresses instead of persons, is distributed across the world, resilient to tampering (...) is 1. “Not innovative” Well, it is innovative, in the same sense a jet engine is. What you don't do with jet engines is using them to keep static structures in the air indefinitely. You use steel beams or concrete for that. Crypto tech as cash alternative is pretty much jet engine as a steel tower alternative.

You can make the same argument that governments should ban physical cash.

by nroets 3y ago

You can make the same argument that governments should ban physical cash.

Crypto scales a lot better than cash, and allows for considerably larger amounts of fraud, and not just locally, but also internationally. I also think that businesses avoiding tax by not reporting cash are putting themselves into an unfair position against businesses that are legally operating, and I'd have a preference that businesses doing this should be shut down. If you're running a thin margin business and your competitor is able to price themselves better by committing tax fraud, then you need to also commit tax fraud to compete, and that's a race to the bottom that's not good for anyone.

mrguyorama 3y ago

You cannot, because the two systems have entirely different sets of pros and cons, for entirely different sets of people. You can also compare apples and oranges, but the comparison might not be useful.

flangola7 3y ago

And many countries are moving in that direction, so what's your point?

stale2002 3y ago
So the point is that a large amount of people think that banning cash would be completely absurd and therefore this isn't just some issue that is relegated to obscure crypto fans.
nroets 3y ago
For millennia governments survived with cash in circulation. Crypto is no real threat to their existence. Regulating it with a heavy hand will do more harm than good. Those innovators will just move offshore.
- ryan_lane 3y ago
  > Those innovators will just move offshore. Yes, let them move offshore. Being able to more easily commit tax fraud and money laundering isn't the kind of innovation we need to keep.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  The difference between cash and crypto is like the difference between building a room on top of a tall tower, vs. strapping a few jet engines to it and pointing them downwards. Both methods solve the same problem - but one does it mostly passively, while the other one wastes absurd amount of energy simulating the same thing you normally get for free.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  Crypto's been a think for almost 15 years now. I think we can dispense with the narrative that there's anything innovative going on.
  - codetrotter 3y ago
    Money of account (debits and credits on ledgers) have existed for 30,000 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money But a system that takes the concept of ledgers, and makes it tied to pseudonymous addresses instead of persons, is distributed across the world, resilient to tampering, and which gives its users control over their money, and which has been in use for 15 years is 1. “Not innovative”, and 2. That in the span of 30,000 years that 15 years is enough time to really tell if this is something that will survive or if it’s just a dumb idea that will die out. I think that Bitcoin is a wonderful system, and I think that more people should take time to study Bitcoin in detail. Do not let the crypto bros and the people that only care about measuring Bitcoin in dollars distract you from the real point of Bitcoin.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > But a system that takes the concept of ledgers, and makes it tied to pseudonymous addresses instead of persons, is distributed across the world, resilient to tampering (...) is 1. “Not innovative” Well, it is innovative, in the same sense a jet engine is. What you don't do with jet engines is using them to keep static structures in the air indefinitely. You use steel beams or concrete for that. Crypto tech as cash alternative is pretty much jet engine as a steel tower alternative.