3 ms·

So, in your mind, making a payment, recieving a payment and holding money in savings are always bad when it goes against any government's law or order?

lelanthran 7mo ago
> So, in your mind, making a payment, recieving a payment and holding money in savings are always bad when it goes against any government's law or order? That's not how I read GP; "Why would you want to do an end-run around the government when using currency?" is different to, well, whatever it is you are saying (I'm not sure I can decipher it well enough - seems to be "using currency is bad when it goes against laws", but I think that's fine too, so not really sure what your message is - maybe you can clarify?) Using legal tender is not a problem. Using barter (which is what using crypocurrencies boils down to) is also not a problem. Lack of reporting your income to the tax authorities is a problem. Most bartering systems are too small to warrant the attention of tax authorities, but cryptocurrencies facilitate bartering at scale, which does warrant interest.
- hollerith 7mo ago
  Cryptocurrencies enable crime, but they also enable people to circumvent bad policies, and the damage done by bad governmental policies is not small, particularly outside the Western democracies.
  - ForHackernews 7mo ago
    Helping the the wealthy opt-out or circumvent bad policy reduces the incentives to improve government policy. A short term win for individuals becomes a long term loss for society. This is true even in wealthy societies: see private schools, privatized healthcare, private transport.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - hollerith 7mo ago
      I've seen reports that poor people stuck in Venezuela have used Bitcoin to take payments for remote work and then to send payments overseas for expenses such as the purchase of a computer (necessary to keep working) that would have been impossible through government-sanctioned means because the government of Venezuela felt it necessary to prevent "hard currency" from leaving the country, which effectively made it impossible for Venezuelans without personal connections to those in power to buy things like computers at all (since Venezuela of course does not have domestic production of computers). Argentina would be another example of another government that had similar controls to prevent hard currency from leaving the country (probably no longer in place, but probably were in place for decades). I'm not pro-cryptocurrencies, but assessing their impact is not as simple as you and others here imply.
      - a_victorp 7mo ago
        I'd say that the advantage for Venezuelans has more to do on having a cheap and fast way of transferring money than the cryptocurrency itself. IIRC an article that I read pointed that crypto holdings in there where very short lived, meaning people didn't keep the coins as a way of savings
        hollerith 7mo ago
        I agree. A CC can serve both functions (a vehicle in which park cash and a way to send and receive money).
Yizahi 7mo ago
Not paying taxes and not declaring your assets is always bad, yes.

lelanthran 7mo ago

> So, in your mind, making a payment, recieving a payment and holding money in savings are always bad when it goes against any government's law or order? That's not how I read GP; "Why would you want to do an end-run around the government when using currency?" is different to, well, whatever it is you are saying (I'm not sure I can decipher it well enough - seems to be "using currency is bad when it goes against laws", but I think that's fine too, so not really sure what your message is - maybe you can clarify?) Using legal tender is not a problem. Using barter (which is what using crypocurrencies boils down to) is also not a problem. Lack of reporting your income to the tax authorities is a problem. Most bartering systems are too small to warrant the attention of tax authorities, but cryptocurrencies facilitate bartering at scale, which does warrant interest.

hollerith 7mo ago
Cryptocurrencies enable crime, but they also enable people to circumvent bad policies, and the damage done by bad governmental policies is not small, particularly outside the Western democracies.
- ForHackernews 7mo ago
  Helping the the wealthy opt-out or circumvent bad policy reduces the incentives to improve government policy. A short term win for individuals becomes a long term loss for society. This is true even in wealthy societies: see private schools, privatized healthcare, private transport.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 7mo ago
    I've seen reports that poor people stuck in Venezuela have used Bitcoin to take payments for remote work and then to send payments overseas for expenses such as the purchase of a computer (necessary to keep working) that would have been impossible through government-sanctioned means because the government of Venezuela felt it necessary to prevent "hard currency" from leaving the country, which effectively made it impossible for Venezuelans without personal connections to those in power to buy things like computers at all (since Venezuela of course does not have domestic production of computers). Argentina would be another example of another government that had similar controls to prevent hard currency from leaving the country (probably no longer in place, but probably were in place for decades). I'm not pro-cryptocurrencies, but assessing their impact is not as simple as you and others here imply.
    - a_victorp 7mo ago
      I'd say that the advantage for Venezuelans has more to do on having a cheap and fast way of transferring money than the cryptocurrency itself. IIRC an article that I read pointed that crypto holdings in there where very short lived, meaning people didn't keep the coins as a way of savings
      - hollerith 7mo ago
        I agree. A CC can serve both functions (a vehicle in which park cash and a way to send and receive money).

Yizahi 7mo ago

Not paying taxes and not declaring your assets is always bad, yes.