China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’(dailybusinessgroup.co.uk)
dailybusinessgroup.co.uk
China declares cryptocurrency deals ‘illegal’
https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/09/bitcoin-falls-as-china-declares-crypto-illegal/
693 comments
(Comment mentions title mentioning mining because it was posted to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28642415 before we merged the threads.)
There's a lot of vague language in these types of threads. What does "banned" mean? Does that mean illegal and punishable by death? Or does that mean, connections to identified crypto computing resources will be blocked by the great firewall?
Apart from the missing actual news (it's now also trading), what's not to understand? Banned by a government means illegal. Trading cryptocurrencies is now illegal there. Who cares how they enforce it? They will enforce it.
https://news.yahoo.com/chinas-central-bank-rules-crypto-0944...
https://news.yahoo.com/chinas-central-bank-rules-crypto-0944...
What it means is that crypto is shut down from anything that involves bookkeeping. Banks, financial transactions, money transfers, buying stuff from kiosk, ... No legal commerce or finance.
Crypto is now purely black market currency in China.
Crypto is now purely black market currency in China.
From my understanding of the announcements, Chinese companies will be banned from performing any cryptocurrency related services, transactions or exchanges, including smart contract platforms like Ethereum. No firm mention of private individuals, or what particular penalties companies would face.
But either way, it greatly limits the value of cryptocurrencies (and related concepts) in China.
But either way, it greatly limits the value of cryptocurrencies (and related concepts) in China.
One good thing to always keep in mind is that China structurally maintains the status quo of a Leninist state --- IMO, the entire reason they banned crypto is that crypto's goal --- relative anonymity, privacy, and freedom of where to move one's money --- goes directly _against_ China's closed, tightly regulated financial system. The bureaucrats at their Ministry of Finance must be absolutely appalled by the idea that one could transfer money via bitcoin easily outside China without any sort of authorization.
I suspect what is triggering this crackdown is that the enforcement of capital controls is becoming more critical as more people are nervous of a financial crisis in China because of bad debt / bad banks. Need to make sure those depositors have no place to go.
Though to be honest I don't understand how bitcoin can be used for getting money out of the country. Who would be willing to accept onshore CNY in payment for bitcoin in volumes if everyone is trying to move out?
Though to be honest I don't understand how bitcoin can be used for getting money out of the country. Who would be willing to accept onshore CNY in payment for bitcoin in volumes if everyone is trying to move out?
Someone who needs CNY, that can then buy real goods and export them.
OK, so that may have worked before the ban, but unless you have a way to export under the counter, I presume this route is gone after the btc transaction ban.
Well, you'd have to do an off the books / private transaction of BTC-for-CNY, but there's presumably an infinite number of ways for someone to loan / give CNY for (to the government) nothing (and in reality, BTC, etc).
And with the CNY, you can buy real goods. And with those real goods, you can export them. And with those exports, you can sell them for foreign currency.
So as long as they're running an export-oriented economy, it's going to be very hard to fundamentally stamp out crypto as an option. This mostly strikes retail traders / buyers.
And with the CNY, you can buy real goods. And with those real goods, you can export them. And with those exports, you can sell them for foreign currency.
So as long as they're running an export-oriented economy, it's going to be very hard to fundamentally stamp out crypto as an option. This mostly strikes retail traders / buyers.
But my point is any time you export some physical good, you have a transaction going under the nose of the authorities. That's where they can stop you and ask some questions on the transaction that paid for those goods.
You paid for the transaction in CNY which is perfectly legal & normal (I would assume). The volume of exports from China is crazy and investigating every single transaction is not practical.
Yeah so part of it is in CNY and part of it is in btc. Can gov really say "wow you payed too little for that!"
Not even that. Although that's definitely another option!
I was thinking of two separate transactions with two separate parties: (BTC -> CNY, hidden as gift or loan) then (CNY -> goods, perfectly legal and normal).
I was thinking of two separate transactions with two separate parties: (BTC -> CNY, hidden as gift or loan) then (CNY -> goods, perfectly legal and normal).
The don't live in china after they cash out, they have the money to immigrate to a better country.
Probably around 80% of wealth is stored as real estate of which 60% is probably is stored as the relative proximity of people. So capital control is as simple as forbidding land from walking away and foreign countries not accepting migration of a billion people. basically a solved problem.
I have always imagined China to have more sophisticated tools for monitoring financial flows than Soviet Russia. Crypto (at least Bitcoin) isn't all that anonymous, nor outside CCP control so long as there are exchanges and miners located inside China. For instance, there were (probably unfounded) fears that the CCP could control Bitcoin by proxy if more than 50% of the hash rate was owned by Chinese miners.
I suspect the recent crackdown is more related to a fear of uncontrolled capital flight due to regulatory changes and anticipated slowdown of the economy.
I suspect the recent crackdown is more related to a fear of uncontrolled capital flight due to regulatory changes and anticipated slowdown of the economy.
I doubt it. It's not that hard to figure it out if every other capital flow is being tracked.
I'm guessing it has to do with preventing people from moving wealth out of the country.
I'm guessing it has to do with preventing people from moving wealth out of the country.
> A statement posted on the Central Bank’s website today says that “virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal currency.”
China has "banned Bitcoin" dozens of times over the last decade. I mean, this is an ancient and well-known meme involving a certain South Park clip after all.
Maybe this time is for real, but all of these media announcements have one thing in common. They always conflate the concept of "legal tender" and "legality."
The number of authorities around the world who have warned citizens about Bitcoin using language like "no legal tender status" and "risky" and "no government guarantee" is legion. Easily thousands of times. Every time "journalists" with no business reporting on tech, law, or foreign governments interpret this as a "ban." 99% of the time, nothing happens and there is no ban.
So, maybe this time is different. Over the last year, an initiative toward greater centralized control seems to be underway in China's tech and finance sectors. Disappearing of wealthy founders. Restrictions on video game consumption. The three red lines. The ejection of the Chinese mining industry.
Then again, maybe not.
China has "banned Bitcoin" dozens of times over the last decade. I mean, this is an ancient and well-known meme involving a certain South Park clip after all.
Maybe this time is for real, but all of these media announcements have one thing in common. They always conflate the concept of "legal tender" and "legality."
The number of authorities around the world who have warned citizens about Bitcoin using language like "no legal tender status" and "risky" and "no government guarantee" is legion. Easily thousands of times. Every time "journalists" with no business reporting on tech, law, or foreign governments interpret this as a "ban." 99% of the time, nothing happens and there is no ban.
So, maybe this time is different. Over the last year, an initiative toward greater centralized control seems to be underway in China's tech and finance sectors. Disappearing of wealthy founders. Restrictions on video game consumption. The three red lines. The ejection of the Chinese mining industry.
Then again, maybe not.
> China has "banned Bitcoin" dozens of times over the last decade
This is a false narrative pushed by the Bitcoin cult. It's supposed to create an impression that nothing has changed, so the price should not change.
This is a false narrative pushed by the Bitcoin cult. It's supposed to create an impression that nothing has changed, so the price should not change.
or it's completely factual?
2013: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-05/china-s-p...
2015: https://archive.is/Higoz
2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-china-idUSKCN1BJ1...
2018: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-eliminates-all-cryptoc...
2021: https://archive.is/s7nbw
"China Has Banned Bitcoin 13 Times Since 2012":
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-great-bitcoin-mining-mi...
2013: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-05/china-s-p...
2015: https://archive.is/Higoz
2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-china-idUSKCN1BJ1...
2018: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-eliminates-all-cryptoc...
2021: https://archive.is/s7nbw
"China Has Banned Bitcoin 13 Times Since 2012":
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-great-bitcoin-mining-mi...
A more informed history might be built like so:
https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&op=docs
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%8A%A0%E5%AF%86%E8%B4%A7%...
This seems like another step on a journey to maintain control over assets. So not the same thing as you have linked but nothing that should effect the market as China has been clear on its intentions.
I would be more curious about the larger game. A few front runner governments will establish there own ways to deal with crypto and then others will copy from a, b ,c. China's methodology is becoming more formal and therefore more copy able. I think we can already see the larger pattern and we already know who copies who traditionally... Would love to see a write up from this perspective.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&op=docs
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%8A%A0%E5%AF%86%E8%B4%A7%...
This seems like another step on a journey to maintain control over assets. So not the same thing as you have linked but nothing that should effect the market as China has been clear on its intentions.
I would be more curious about the larger game. A few front runner governments will establish there own ways to deal with crypto and then others will copy from a, b ,c. China's methodology is becoming more formal and therefore more copy able. I think we can already see the larger pattern and we already know who copies who traditionally... Would love to see a write up from this perspective.
2017 and 2018 articles are actually consequent steps: 2017 - ban internal exchanges, 2018 - ban external exchanges from offering services in China.
No, because those are different restrictions of different crypto-related activities.
You basically claim that Bitcoin was banned a month ago in China. But that is not true, it was legal to make Bitcoin transactions.
You basically claim that Bitcoin was banned a month ago in China. But that is not true, it was legal to make Bitcoin transactions.
You are not paying attention.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/search?q=china+ban+bitcoin&...
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/search?q=china+ban+bitcoin&...
This seems to me the same as their old pronouncements. Nothing new as in newsworthy. Maybe they are doing this as a reminder of their older announcements? Sort of like "I told you so!"
They banned crypto mining before, but did they really ban crypto transactions before?
A friend of mine that works in the industry as a business developer for Chinese blockchain firms since 2017 said the exact same thing!
My market perspective:
"Everything is priced in."
Apparently, not in the crypto markets. Old news is new news, apparently.
Policy perspective:
The more DeFi becomes a thing, the less a policy like this will matter. It will still matter a lot, but it will pack less of a punch due to decentralized services.
My overall perspective:
If crypto still feels as speculative (in terms of trading crypto) 10 years later, then I feel the experiment to find a good use-case has ran for long enough.
My market perspective:
"Everything is priced in."
Apparently, not in the crypto markets. Old news is new news, apparently.
Policy perspective:
The more DeFi becomes a thing, the less a policy like this will matter. It will still matter a lot, but it will pack less of a punch due to decentralized services.
My overall perspective:
If crypto still feels as speculative (in terms of trading crypto) 10 years later, then I feel the experiment to find a good use-case has ran for long enough.
>If crypto still feels as speculative (in terms of trading crypto) 10 years later, then I feel the experiment to find a good use-case has ran for long enough.
Maybe I'm taking this to a place you didn't intend, or maybe this is an ignorant question but. . . .
What is the US market now, compared to 10 years ago. My experience is that 10 years ago Bitcoin was used to either buy drugs, or as a bet made by college kids that they could make easy money.
And. Well. It seems still pretty much the same in terms of existing primarily as a speculative tool.
Maybe I'm taking this to a place you didn't intend, or maybe this is an ignorant question but. . . .
What is the US market now, compared to 10 years ago. My experience is that 10 years ago Bitcoin was used to either buy drugs, or as a bet made by college kids that they could make easy money.
And. Well. It seems still pretty much the same in terms of existing primarily as a speculative tool.
I'd agree, but I'm willing to wait and see for 10 more years. For one, I do see some developments nowadays that are making me excited (not money related). Also, tackling blockchain problems is hard.
And in all fairness, the speed at which you can send Ripple and similar cryptocurrencies is actually quite cool. It's a shame that it's mostly in its own little bubble still.
> Bitcoin was used to either buy drugs
In all fairness, I'm not necessarily against it. I'm not pro, but I do believe that many drug laws in most countries are against the idea of freedom. And I find it a comforting yet troubling thought (for different reasons) that cryptocurrencies fight against that (troubling: a 13 year old buying/using some very strong drugs, comforting: a 31 year old doing it for experimentation -- freedom is important).
And in all fairness, the speed at which you can send Ripple and similar cryptocurrencies is actually quite cool. It's a shame that it's mostly in its own little bubble still.
> Bitcoin was used to either buy drugs
In all fairness, I'm not necessarily against it. I'm not pro, but I do believe that many drug laws in most countries are against the idea of freedom. And I find it a comforting yet troubling thought (for different reasons) that cryptocurrencies fight against that (troubling: a 13 year old buying/using some very strong drugs, comforting: a 31 year old doing it for experimentation -- freedom is important).
I swear I spend half my upvotes these days on grey comments that, AFAICT, someone simply disagrees with. In this case, the commenter was foolish enough to answer someone's question in a manner free from jackassery; stay classy, HN.
They probably want to install the digital yuan, so better get rid of the competition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_renminbi
Wow, imagine living in a country where the legal financial assets you own can be turned criminal where accessing them is punished with hard labor. Sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
Imagine living in a civilized country that can't bring itself to ban a massive distributed Ponzi scheme with huge environmental consequences. Bitcoin alone uses about 1/10th as much energy as the entire world's concrete production. Even if it were to transition entirely to renewable energy it also generates as much e-waste as an entire first-world country.
These things actually have huge meaningful state security risks. Not too long ago the entire country of Albania got swept up in Ponzi schemes. It go so bad, they imprisoned their finance minister for trying to stop it. Then they had a civil war about it. The IMF had to airdrop in bags of money to bail them out. [1]
1997 Albania is what the maxis are working towards.
In this case the PRC not only has the moral high ground, but also is acting out of a real, rational fear of economic collapse.
If America had any sense, it would put the ban hammer down on this before it gets any worse.
[1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.ht...
These things actually have huge meaningful state security risks. Not too long ago the entire country of Albania got swept up in Ponzi schemes. It go so bad, they imprisoned their finance minister for trying to stop it. Then they had a civil war about it. The IMF had to airdrop in bags of money to bail them out. [1]
1997 Albania is what the maxis are working towards.
In this case the PRC not only has the moral high ground, but also is acting out of a real, rational fear of economic collapse.
If America had any sense, it would put the ban hammer down on this before it gets any worse.
[1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/jarvis.ht...
It's going to look a lot less like a Ponzi scheme if/when the dollar collapses.
No, it won't. It's a negative-sum system that redistributes wealth from new entrants to old entrants and miners. It's a pyramid.
And what exact path do you see a 'dollar collapse'?
And what exact path do you see a 'dollar collapse'?
Gold and the US dollar, to some extent, fit that characterization as well.
Sorry, I'm not going to be dragged into a debate about if/when the collapse will happen. But if it does, your claim bitcoin is a pyramid will look silly, since it will be one of several assets that will be rushed into as a safe haven from inflationary forces. If you want to take the position such a collapse would cause a flight from crypto assets, be my guest.
The value of cryptocurrency depends on how much people are willing to provide goods and services in exchange for cryptocurrency. If people are just trading crypto:dollar then a dollar collapse could destroy crypto too.
It the dollar collapsed, but the internet & support infrastructure remained, then people might be more willing to accept bitcoin over dollars.
In the mad max future you describe the only currency will be guns and ammo. Crypto requires a functional power grid and internet.
False - there are plenty of scenarios where you have a power grid and ability to reach the Internet and still need to transact illegally to survive.
In a time of economic calamity, if you think your grocery store will take 'Coolbits', or their employees will take 'WokeCoin' as payment, or suppliers will accept 'TrumpGoldBucks' I think you'd be mistaken.
If there were a serious problem with the USD, first, because of it's seigneurage position in the world, it would imply a 'giant crisis'. It would be bad.
People would switch to other currencies like Euros, Pounds, Canadian / Australian Dollars and Swiss Franks, RMB and Yen because they are fungible and transactable.
Gold and other commodities would increase in value, but only as stores of value, they're not good for transactions.
If there were a serious problem with the USD, first, because of it's seigneurage position in the world, it would imply a 'giant crisis'. It would be bad.
People would switch to other currencies like Euros, Pounds, Canadian / Australian Dollars and Swiss Franks, RMB and Yen because they are fungible and transactable.
Gold and other commodities would increase in value, but only as stores of value, they're not good for transactions.
Nobody said the grocery store would take crypto.
But you'd park your capital in places that are safe havens and convert out as late as possible to the (increasingly worthless) dollars. Arguably we're already at a place where keeping any non-emergency funds in USD is a terrible idea.
My point is exactly what you said: that you'd see a flight of capital to hard assets like gold and bitcoin to shield it from inflationary forces and their contagion. In that scenario, bitcoin is no more a "ponzi" than gold.
But you'd park your capital in places that are safe havens and convert out as late as possible to the (increasingly worthless) dollars. Arguably we're already at a place where keeping any non-emergency funds in USD is a terrible idea.
My point is exactly what you said: that you'd see a flight of capital to hard assets like gold and bitcoin to shield it from inflationary forces and their contagion. In that scenario, bitcoin is no more a "ponzi" than gold.
Crypto is a delusion. It's a very bad idea to move money into an 'asset' that has no value other than to the degree other people share that delusion.
Real-estate is valuable on some level, so are most other assets - even 'currencies', however poorly managed, are valuable because people need them to do stuff.
The worst place to go is crypto, it's the bottom of the 'store of value' equation in almost every way - the fact that the government would wipe them out immediately being just one of many risks.
Cypto, at least the way they exist today, have no rational place in anything other than for entertainment and intellectual speculation.
Real-estate is valuable on some level, so are most other assets - even 'currencies', however poorly managed, are valuable because people need them to do stuff.
The worst place to go is crypto, it's the bottom of the 'store of value' equation in almost every way - the fact that the government would wipe them out immediately being just one of many risks.
Cypto, at least the way they exist today, have no rational place in anything other than for entertainment and intellectual speculation.
Your opinion is duly noted, my opinion is that your opinion has little bearing on what the price of BTC will be if the purchasing power of a dollar drops quickly. My prediction is that demand for it will surge and so the price will go up somewhat inversely. I'll note that you're not taking the counter position, just stating why that would be a "very bad idea" for people to demand it. I'm guessing you've been saying the same thing as the price has gone up to $50k. At some point you'll either be proven right in a massive collapse or will have to capitulate that the market is not irrational. What is your threshold? (Year/price threshold where you'd capitulate.) If you're on your death bed and BTC is worth $1M, will you change your mind, or just presume you didn't live long enough to see yourself proven right?
You talk exactly like an MLM salesperson.
Do you have a seminar I can register for?
...
But seriously, people will speculate on things and bubbles will happen in all assets, some are more resilient than others.
While the future is never easy to know, your predictions can be dismissed out of hand because we definitely have some 'hard parameters' we have to deal with.
BTC is definitely an outlet for illegal activity and tax evasion, and to the extent that it becomes material in that way, it will just be banned. And when it's banned in China, EU, USA, UK, Aussie, Canada, Japan, Korea etc. - well it probably won't be of much use to anyone.
No regime will allow their tax base to be challenged in that way. And neither will the population, so the banning will be a popular measure.
So by nature if it's own design, it can only be an annoying parlour game.
Do you have a seminar I can register for?
...
But seriously, people will speculate on things and bubbles will happen in all assets, some are more resilient than others.
While the future is never easy to know, your predictions can be dismissed out of hand because we definitely have some 'hard parameters' we have to deal with.
BTC is definitely an outlet for illegal activity and tax evasion, and to the extent that it becomes material in that way, it will just be banned. And when it's banned in China, EU, USA, UK, Aussie, Canada, Japan, Korea etc. - well it probably won't be of much use to anyone.
No regime will allow their tax base to be challenged in that way. And neither will the population, so the banning will be a popular measure.
So by nature if it's own design, it can only be an annoying parlour game.
Why resort to personal attacks?
You can dismiss my predictions all you want, they're still predictions. Maybe instead of just dismissing them, state your own.
You can dismiss my predictions all you want, they're still predictions. Maybe instead of just dismissing them, state your own.
Because arguments such as "You will regret on your deathbed not going BTC when it could go to $1M" is not an argument, it's something worse than ad hominem - it's snake oil / infomercial marketing masquerading as reason. At least ad hominem is honest.
Consider the inanity of BTC trading at $1M, something so utterly volatile couldn't feasibly be used as a currency, for much the same reason we cannot use it now, it's deflationary: nobody wants to spend it, they want to hold it and believe in magic. That's the last thing you want in a currency, it means circulation dries up.
BTC has already killed itself as a currency for reasons obvious before it's inception.
Chiming in on boards with 'to the moon' / 'don't lose out' / 'you too could be a millionaire' rhetoric is not helping.
Consider the inanity of BTC trading at $1M, something so utterly volatile couldn't feasibly be used as a currency, for much the same reason we cannot use it now, it's deflationary: nobody wants to spend it, they want to hold it and believe in magic. That's the last thing you want in a currency, it means circulation dries up.
BTC has already killed itself as a currency for reasons obvious before it's inception.
Chiming in on boards with 'to the moon' / 'don't lose out' / 'you too could be a millionaire' rhetoric is not helping.
Hilarious - I never said anything about regret.
I said simply that either you’ll be proven right in a crash, have some point where you’d be willing to reverse your position, or just never change your mind. These three scenarios are obviously the only outcomes. So I was wondering if you could write down a point in terms of time + price where you’d change your mind. If not, and there is no other scenario where you would, then you’re holding an unfalsifiable position.
I said simply that either you’ll be proven right in a crash, have some point where you’d be willing to reverse your position, or just never change your mind. These three scenarios are obviously the only outcomes. So I was wondering if you could write down a point in terms of time + price where you’d change your mind. If not, and there is no other scenario where you would, then you’re holding an unfalsifiable position.
Personal attacks are a weak argument, friend.
> It's going to look a lot less like a Ponzi scheme if/when the dollar collapses.
Even if it does, Bitcoin may very well collapse before the dollar.
Even if it does, Bitcoin may very well collapse before the dollar.
It doesn't even meet the basic definition of a ponzi scheme. This is pure FUD. You might not like it, but that doesn't make it something it is not. There are plenty of other things that I would consider a waste of electricity but I am not going to make doing them punishable by hard labor.
It's a negative sum wealth redistribution scheme the takes money from new entrants and gives it to miners and to old entrants. The miner portion is what makes it negative-sum.
It doesn't meet the traditional definition, no, which is why I referred to it as a "distributed Ponzi scheme" - it's closer to an MLM in classical parlance.
[edit] Here's the SEC definition:
> A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.
> With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse.
And here are the red flags that the SEC warns folks to watch for:
> High returns with little or no risk.
> Unregistered investments.
> Unlicensed sellers.
> Secretive, complex strategies.
[edit2] So with that in mind, it meets many (but not all) of the classic definition elements.
1. All returns are generated by bringing new money into the system. The only way someone can make money on Bitcoin is if a new person invests. That money is then distributed to the earlier participant, net of miner fees.
2. There is no actual business underlying.
3. The constant flow of new money is required to keep the price from collapsing because miners extract something like $50M in welfare from the system per day.
4. The entire space is unregistered investments hawked by unlicensed sellers.
It doesn't meet the traditional definition, no, which is why I referred to it as a "distributed Ponzi scheme" - it's closer to an MLM in classical parlance.
[edit] Here's the SEC definition:
> A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.
> With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse.
And here are the red flags that the SEC warns folks to watch for:
> High returns with little or no risk.
> Unregistered investments.
> Unlicensed sellers.
> Secretive, complex strategies.
[edit2] So with that in mind, it meets many (but not all) of the classic definition elements.
1. All returns are generated by bringing new money into the system. The only way someone can make money on Bitcoin is if a new person invests. That money is then distributed to the earlier participant, net of miner fees.
2. There is no actual business underlying.
3. The constant flow of new money is required to keep the price from collapsing because miners extract something like $50M in welfare from the system per day.
4. The entire space is unregistered investments hawked by unlicensed sellers.
I personally don't like the term ponzi scheme because it describes deliberate fraud. Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme or at least it wasn't built for it. I personally like the term MLM (multi level marketing) because you can do MLM with any product, even products that aren't specifically designed for MLM. It's just that cryptocurrencies lend themselves especially well to MLM.
[deleted]
Let's see:
"Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that"
"investment fraud" - "induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information"
Major cryptocurrencies do not present "false information", therefore they are not "investment fraud", therefore they are not Ponzi schemes.
"Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that"
"investment fraud" - "induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information"
Major cryptocurrencies do not present "false information", therefore they are not "investment fraud", therefore they are not Ponzi schemes.
Cryptocurrency schemes are public but their technology is complex enough (vs their typical participant) that it is not at all necessary to present false information. If anything it is this fact alone makes cryptocurrencies innovative over traditional fraud schemes. No overt deceit required - only average ignorance and gullibility. Being open, decentralized and harder to stop will likely allow them to scale at least a couple orders of magnitude larger before they collapse.
That's the thing. If there's no fraud involved, it is not a Ponzi scheme. Merely something we do not fully understand. People might have arguments for or against the collapse of cryptocurrencies, but as with any other poorly understood thing your guess is as good as mine.
Any scheme that pays early “investors” with money from new investors will eventually collapse leaving masses who feel they were cheated. When no lies are told yet relevant education or information is held back or obfuscated or buried in pages of legalese or complex computer code - some consider that fraud others not. How will the poor masses that feel about this question? How will they vote?
> Any scheme that pays early “investors” with money from new investors will eventually collapse leaving masses who feel they were cheated.
This statement is obviously false, as there are people born daily.
> information .. buried in code .. some consider that fraud
It doesn't matter that people consider it fraud. It is not fraud neither by definition, nor it is fraud "in spirit of law" (burying it in code does not have the necessary intention to deceive).
You can twist the definition of fraud as much as you want in your mind, but if you do that - you are just a part of ignorant mob with pitchforks.
This statement is obviously false, as there are people born daily.
> information .. buried in code .. some consider that fraud
It doesn't matter that people consider it fraud. It is not fraud neither by definition, nor it is fraud "in spirit of law" (burying it in code does not have the necessary intention to deceive).
You can twist the definition of fraud as much as you want in your mind, but if you do that - you are just a part of ignorant mob with pitchforks.
Miner fees are paid from transaction fees (since mining is quite literally verifying transactions). You don't lose value for miners being paid.
They then have to liquidate the coins to pay for the electricity. This extracts real dollar liquidity from the system and the sell pressure pushes down prices.
Based on your phrasing of the SEC definition, the real estate market also feels like it fits the bill :-/
Edit: parent comment was edited, originally said:
> It actually matches the SEC definition of a Ponzi scheme haha, which happens to be a little bit less restrictive than a traditional definition.
> It's a negative sum wealth redistribution scheme the takes money from new entrants and gives it to miners and to old entrants. The miner portion is what makes it negative-sum.
Edit: parent comment was edited, originally said:
> It actually matches the SEC definition of a Ponzi scheme haha, which happens to be a little bit less restrictive than a traditional definition.
> It's a negative sum wealth redistribution scheme the takes money from new entrants and gives it to miners and to old entrants. The miner portion is what makes it negative-sum.
Real estate is a productive asset, because you need somewhere to live. If folks were holding the real estate, empty, simply to resell I would agree - but I wouldn’t advocate real estate as the future backing of money either way.
Can't you rent real estate assets, making it positive sum?
The building is positive sum like any other investment. Nothing prevents you from building more. Land is zero sum for obvious reasons.
Not all investments are positive sum - metals are zero sum, proof of work coins are negative sum.
You can’t build a building on top of nothing so if land has a building on it you can apportion some of the productivity of the building to the land itself.
Agreed land without improvements is zero sum.
You can’t build a building on top of nothing so if land has a building on it you can apportion some of the productivity of the building to the land itself.
Agreed land without improvements is zero sum.
I didn't mean for society, I really meant for the investors, and investor in real estate has the option to rent it out so buyers of real estate operate a positive sum business.
I'm not talking about zero sum to society. I mean to investors. Land isn't zero sum because you can rent it out.
By that definition you can lend your crypto as well making it positive sum.
When you lend your crypto you're transferring ownership, when you rent you aren't. So crypto loans only make money through interest while land makes rent well over interest.
Imagine lumping all cryptocurrency into proof of work.
Eh.. I don't want to diminish the impact of Chinese action, but US not so long ago banned owning gold ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act ) by individuals. It is only recently that this got relaxed. Government can and do whatever the populace will bear.
Lets not bear this then. Central Bank Digital Currency is just around the corner if crypto is banned. CBDC is an authoritarian's wet dream.
Speak against the government--you're no longer allowed to transact in society.
Retroactive tax...boom, negative balance.
Speak against the government--you're no longer allowed to transact in society.
Retroactive tax...boom, negative balance.
What do you propose as a solution for central banks and monetary policy attempting to operate in structural stagnation [1]? Do you believe digital tulips will maintain their value as real productivity declines due to demographics? Physical cash can be inflated with relatively the same ease as a CBDC through QE. You're seeking a level of control and authority of monetary policy only accessible to nation states.
We agree on the problem, but not the solution. Technology does not solve challenges at the people/politics OSI layer.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/700-year-decline-of-interes...
We agree on the problem, but not the solution. Technology does not solve challenges at the people/politics OSI layer.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/700-year-decline-of-interes...
You can't solve structural economic problems with monetary policy. That's how you get (hyper)inflation, and that story's been born out dozens of times across history.
The solution to real productivity declines is real productivity increases, and the incentive to reallocate your resources into the most productive activities is lacking when the cost of capital is effectively nil and the central bank bails out any misallocation.
The solution to real productivity declines is real productivity increases, and the incentive to reallocate your resources into the most productive activities is lacking when the cost of capital is effectively nil and the central bank bails out any misallocation.
Compound interest over time causes gaps between the rich and poor to grow exponentially. The wider the rich poor gap the less efficient your economy.
Societies that realize this implement debt forgiveness policies such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) and modern bankruptcy and inflation. Societies that fail to do this stagnate, with many in them trapped by debt slavery.
Slow growing stagnant societies lose competitions for resources to societies that implement debt forgiveness. Sometimes stagnant societies implode in civil wars and revolutions as happened in France, Russia, China. This also results in wealth gaps shrinking but at far greater cost.
Societies that realize this implement debt forgiveness policies such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) and modern bankruptcy and inflation. Societies that fail to do this stagnate, with many in them trapped by debt slavery.
Slow growing stagnant societies lose competitions for resources to societies that implement debt forgiveness. Sometimes stagnant societies implode in civil wars and revolutions as happened in France, Russia, China. This also results in wealth gaps shrinking but at far greater cost.
I don't understand your comment. When the cost of capital is nil then the common expectation is that too much investment drives up inflation and we then have to prioritize and allocate resources. Governments are begging for this to happen.
I don't know why but when the central bank intends lower interest rates to overheat the market people somehow stop believing that the market even exists. It's really strange. I mean it. People talk about how the market works and will fix everything on its own but as soon as there is any government action even action that supports the market suddenly people think it will completely break down, as if the market didn't exist or function the way they say.
I don't know why but when the central bank intends lower interest rates to overheat the market people somehow stop believing that the market even exists. It's really strange. I mean it. People talk about how the market works and will fix everything on its own but as soon as there is any government action even action that supports the market suddenly people think it will completely break down, as if the market didn't exist or function the way they say.
The way I look at it, the point of a market is to convince us to do things we don't want to do that nevertheless other people want us to do. Money is the mechanism for this. When you get paid for something, it sweetens the deal, so that you put up with stuff like going in to work 9-5 and dealing with angry customers and writing unit tests. Prices are an information-carrying mechanism: they tell people which activities are in high demand but low supply, and conversely, which activities aren't really worth doing.
Bankruptcy and unemployment are the means with which we "prioritize and allocate resources". They are, by definition, when you stop doing what you were doing and start doing something else. So no, I would disagree that "governments are begging for this to happen" - I can't think of a government that's encouraged bankruptcy and unemployment since the 1980s.
I view various forms of capital as a way to get over local maxima in economic efficiency. You borrow money or raise funds now so that you can build up tooling and innovations that will let you work more efficiently in the future, and then if you're right, you make lots of profits and can pay back your loans & dividends. If you're wrong, you go bankrupt, your investors take a haircut, and that capital goes back to other more productive activities.
Constantly growing debt balances and inflation, however, I view as a way of lying to ourselves. They're basically saying "Well, in the future, things will get better", but when the future arrives and you still don't have profits, shrink the yardstick so things look better. That's exactly what "government action that supports the market" is - it's a way to avoid the failure of enterprises and loss of jobs that the market, on its own, doesn't demand enough to make profitable. Do this over 90 years and you can get some pretty extensive misallocation of capital.
Bankruptcy and unemployment are the means with which we "prioritize and allocate resources". They are, by definition, when you stop doing what you were doing and start doing something else. So no, I would disagree that "governments are begging for this to happen" - I can't think of a government that's encouraged bankruptcy and unemployment since the 1980s.
I view various forms of capital as a way to get over local maxima in economic efficiency. You borrow money or raise funds now so that you can build up tooling and innovations that will let you work more efficiently in the future, and then if you're right, you make lots of profits and can pay back your loans & dividends. If you're wrong, you go bankrupt, your investors take a haircut, and that capital goes back to other more productive activities.
Constantly growing debt balances and inflation, however, I view as a way of lying to ourselves. They're basically saying "Well, in the future, things will get better", but when the future arrives and you still don't have profits, shrink the yardstick so things look better. That's exactly what "government action that supports the market" is - it's a way to avoid the failure of enterprises and loss of jobs that the market, on its own, doesn't demand enough to make profitable. Do this over 90 years and you can get some pretty extensive misallocation of capital.
When used for productive things debt is good otherwise it is bad. Growing debt can indicate growing trust and confidence in the future. Growing debt can also indicate over confidence and blindness about the future. Economies have debt cycles: https://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0
Inflation is the economy’s rate of debt forgiveness. Bad when high but good when low but above zero. Without it economies get clogged by debt. A slow rate of debt forgiveness is more economically efficient than bankruptcies or debt jails. Inflation also combats sticky prices by forcing contracts to be regularly renegotiated to supply demand prices. For example wages are hard to adjust down and having inflation do that automatically few % per year is more economically efficient than having to fire workers and replace them.
Inflation is the economy’s rate of debt forgiveness. Bad when high but good when low but above zero. Without it economies get clogged by debt. A slow rate of debt forgiveness is more economically efficient than bankruptcies or debt jails. Inflation also combats sticky prices by forcing contracts to be regularly renegotiated to supply demand prices. For example wages are hard to adjust down and having inflation do that automatically few % per year is more economically efficient than having to fire workers and replace them.
My desired solution is for central banks and their abusive monetary policy to die in a fire. One way to achieve that is to have many competing currencies that are not controlled by a central bank. If any are a worthy replacement for government fiat people will use it. But, that is precisely why governments will do their best to regulate use of competing currencies.
China has the most restrictive capital controls in the world. It is not surprising at all that they have banned a legitimate threat to their control over the country's money.
China has the most restrictive capital controls in the world. It is not surprising at all that they have banned a legitimate threat to their control over the country's money.
This implies a probably lack of understanding of what Central Banks do.
"When the ships come into harbour, nail them to the dock" - not realizing that eventually, when the tide goes out - the ship will go down several feet relative to the dock and be damaged by the fixed boarding blanks.
You have to use ropes to fix ships, because the water moves.
Dumping the Central Bank and even using hard currency would lead to economic collapse the very first time there is an existential shock - and the only 'saviour' would be a different form of monetary intervention i.e. fiscal policy (i.e. government budget).
Also, in a completely unregulated scenario, powerful financial interests would leverage ownership of the crypto scheme and power would even be further centralized.
Bitcoin is disproportionately owned by a small number of players who have absolutely zero civic perspective, they're looking to make a Trillion dollars out of nothing.
If you don't like that money is managed by a large swath of banks working together with government and regulatory oversight and frankly relative transparency ... then you really won't like it when your monetary system is managed by the insane tyrant offspring of the Winkelvi and Satoshi dynasties who own 30% of the economy.
Crypto mining that is energy intensive should be banned immediately on that basis alone.
Aside from that, anyone declaring monetary value on a crypto asset should have to declare it, and if they don't, they go to actual prison for tax evasion. I'm looking forward to those people replacing weed smokers in prison - that would be effective public policy.
"When the ships come into harbour, nail them to the dock" - not realizing that eventually, when the tide goes out - the ship will go down several feet relative to the dock and be damaged by the fixed boarding blanks.
You have to use ropes to fix ships, because the water moves.
Dumping the Central Bank and even using hard currency would lead to economic collapse the very first time there is an existential shock - and the only 'saviour' would be a different form of monetary intervention i.e. fiscal policy (i.e. government budget).
Also, in a completely unregulated scenario, powerful financial interests would leverage ownership of the crypto scheme and power would even be further centralized.
Bitcoin is disproportionately owned by a small number of players who have absolutely zero civic perspective, they're looking to make a Trillion dollars out of nothing.
If you don't like that money is managed by a large swath of banks working together with government and regulatory oversight and frankly relative transparency ... then you really won't like it when your monetary system is managed by the insane tyrant offspring of the Winkelvi and Satoshi dynasties who own 30% of the economy.
Crypto mining that is energy intensive should be banned immediately on that basis alone.
Aside from that, anyone declaring monetary value on a crypto asset should have to declare it, and if they don't, they go to actual prison for tax evasion. I'm looking forward to those people replacing weed smokers in prison - that would be effective public policy.
> Aside from that, anyone declaring monetary value on a crypto asset should have to declare it, and if they don't, they go to actual prison for tax evasion. I'm looking forward to those people replacing weed smokers in prison - that would be effective public policy.
You're both pro legalization of weed and pro government? The war drugs is one the many fronts of the war on personal freedom.
Ironically the thing you're railing against -- being an anonymous uncensured transaction platform -- is one of the few ways weed dealers and consumers can continue to transact.
> Crypto mining that is energy intensive should be banned immediately on that basis alone.
Which is only neccessary to prevent
> Also, in a completely unregulated scenario, powerful financial interests would leverage ownership of the crypto scheme and power would even be further centralized.
PoS _is_ succeptible to this as ownership means a voting stake. PoW prevents entrenched interests from controlling it.
You're both pro legalization of weed and pro government? The war drugs is one the many fronts of the war on personal freedom.
Ironically the thing you're railing against -- being an anonymous uncensured transaction platform -- is one of the few ways weed dealers and consumers can continue to transact.
> Crypto mining that is energy intensive should be banned immediately on that basis alone.
Which is only neccessary to prevent
> Also, in a completely unregulated scenario, powerful financial interests would leverage ownership of the crypto scheme and power would even be further centralized.
PoS _is_ succeptible to this as ownership means a voting stake. PoW prevents entrenched interests from controlling it.
I'm 'not' for people not going to jail because they smoke weed, and 'for' people going to jail for tax evasion.
The kind of straw manning that reveals itself here due to the complete lack of civic thinking in some circles is really disturbing.
There is no necessity for mass energy usage for crypto, there are any number of ways to distribute new units of currency. Again the use of the term 'necessary' here is a hint at the false understanding of currency through the lens of a particular form of crypto.
Crytpo, at least today, is a dystopia. Go and live for a few weeks in a country with weak civic institutions and see for yourself. This joke is less and less funny as time goes on, the experiment, in it's current form, has run it's course, it's long since over.
The kind of straw manning that reveals itself here due to the complete lack of civic thinking in some circles is really disturbing.
There is no necessity for mass energy usage for crypto, there are any number of ways to distribute new units of currency. Again the use of the term 'necessary' here is a hint at the false understanding of currency through the lens of a particular form of crypto.
Crytpo, at least today, is a dystopia. Go and live for a few weeks in a country with weak civic institutions and see for yourself. This joke is less and less funny as time goes on, the experiment, in it's current form, has run it's course, it's long since over.
> the complete lack of civic thinking in some circles is really disturbing.
I used to love the idea of the government fixing societies' woes. Unfortunately in my lifetime I've seen several business cycles wherein the rich get bailouts and the rest of us lose our shirts. My country has entered wars I didn't then, and don't now support. I've seen 3 letter agencies topple foreign governments, and I'm watching China leverage its social credit system and implementing CBDCs. I've seen the infrastructure in my country become dilapidated and homelessness skyrocket. I voted for 'change' and got none.
I am civic minded, and to me the government is starting to look like the problem. As such, I support any peaceful alternative. There is no such thing as consent of the governed, and I plan continue believing what I see with my lying eyes.
I used to love the idea of the government fixing societies' woes. Unfortunately in my lifetime I've seen several business cycles wherein the rich get bailouts and the rest of us lose our shirts. My country has entered wars I didn't then, and don't now support. I've seen 3 letter agencies topple foreign governments, and I'm watching China leverage its social credit system and implementing CBDCs. I've seen the infrastructure in my country become dilapidated and homelessness skyrocket. I voted for 'change' and got none.
I am civic minded, and to me the government is starting to look like the problem. As such, I support any peaceful alternative. There is no such thing as consent of the governed, and I plan continue believing what I see with my lying eyes.
>I used to love the idea of the government fixing societies' woes.
Tax the damn land and do negative interest rates on cash and use the negative interest to pay for the deposit insurance.
That's it. Bonus: Get rid of other regressive taxes. Lower income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax, VAT and so on. Rather than redistributing incomes redistribute jobs.
In a world where economic rents are eliminated, income = spending is true on an individual and country level and jobs are fairly allocated there is no need for charity and welfare. It would be one small step closer to utopia yet it will not happen because nobody will recognize it as a "free market" that is supposedly the be and end all of economics even though it would be free-er than anything the capitalists will come up with.
Yes, here is the homework: If the solution is so simple how come there are so many people wanting to keep the system unfair and rigged?
Here is my answer: It's because the rich need to trick people into believing that the source of inequality is fair and morally justifiable. After all, if inequality has no place in a moral framework then any source of inequality would be tackled immediately.
https://youtu.be/Qe4x2Fv9to4
Tax the damn land and do negative interest rates on cash and use the negative interest to pay for the deposit insurance.
That's it. Bonus: Get rid of other regressive taxes. Lower income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax, VAT and so on. Rather than redistributing incomes redistribute jobs.
In a world where economic rents are eliminated, income = spending is true on an individual and country level and jobs are fairly allocated there is no need for charity and welfare. It would be one small step closer to utopia yet it will not happen because nobody will recognize it as a "free market" that is supposedly the be and end all of economics even though it would be free-er than anything the capitalists will come up with.
Yes, here is the homework: If the solution is so simple how come there are so many people wanting to keep the system unfair and rigged?
Here is my answer: It's because the rich need to trick people into believing that the source of inequality is fair and morally justifiable. After all, if inequality has no place in a moral framework then any source of inequality would be tackled immediately.
https://youtu.be/Qe4x2Fv9to4
> My desired solution is for central banks and their abusive monetary policy to die in a fire. One way to achieve that is to have many competing currencies that are not controlled by a central bank. If any are a worthy replacement for government fiat people will use it. But, that is precisely why governments will do their best to regulate use of competing currencies.
So your "solution" is a regression to something that was tried and didn't actually work well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_...
So your "solution" is a regression to something that was tried and didn't actually work well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_...
Free banking is cool until it fails.
The fact that you dont see central banking as a failure is quite telling. A bit like Stockholm syndrome. The Fed has destroyed the value of the dollar and transfered wealth from lower income classes to higher income classes by targetting persistent annual inflation.
Technology may not solve problems at the people layer but it can certainly be a forcing factor for reform. You don't think, for example, airplane tech has had an impact on immigration law?
[deleted]
45+ years is “not so long ago”?
I do not want to sound difficult and I suppose in today's world it feels like eternity, but 45+ years is barely a full generation's lifetime. But lets forget that for a minute, because I don't want to make about attention spans ( or lack thereof ).
A lot of the things that are happening now are not new. Sure, actors have changed, events have new facade and technology adds an interesting spin to it, but at its core, none of it is new to people who are aware of human history.
Separately, I will add that there are developments where 40 years is genuinely not long. As an example allow me to trot out the change of being gay being classified as a mental disorder in 80s to today's predominant understanding as a fully functioning member of society. That is a stunning evolution of societal mores in a short amount of time.
I suppose I understand that people would like to see instant change, but at certain scales, 45 years is 'not so long ago'. From societal memory point of view, it isn't. Only fool forgets that government can take their property. I will illustrate that further with a geological example. By those timescales, humans just showed up yesterday.
A lot of the things that are happening now are not new. Sure, actors have changed, events have new facade and technology adds an interesting spin to it, but at its core, none of it is new to people who are aware of human history.
Separately, I will add that there are developments where 40 years is genuinely not long. As an example allow me to trot out the change of being gay being classified as a mental disorder in 80s to today's predominant understanding as a fully functioning member of society. That is a stunning evolution of societal mores in a short amount of time.
I suppose I understand that people would like to see instant change, but at certain scales, 45 years is 'not so long ago'. From societal memory point of view, it isn't. Only fool forgets that government can take their property. I will illustrate that further with a geological example. By those timescales, humans just showed up yesterday.
If you're talking about China, you are correct. If you are talking about the United States, you are correct as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
We already have this in America, Civil Asset Forfeiture is already out of control.
[deleted]
But they said bitcoin was out of reach of governments, how is it possible a government is now banning it?
[deleted]
The bitcoin might be out of reach of governments, but the people definitely aren't.
Who’s they and how can anything be “out of reach”?
I am a bit surprised the Chinese government didn't secretly force the miners to collaborate for a 51 percent attack or more to kill it off, it would likely also destroy altcoins and the whole ecosystem.
But maybe someone from China can chime in and explain how serious the enforcement of these bans will be. I have seen countries with all kinds of laws, none ever enforced.
But maybe someone from China can chime in and explain how serious the enforcement of these bans will be. I have seen countries with all kinds of laws, none ever enforced.
>"Sounds like a dystopian nightmare"
You mean something like old Reserve Act of 1934 in the US?
You mean something like old Reserve Act of 1934 in the US?
Imagine living in a country that allows you to destroy the environment for a fake currency.
Your worldview is ridiculous.
Your worldview is ridiculous.
This is an overly aggressive tone that will cause knee-jerk pushback, but there is an argument that it is exactly the thing we should expect of our government, to correct for externalities.
This is effectively not that different than a company dumping chemical in the local river rather than disposing of them properly. They are encroaching on my rights to a livable planet for their own personal financial gain.
This is effectively not that different than a company dumping chemical in the local river rather than disposing of them properly. They are encroaching on my rights to a livable planet for their own personal financial gain.
The GP comment falsely implies that PoW is the only kind of cryptocurrency (and, well, the obnoxious and anti-intellectual tone).
There are many reasons to dislike crypto in general, but "it destroys the environment" only applies to PoW-based systems and not crypto in general.
Also, you should read the guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There are many reasons to dislike crypto in general, but "it destroys the environment" only applies to PoW-based systems and not crypto in general.
Also, you should read the guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What percentage of cryptocurrencies usage is not PoW? What are the negative environmental impacts of the other approaches? Being better than PoW doesn’t necessarily mean they stopped being wasteful.
I rephrased that first sentence to remove the reference to HN voting. I was simply remarking how the tone will cause people to object to it quicker regardless of the merit of the underlying thought.
I rephrased that first sentence to remove the reference to HN voting. I was simply remarking how the tone will cause people to object to it quicker regardless of the merit of the underlying thought.
Bitcoin is obviously the top. But Ethereum and Cardano are 2nd/3rd and ETH is moving to PoS while ATA already is. Tether is 3rd and is a stablecoin, so it is PoS or PoW depending on the backing contract.
So quite a bit actually. We are talking hundreds of billions in market cap at least.
So quite a bit actually. We are talking hundreds of billions in market cap at least.
The ban also applies to proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies.
How do you think the dollar keeps its value? Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and stability for industry to consume a vast amount of energy to produce goods that get shipped around using fossil fuel? Have you calculated the total energy expenditure of the entire US financial system, direct and indirect, and then compare it to proof-of-work calculations? No. No you haven’t. Don’t just parrot what the current-day zeitgeist told you to think.
> How do you think the dollar keeps its value?
Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation. As the money supply is managed via fractional reserve lending, each new dollar that enters circulation is backed by the demand for repayment of that loan. When someone borrows money from a bank, the bank enters a negative balance in its ledger and the borrower gets a positive balance in their account. This is how money is created. As the loan is repaid, the money is destroyed.
Dollars are fully backed by demand for dollars. It's really quite elegant.
> Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and stability for industry to consume a vast amount of energy to produce goods that get shipped around using fossil fuel?
This is utterly irrelevant. The US military existed for hundreds of years on hard money. World wars were fought on hard money.
> Have you calculated the total energy expenditure of the entire US financial system, direct and indirect, and then compare it to proof-of-work calculations?
Sure, and as a percentage of transaction count, transaction value, or basically any other metric it utterly pales in comparison. [1]
> Don’t just parrot what the current-day zeitgeist told you to think.
Ditto the crypto echo chamber.
[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation. As the money supply is managed via fractional reserve lending, each new dollar that enters circulation is backed by the demand for repayment of that loan. When someone borrows money from a bank, the bank enters a negative balance in its ledger and the borrower gets a positive balance in their account. This is how money is created. As the loan is repaid, the money is destroyed.
Dollars are fully backed by demand for dollars. It's really quite elegant.
> Do you understand that the reason it has value is because it’s backed by the US military, which provides peace and stability for industry to consume a vast amount of energy to produce goods that get shipped around using fossil fuel?
This is utterly irrelevant. The US military existed for hundreds of years on hard money. World wars were fought on hard money.
> Have you calculated the total energy expenditure of the entire US financial system, direct and indirect, and then compare it to proof-of-work calculations?
Sure, and as a percentage of transaction count, transaction value, or basically any other metric it utterly pales in comparison. [1]
> Don’t just parrot what the current-day zeitgeist told you to think.
Ditto the crypto echo chamber.
[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
"Base demand"
I get that this is working econ theory, but is that even meaningful? Do you honestly think people hold dollars because "someone can use it to.pay taxes"?
I get that this is working econ theory, but is that even meaningful? Do you honestly think people hold dollars because "someone can use it to.pay taxes"?
You have to pay property taxes so yes, getting military protection by a national military for your land is worth every dollar you spend on property tax.
Property taxes don't go to the federal government or national military, at least in the US. Lots of myths here.
Yes, because if you dont pay taxes you go to prison. Not going to prison is in high demand!
Technically you don't go to prison. You go to prison for lying about what you owe or cheating. But if you don't pay you generally settle with the IRS and get put on a payment plan or something similar. I know people who have been through this process.
There's also plenty of people who (legally) dont pay taxes.
Sure because some people don’t owe taxes.
so, when the US had no income tax, this was not even the case for the median american. Yet the dollar still had value!
My list of big demand drivers isn’t exhaustive and applies more to the current system than to the gold standard system of the past you’re referring to. Under fiat, the top marginal tax rate was over 80-90% for much of the time.
The US dollar was backed by gold at that time. That's where it had it's value.
You’re talking about borrowing and lending money, which becomes a moot point, when a foreign country invades your country and burns everything down. That doesn’t happen because we have the military and nukes that act as deterrents. That in turn props up the dollar and allows it to have the value it does.
And we’d still have them on a pocket lint standard. Self defense is uncorrelated.
I don’t get it. All of that energy expenditure not only backs the dollar, but as you say also provides goods, services and a high standard of living to millions of people. The energy expenditure of Bitcoin only backs Bitcoin.
If crypto was actually adopted as a means of buying and selling real world goods, instead of just being held as a speculative asset, then it would consume much less energy and be more efficient than the entire system, namely the military, that props up the value of the dollar. And that’s just the US military. Of course, the reason why you’re able to mine in the first place is because we have peace, due to the military. So calculating becomes a little more complicated than just crypto consumption versus military consumption.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_S...
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_S...
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of...
How can you possibly imagine adoption of Bitcoin would end the US army? The US army existed for hundreds of years on the gold standard. World wars were fought on the gold standard.
Exactly, step my step, please explain how adoption of bitcoin would reduce military energy consumption.
Exactly, step my step, please explain how adoption of bitcoin would reduce military energy consumption.
You are missing the point. When the us was on a gold standard, the army was not required to create the dollar's value. Now that the us is on a sovereign credit-based system, the might of the military is an integral part of the dollars value, both in the obvious sense that the military protects sea lanes and in the more subtle sense that government debt and the sustained credit cycle goes in no small chunk to the military.
The army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.
I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this but that you are clueless on this matter.
Surely you have some citations.
Happily.
"Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation" [1]
Which of course completely contradicts: "The (mostly paid for by tax) army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar." [also 1]
[1] comment by 'arcticbull' on 'Hacker News'
"Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation" [1]
Which of course completely contradicts: "The (mostly paid for by tax) army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar." [also 1]
[1] comment by 'arcticbull' on 'Hacker News'
You’re either intentionally avoiding the point or you’ve missed it yet again so I’m going to side step and say this: the amount of army won’t change regardless of which currency is used. There’s no path to reducing the size by changing the currency. It’s a separate, unrelated social policy decision. Either way I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith so I’m gonna cut this off here. Have a great evening!
You misunderstand my point. What the tax money is spent on is irrelevant and doesn’t create the demand. The demand is created by the obligation to pay the taxes and subsequent enforcement of non-payment. The same demand structure exists for instance in Japan without an army. Does that clarify for you?
The army doesn’t enforce taxes, that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
That’s not what I said. It’s simple. Bitcoin has value because of proof-of-work which uses a ton of energy. US dollar has value because it’s propped up by the military which uses MORE energy (more so because there is no more gold standard)
You can say that having a working economy props its currency of choice up but by that logic the dollar and other government currencies are propping up Bitcoin which is dependent on infrastructure of the economies of those nations.
The US dollar has value because the most productive economy ever to exist demands that all taxes be paid using US dollars. The army is a small part of protecting and enforcing that monopoly.
That energy isn’t a fundamental requirement of the dollar as a currency though it’s a function of it but isn’t required. BTC on the other hand requires constant energy to process a fraction of the transactions.
Oh it’s not fundamental? What do you think would happen to the value of the dollar if the military didn’t exist and the US was invaded by a foreign county. Connect the dots.
The value of the dollar depends on the land and property of the united states which is protected by the army. It takes multiple steps to get to "military props up USD".
If we’re going down that route, it’s more accurate to say the military impacts are actually protecting (and impacts assignable to) the economic activity itself not the particular currency it happens to take place in (because they take place in many currencies and affect the prices in a huge net that’s impossible to untangle). So the lack of military ecological costs to BTC are more of a figment of it’s place as largely a speculative asset and small slice of the economic pie, if it were to ‘win’ and become a principal currency it has all the same issues as the dollar or any other currency…
And for calling it fundamental, yes BTC requires burning lots of energy to have a transaction. Even if it goes so that day to day most transactions are lightning based you still have to burn that energy continuously to provide the security for new links in the network.
And for calling it fundamental, yes BTC requires burning lots of energy to have a transaction. Even if it goes so that day to day most transactions are lightning based you still have to burn that energy continuously to provide the security for new links in the network.
Doesn’t that mean the US dollar maintain it’s price by providing useful goods and services?
Of course.
Well just because one thing in a space isn't great, it doesn't mean that they all are. There are plenty of alternatives to BTC for example that are much "greener". Granted, crypto is a relatively new technology and some of that stuff needs to be figured out. And whether or not its fake, is in the eye of the beholder. It has value, because we pretend it has value, but that's true for many things. Maybe not be so judgemental of other people's worldviews.
Imagine living in a country that drops depleted uranium on civilians as part of it's programme to hegemonize its 'real' currency!
Or living in a country that continuously devalues its currency, forcing exponential consumption, thus stealing from the poor to give to the rich and destroying the environment while at it?
Or living in a country that continuously devalues its currency, forcing exponential consumption, thus stealing from the poor to give to the rich and destroying the environment while at it?
I think you're thinking of the wrong country there.
But it's "for the environment." Idiots always buy into the propaganda that tell them that authoritarian crack downs are noble and good.
Coming soon to a country nearby you…
Plebs cannot be allowed to have access to sound money, otherwise financial parasites can’t exists.
Plebs cannot be allowed to have access to sound money, otherwise financial parasites can’t exists.
Are you sure you got this right? Keep in mind that the only way to make money with bitcoin is literally by taking it away from other "investors".
Or transacting for goods and services. You know, like in an economy. I just bought coffee with it.
You made money with bitcoin by buying coffee with it?
I view bitcoin as money. You can make bitcoin via good old fashion work.
There are tons of these out there https://bitcoinerjobs.co/
There are tons of these out there https://bitcoinerjobs.co/
[deleted]
Now apply your idea to dollars, and think about who prints the dollars.
Why do I have to apply the idea to dollars? Nobody is telling me that I will become incredibly rich, without having to put any effort, work or invent anything, if I just buy dollars. Yet the same claim is made about bitcoins, and this is why we must examine whether this claim about bitcoin is true.
Read the white paper about bitcoin. Does it say anything about it being an investment, guaranteeing stability of exchanging rates to fiat, providing interest, or any appreciation? I'll be waiting for you to cite that.
There's a lot of disingenuous people out there, that for some reason believe bitcoin or other cryptos are "investments." I guess they missed that they are called crypto-CURRENCIES and not crypto-investments. And then they get upset that they are not, and go on to berate a currency for not being an investment. It's fine to be upset at any swindlers calling a zero-sum or negative-sum game like most crypto an investment, but if you actually read the white papers many cryptos make no such claims.
And there are certainty people telling you that you can get rich off dollars, just look at the FOREX trading peddlers telling you to get rich by trading fiat and leveraging fiat exchanges. I don't attack dollars for that!
And yeah, you can apply your idea to dollars, because one of the biggest way for the government to profit off of dollars is to print more out of thin air, therefore debasing the "investment" of the rest of the dollar holders. You can choose to not apply the idea to dollars, and rather bury your head in the sand if you like, that's your prerogative.
There's a lot of disingenuous people out there, that for some reason believe bitcoin or other cryptos are "investments." I guess they missed that they are called crypto-CURRENCIES and not crypto-investments. And then they get upset that they are not, and go on to berate a currency for not being an investment. It's fine to be upset at any swindlers calling a zero-sum or negative-sum game like most crypto an investment, but if you actually read the white papers many cryptos make no such claims.
And there are certainty people telling you that you can get rich off dollars, just look at the FOREX trading peddlers telling you to get rich by trading fiat and leveraging fiat exchanges. I don't attack dollars for that!
And yeah, you can apply your idea to dollars, because one of the biggest way for the government to profit off of dollars is to print more out of thin air, therefore debasing the "investment" of the rest of the dollar holders. You can choose to not apply the idea to dollars, and rather bury your head in the sand if you like, that's your prerogative.
Again, there are no dollar influencers, with millions of followers, urging people to mortgage their homes to buy more dollars. That's because everybody knows you can't get rich by buying dollars, because dollars are not an investment. And something that isn't an investment can't be a pyramid scheme, because a pyramid scheme is a type of investment scheme. Therefore we must dismiss the idea that the dollar is a pyramid scheme. Bitcoin on the other hand is a pyramid scheme wrapped in a cult.
Of course you can get rich by buying dollars. Ever seen a street money changer? It's big business in places like Iraq, Argentina, and other places where dollars are desired. You can make a cut out of every dollar you sell for less desirable local currency, and then another cut when you use the less desirable currency to buy dollars from people who need local currency. Does that mean dollars are an investment?
There are certainly influencers as well influencing you to start FOREX trading changing dollars back and forth to get rich, or leveraging dollar exchanges in a zero sum game attempt to strike it big. This blog boasts a man made $6M trading USD and NZD [1].
You use circular logic that bitcoin is an investment because it is a pyramid scheme which is by your definition an investment. Then you say dollars are not an investment because "everybody knows you can't make money off dollars" (which is patently false.)
Some people may view bitcoin as an investment. Some people may view dollars as an investment. There is no requirement it be treated as one. Again the bitcoin whitepaper, and open implementation of it which you can readily acquire the source code to, makes no promises of returns, stability in exchange rate, or appreciation. Any pyramid scheme is the fault of some swindlers who could create a pyramid scheme in any number of currencies -- not "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." You seem bitter at bitcoin because you chose to take the word of swindlers rather than the actual white paper and public implementation which made no such promise of profits.
[1] https://forextradingstrategies4u.com/millionaire-forex-trade...
There are certainly influencers as well influencing you to start FOREX trading changing dollars back and forth to get rich, or leveraging dollar exchanges in a zero sum game attempt to strike it big. This blog boasts a man made $6M trading USD and NZD [1].
You use circular logic that bitcoin is an investment because it is a pyramid scheme which is by your definition an investment. Then you say dollars are not an investment because "everybody knows you can't make money off dollars" (which is patently false.)
Some people may view bitcoin as an investment. Some people may view dollars as an investment. There is no requirement it be treated as one. Again the bitcoin whitepaper, and open implementation of it which you can readily acquire the source code to, makes no promises of returns, stability in exchange rate, or appreciation. Any pyramid scheme is the fault of some swindlers who could create a pyramid scheme in any number of currencies -- not "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." You seem bitter at bitcoin because you chose to take the word of swindlers rather than the actual white paper and public implementation which made no such promise of profits.
[1] https://forextradingstrategies4u.com/millionaire-forex-trade...
Dollars are created by granting credit and promising debt.
Basically to people who need dollars to do productive work.
Oversimplification: The promise of work creates dollars and therefore dollars are created through work.
Basically to people who need dollars to do productive work.
Oversimplification: The promise of work creates dollars and therefore dollars are created through work.
> dollars are created through work.
[citation needed]
You seem to have a fairy tale level of knowledge about how dollars are created. One of the Fed's favored way of created more money is simply buying treasury bonds with newly created money. Care to explain what work is done there (other than the work done by individuals at the Federal Reserve)?
[citation needed]
You seem to have a fairy tale level of knowledge about how dollars are created. One of the Fed's favored way of created more money is simply buying treasury bonds with newly created money. Care to explain what work is done there (other than the work done by individuals at the Federal Reserve)?
Why do plebs care about sound money? The more sound money you have the more you benefit from it. Plebs don't have most of the sound money, they'll lose out.
China seems to be hell bent on exiting the global speculative markets. Can the stock markets absorb this shock?
Afaik, there is effectively "the Chinese domestic stock market" and "the rest of the world's stock market."
Chinese citizens can invest in the former, but (via government currency exchange controls) can't participate meaningfully in the latter.
So if China exits global stock markets... there isn't that much Chinese money being pulled out of them, because there wasn't that much in them.
What money China is investing internationally appears to mostly go to bonds, construction financing, and asset leases / purchases.
PS: What this appears to really be about is severing links for extraordinarily wealthy Chinese citizens to move money outside the reach of the PRC.
Which, if you were running an expansionist monetary policy intended to facilitate domestic economic growth, while simultaneously cracking down on the wealthy in pursuit of equality, is presumably something you'd take very seriously (as a command economy). Lest all that new & old money just fly offshores.
Chinese citizens can invest in the former, but (via government currency exchange controls) can't participate meaningfully in the latter.
So if China exits global stock markets... there isn't that much Chinese money being pulled out of them, because there wasn't that much in them.
What money China is investing internationally appears to mostly go to bonds, construction financing, and asset leases / purchases.
PS: What this appears to really be about is severing links for extraordinarily wealthy Chinese citizens to move money outside the reach of the PRC.
Which, if you were running an expansionist monetary policy intended to facilitate domestic economic growth, while simultaneously cracking down on the wealthy in pursuit of equality, is presumably something you'd take very seriously (as a command economy). Lest all that new & old money just fly offshores.
To be fair, it is well accepted that high inflation is bad as everyone stops spending. This holds true for asset inflation as well - you can be damned sure that in the current environment tonnes of people will be taking money out of the system to dump into markets
High inflation encourages spending. It is deflation that discourages spending. High inflation means that the money you have today will purchase less in the future, thus it pushes people to buy now rather than later when things will be more expensive in nominal terms. High inflation combined with low interest rates, will also increase financial speculation pretty much across the board.
The problem with high inflation is that it usually (but not recently) goes hand in hand with higher interest rates (i.e. money costs more). Which tends to discourage business borrowing, which acts as a damper on non-financial investment (i.e. spending on factories, marketing, R&D, etc.). This has the effect of slowing down economic growth.
On the other hand, high inflation/high interest rate environments tend to arise when growth is high. Because high growth tends to go hand in hand with a rise in wages, increases in demand (which shifts the demand curve, and thus raises prices), increases in financial speculation, etc.
There are a ton more "on the other hands". Economic analysis is complex and difficult because it's a tangled mess of interdependent feedback loops that constantly change. A single policy action has an avalanche of cascading effects, some of which will be counter to the policy objective. I'm not suggesting humanity should just roll over in the face of this challenge. We should just be aware that it's a "hard problem" and there are never any simple solutions.
The problem with high inflation is that it usually (but not recently) goes hand in hand with higher interest rates (i.e. money costs more). Which tends to discourage business borrowing, which acts as a damper on non-financial investment (i.e. spending on factories, marketing, R&D, etc.). This has the effect of slowing down economic growth.
On the other hand, high inflation/high interest rate environments tend to arise when growth is high. Because high growth tends to go hand in hand with a rise in wages, increases in demand (which shifts the demand curve, and thus raises prices), increases in financial speculation, etc.
There are a ton more "on the other hands". Economic analysis is complex and difficult because it's a tangled mess of interdependent feedback loops that constantly change. A single policy action has an avalanche of cascading effects, some of which will be counter to the policy objective. I'm not suggesting humanity should just roll over in the face of this challenge. We should just be aware that it's a "hard problem" and there are never any simple solutions.
This is interesting timing given what has been happening related to Evergrande. It is possible that the government is worried about money being moved out of the country, and cryptocurrency is one way of doing that.
How would crypto help with moving money out of a country if mining is banned?
1. Find a place that takes RMB and gives you crypto.
2. Send crypto to your wallet or foreign exchange.
3. Abroad, sell crypto for non-RMB fiat currency.
No mining needed.
China can't ban 2 (or perhaps they could by putting the great firewall into overdrive) so they are banning 1.
No mining needed.
China can't ban 2 (or perhaps they could by putting the great firewall into overdrive) so they are banning 1.
You do not mining to exchange Yuan to crypto.
Again
And in two months :again!
It wouldn’t even surprise me if China runs this as a pump and dump scam.
uh... You stole my word ^^
They wanted to buy more Bitcoins...
Isn't this the 26th time China has declared crypto illegal?
I've been wondering if/when China would start tightening their rules.
However I'm not entirely clear from the article exactly what the status of crypto in china now is. It's not clear to me from the quoted statement if it is actually illegal to use crypto to pay for something or to hold or transfer it, or if it's something a bit more subtle and limited.
However I'm not entirely clear from the article exactly what the status of crypto in china now is. It's not clear to me from the quoted statement if it is actually illegal to use crypto to pay for something or to hold or transfer it, or if it's something a bit more subtle and limited.
bitcoin in China is mainly for speculation and money laundering. It is illegal for business to take bitcoins and operate exchanges. I don't think holding it or transferring it would be a problem, that's the base of bitcoin's decentralization.
There are A LOT scams going on with all coins, people put money into it without knowing anything about cryptocurrency. If you read recent news about Evergrande, when Chinese people invest money for speculation, no one is considering the risk of losing money. I wonder if this has something to do with this.
There are A LOT scams going on with all coins, people put money into it without knowing anything about cryptocurrency. If you read recent news about Evergrande, when Chinese people invest money for speculation, no one is considering the risk of losing money. I wonder if this has something to do with this.
Some people think of Bitcoin as a "store of value", comparing it to gold.. I have a question to people who believe that - What do you think will be the value of bitcoin in 100 years? Do you think your descendants would be happier with $50k* worth of bitcoin or with $50k* worth of gold in 200 years? How about 500 years?
*$50k bitcoin/gold if bought today
*$50k bitcoin/gold if bought today
Meh... there were some bonds provided by the Mexican government between 1850 and 1951 that at the time seemed like a good investment and now they are worth nothing [1]. Different instruments for different goals.
I would hold BTC for a 100 year horizon. I wouldn't hold it for a 500 year horizon. Actually I would not hold any asset for a 500 year horizon (including gold): I don't have kids and I don't think I will have to worry at that time.
[1] https://www.banxico.org.mx/marco-normativo/d/%7B097567D4-647...
I would hold BTC for a 100 year horizon. I wouldn't hold it for a 500 year horizon. Actually I would not hold any asset for a 500 year horizon (including gold): I don't have kids and I don't think I will have to worry at that time.
[1] https://www.banxico.org.mx/marco-normativo/d/%7B097567D4-647...
The real news: Massive problems in China's real estate markets, bad banking loans and more are uncovered. People in China are greatly moving to crypto and also moving money out of China. China works to trap them in the problems of the legacy financial system.
How is this actually enforceable? Anyone with internet and power can mine. Could they firewall the entire bootstrap IP list for Bitcoin mining?
> Could they firewall the entire bootstrap IP list for Bitcoin mining?
I mean, yes that would be one way. But apart from that, they don't need to find every last one. Nobody cares about a miner making $0.5 per day on their GPU. The target is the big mining farms drawing multiple megawatts of electricity and you can just ask the power company for the address of anyone using that much electricity. There can't be _that_ many of them, so just visit them all and see if they are running a legit power-intensive business like a metal foundry or if it is a crypto mining farm.
I mean, yes that would be one way. But apart from that, they don't need to find every last one. Nobody cares about a miner making $0.5 per day on their GPU. The target is the big mining farms drawing multiple megawatts of electricity and you can just ask the power company for the address of anyone using that much electricity. There can't be _that_ many of them, so just visit them all and see if they are running a legit power-intensive business like a metal foundry or if it is a crypto mining farm.
It is enforceable at the citizen and institutional level. I know many decentralized cryptocurrency advocates tout the fact that no government can literally modify the blockchain. While accurate, that is not the point. Governments don't need to do that because they basically have free reign to enforce laws and regulations on its citizenry. Sure you can set up a miner in China, but if the authorities find out you're going to prison. The State might not be able to stop all mining, but they will definitely force it underground and make it a very risky thing to do. A total prevention of an activity is never the actual goal of a ban, the real goal is just to stop the vast majority of it from happening.
Its not about that. If its not easy or possible to exchange BTC for goods or fiat, it becomes a novelty. You can never kill crypto, but you can certainly make it so that it becomes like beanie babies or tulips, where only a minority of people feel it has any value in the current day.
Bottom of the line is always going to be if you can exchange crypto for goods. If most people feel that the crypto is worthless, the value will plunge and the buyer pool will as well.
Bottom of the line is always going to be if you can exchange crypto for goods. If most people feel that the crypto is worthless, the value will plunge and the buyer pool will as well.
I imagine the physical footprint of large-scale mining operations will make it easy to find miners. And as Chinese companies looking to operate on the internet need to acquire a license from the Government, they're probably less likely to risk their whole business for crypto payments/trading.
> Anyone with internet and power can mine.
How hard could it be for the Chinese government to identify suspiciously large amounts of power use? Malaysia of all places recently managed to seize and destroy around a thousand bitcoin mining rigs.
How hard could it be for the Chinese government to identify suspiciously large amounts of power use? Malaysia of all places recently managed to seize and destroy around a thousand bitcoin mining rigs.
Given that the CCP has a monopoly on violence and has been known to disappear those who cross them, it’s not far fetched to imagine crypto miners having the same fate.
They don't have to block Bitcoin through technical means; they just have to (figuratively) hit a sufficient number of violators with a $5 wrench. [1]
[1] https://xkcd.com/538/
[1] https://xkcd.com/538/
Earlier discussion (was on this same front page just over an hour or so, but disappeared, somehow) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28640964
[deleted]
Keep falling! Gamers want their gpus back
how many times has it happened already?
Blockchain, not specifically crypto currencies, are also a means to operate anonymously outside of an authoritarian government. Sure there are gotchas with remaining anonymous, but I am sure China wouldn't want a blockchain-based, mesh, peer-to-peer, or distrubuted network, that could operate outside of the Great Firewall's ability to regulate or censor it. High-power, long-range WiFi and mesh networks would be hard to control or stop with reasonable efforts.
It would be trivial to find the source of high-powered wifi/antennas. Consider how easy it is already for one to find the source of an unlicensed ham radio stream.
It's definitely not impossible to obfuscate and use crypto even in a country where it's banned, but it isn't that easy.
It's definitely not impossible to obfuscate and use crypto even in a country where it's banned, but it isn't that easy.
Indeed. There's a huge difference between one or several actions and habitual behavior. You can find a method to get away with anything once. Operating on a daily basis where the government only has to catch you once is far less practical.
This is true for lots of virtuous acts or acts of survival under authoritative regimes, such as hiding Jews from the Nazis or selling your surplus harvest under Stalin. It’s only if you are privileged (or, arguably, ignorant) to not consider on balance the counterfactual costs of undermining technologies which could de-risk such acts for those being oppressed. (Which may include a future-you.)
Alternately, people who accurately understand the technology and the environment in which it is used might be speaking up against a system which is designed to endanger those people.
Using people subject to these risks in service of MLM recruitment pitches is not a moral good.
Using people subject to these risks in service of MLM recruitment pitches is not a moral good.
Thank you for stating your assumption all your opponents are acting out of either malevolence or bad faith. This transparency is often useful for people trying to make sense of which side of an argument has merit.
Kind of like when you accuse anyone pointing out the holes in your argument of being ignorant or apparently unconcerned by atrocities? At this point, anyone promoting blockchains for things which they are known to be unsuitable does need to establish that they are acting in good faith and do not have financial conflicts of interest.
> Kind of like when you accuse anyone pointing out the holes in your argument of being ignorant or apparently unconcerned by atrocities?
Yes! This is exactly the kind of behavior you did in your previous post. I'm glad you acknowledge it.
Of course, I did not do what you state here, since I wasn't actually responding to anyone nor were there any "holes in my argument" since I didn't even make an argument being refuted. (I entered this thread here far down the chain of the discussion, if you actually read it.) But it's cool to see that if I had done something like accusing people of such things without any substantive retorts, you'd agree your behavior was the same kind of dodge.
Yes! This is exactly the kind of behavior you did in your previous post. I'm glad you acknowledge it.
Of course, I did not do what you state here, since I wasn't actually responding to anyone nor were there any "holes in my argument" since I didn't even make an argument being refuted. (I entered this thread here far down the chain of the discussion, if you actually read it.) But it's cool to see that if I had done something like accusing people of such things without any substantive retorts, you'd agree your behavior was the same kind of dodge.
So where I see “It’s only if you are privileged (or, arguably, ignorant) to not consider…” in your comment, that was written by someone else?
No, I wrote that, but it wasn't responding to anyone. I was making a general point that failing to consider counterfactuals regarding such technology is an error. You seem to think I was responding to someone who "pointed out holes" in an argument I made. You're imagining this entirely. It's a cool hallucination though, I wonder why you're having it. As best I can tell its utility rests entirely on it giving you an opening to accuse me of hypocrisy for pointing out your presumption of bad faith and malevolence in others. Look at how far you've managed to take us afield using it! Neato.
From the HN guidelines:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Whether it's morally worth it is a separate point. I was just stating that it wouldn't be especially difficult for the government of China to find, disable, and arrest the operators of large-scale long-range wifi networks.
You need to think about the threat model for someone living in that kind of state:
1. Radio transmitters are by definition easy to detect: once you get identified, you are in a world of trouble because you demonstrated full knowledge that you were doing something illegal. Anything which can be used to circumvent the Great Firewall will be treated as a threat to state security even if you personally are only using it for a less serious crime.
2. Blockchains are a censor's dream: you have a full signed confession of every transaction made by the person you just compromised and a list of everyone they corresponded with. If you catch someone new and have ways to get them to talk (China has a well-honed system for this), now you have that for all of their past transactions, too. Have a few undercover agents tell people about this mesh networking app and you can quietly roll up an entire network over time while making it look like the police just happened to get lucky breaks a lot.
3. Blockchains are hard to conceal: they require huge amounts of data transfer and you have to be online at the time you make a transaction, both of which dramatically increase the challenges of trying to be covert.
All of those combine into a huge problem for using blockchains: you don't need to worry about any of that or the extra expense _unless_ you're doing something illegal. That means that simply participating is inherently risky — better hope that you don't ever make internet traffic which would show an interest in this or have someone audit the apps installed on your devices — and the costs are guaranteed to be high because everyone involved is taking on the extra risk of whatever you're doing (and the chance that you're not being completely honest about the level of risk or are compromised) leading to scrutiny and/or that you will fail your opsec in a way which provides proof of their noncompliance.
No matter what you think of the Chinese system or whether it's right, it seems like a system designed to expose its users to significant risk in addition to whatever it is that they're trying to hide.
1. Radio transmitters are by definition easy to detect: once you get identified, you are in a world of trouble because you demonstrated full knowledge that you were doing something illegal. Anything which can be used to circumvent the Great Firewall will be treated as a threat to state security even if you personally are only using it for a less serious crime.
2. Blockchains are a censor's dream: you have a full signed confession of every transaction made by the person you just compromised and a list of everyone they corresponded with. If you catch someone new and have ways to get them to talk (China has a well-honed system for this), now you have that for all of their past transactions, too. Have a few undercover agents tell people about this mesh networking app and you can quietly roll up an entire network over time while making it look like the police just happened to get lucky breaks a lot.
3. Blockchains are hard to conceal: they require huge amounts of data transfer and you have to be online at the time you make a transaction, both of which dramatically increase the challenges of trying to be covert.
All of those combine into a huge problem for using blockchains: you don't need to worry about any of that or the extra expense _unless_ you're doing something illegal. That means that simply participating is inherently risky — better hope that you don't ever make internet traffic which would show an interest in this or have someone audit the apps installed on your devices — and the costs are guaranteed to be high because everyone involved is taking on the extra risk of whatever you're doing (and the chance that you're not being completely honest about the level of risk or are compromised) leading to scrutiny and/or that you will fail your opsec in a way which provides proof of their noncompliance.
No matter what you think of the Chinese system or whether it's right, it seems like a system designed to expose its users to significant risk in addition to whatever it is that they're trying to hide.
No part of that needs a blockchain.
R0b0t1(1)
Here's an interesting take on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFp86n7QCf0
This analysis suggests that the value of tracking every financial transaction will eventually cause governments to all want to institute there own crypto currencies and eventually outlaw independent crypto currencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFp86n7QCf0
This analysis suggests that the value of tracking every financial transaction will eventually cause governments to all want to institute there own crypto currencies and eventually outlaw independent crypto currencies.
It's simpler to simply require banks to provide transaction data.
Question is, would people give up a currency that's not under anyone's control?
Finally, someone is taking action against this insanity.
Excellent news for the climate.
It's a thunderous dunk while your team is down 40 in the 4th. A loud, but small, short term win.
"Excellent news" would be the halting of state subsidies for coal mining, and introduction of a carbon tax.
"Excellent news" would be the halting of state subsidies for coal mining, and introduction of a carbon tax.
Fwiw China is ramping up a carbon tax scheme for coal and gas : https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/02/tooth...
They will probably never stop subsidizing coal mining though. Otherwise they will get even more reliant on foreign coal which gives a hypothetical US blockade much more clout.
They will probably never stop subsidizing coal mining though. Otherwise they will get even more reliant on foreign coal which gives a hypothetical US blockade much more clout.
Most mining has already shifted out of China, and Bitcoin mining is a very small percentage of electricity usage on the scale of "all electricity usage" - there are plenty of bigger fish (the argument then turns, validly, to the usefulness of said bigger fish in comparison to bitcoin).
[deleted]
> there are plenty of bigger fish
Sure, but in most cases people would, at best, be seriously inconvenienced if they were immediately banned. At worst, people would die.
If bitcoin was banned worldwide tomorrow, it would be an interesting story in the news and the internet would be furious for a while; there would be no significant real-life impact. It would probably be the most slam-dunk "obviously we should do this" environmental regulation in history; even things like "we should not put mercury in lakes" had significant downsides compared to banning bitcoin.
Sure, but in most cases people would, at best, be seriously inconvenienced if they were immediately banned. At worst, people would die.
If bitcoin was banned worldwide tomorrow, it would be an interesting story in the news and the internet would be furious for a while; there would be no significant real-life impact. It would probably be the most slam-dunk "obviously we should do this" environmental regulation in history; even things like "we should not put mercury in lakes" had significant downsides compared to banning bitcoin.
Of course, there would be plenty of positive impact in the mid to long term. More capacity for semiconductor production available would help with semiconductor shortages, ransomware would become pretty much unprofitable, and of course a huge drop in environmental destruction.
> to the usefulness of said bigger fish in comparison to bitcoin
So far bitcoin has negative utility even aside from environmental disaster (ransomware).
So far bitcoin has negative utility even aside from environmental disaster (ransomware).
Here come the comments of people who see no value in crypto calming it has no value.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
A few years ago people laughed at me for buying bitcoin, it's good to see bitcoin adoption moving along nicely.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
A few years ago people laughed at me for buying bitcoin, it's good to see bitcoin adoption moving along nicely.
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Not so much. That sounds like like The Power of Positive Thinking-style BS (crypto is full of it). Usually when "they" fight "you," they win, but losers are usually forgotten and an accurate statement wouldn't make a very good motivational slogan.
Not so much. That sounds like like The Power of Positive Thinking-style BS (crypto is full of it). Usually when "they" fight "you," they win, but losers are usually forgotten and an accurate statement wouldn't make a very good motivational slogan.
And what about non energy intensive crypto currencies that rely on PoS or PoH?
Don’t worry they are scams, only proof of work is actually secure.
Not convinced of this. (Your handle doesn’t make it a more convincing claim.)
I’m not saying I’m totally convinced that PoS can be really secure, but I am reasonably confident that some developing such systems sincerely believe it can be, and have no deceptive intent. This in my mind seems to contradict it being “a scam”, which to my mind requires deception.
In fact, I do suspect that it can be secure, for some reasonable sense of “secure”, though I am not especially confident in this.
I’m not saying I’m totally convinced that PoS can be really secure, but I am reasonably confident that some developing such systems sincerely believe it can be, and have no deceptive intent. This in my mind seems to contradict it being “a scam”, which to my mind requires deception.
In fact, I do suspect that it can be secure, for some reasonable sense of “secure”, though I am not especially confident in this.
Depends on what you mean by "PoS".
If you mean "proof of stake" - I've never heard anyone describe any environmental issues with them, so I assume that they either don't exist or are far smaller in impact than PoW.
If you mean "proof of storage/space" - it seems like that tends to produce very high write volumes, which in turn burns SSDs out very quickly[1] - and you can argue that that's bad for the environment. How bad, and whether it's worse than the energy consumption of PoW, I'm not sure. From one perspective, it's worse, because you could theoretically power PoW mining using exclusively green energy, but you can't pull the raw materials for SSDs out of thin air.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001848
If you mean "proof of stake" - I've never heard anyone describe any environmental issues with them, so I assume that they either don't exist or are far smaller in impact than PoW.
If you mean "proof of storage/space" - it seems like that tends to produce very high write volumes, which in turn burns SSDs out very quickly[1] - and you can argue that that's bad for the environment. How bad, and whether it's worse than the energy consumption of PoW, I'm not sure. From one perspective, it's worse, because you could theoretically power PoW mining using exclusively green energy, but you can't pull the raw materials for SSDs out of thin air.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001848
Crypto eats the world now if you like it or not. The climate will be fine, because newer systems don’t burn excessive energy. But the CCP fighting the tide is great news, since communist regimes usually fall by trying to clamp down on things beyond their control.
China is not a communist country, their economic system has been state capitalism ever since the official introduction of the 中国特色社会主义 theory in 1987.
These terms for economic theory are, for all intents and purposes, completely useless.
Has there ever been a communist country that lasted 5 minutes without a form of capital?
Was the American economy ever a "free market"?
While I agree that China isn't communist in the term's strictest sense, it ultimately doesn't matter. Systems that can't adapt eventually collapse, which is why no one word can really describe economic systems or their nations. I've been told on HN that what I'm saying is a "no true scotsman" fallacy, yet when people insist that America has "free market capitalism" or that China is communist because CCP has "communist" in the name, they're essentially making an only-true scotsman fallacy.
Personal freedoms aside, it all comes down to is how involved a government is with its private sector how much value it extracts (overtly or covertly). Everything else is fluff. Nobody really cares about personal freedom or "owning the means of production". It's all about the level of centralized control (the input) and where the energy of that system goes (the output). To say that anything is "communist" or "capitalist" is a dismissal of the inevitable nuance.
Has there ever been a communist country that lasted 5 minutes without a form of capital?
Was the American economy ever a "free market"?
While I agree that China isn't communist in the term's strictest sense, it ultimately doesn't matter. Systems that can't adapt eventually collapse, which is why no one word can really describe economic systems or their nations. I've been told on HN that what I'm saying is a "no true scotsman" fallacy, yet when people insist that America has "free market capitalism" or that China is communist because CCP has "communist" in the name, they're essentially making an only-true scotsman fallacy.
Personal freedoms aside, it all comes down to is how involved a government is with its private sector how much value it extracts (overtly or covertly). Everything else is fluff. Nobody really cares about personal freedom or "owning the means of production". It's all about the level of centralized control (the input) and where the energy of that system goes (the output). To say that anything is "communist" or "capitalist" is a dismissal of the inevitable nuance.
The climate is unlikely to be fine, regardless of whether or not crypto mining is banned. At this point we're just affecting just how bad it's going to get.
I agree I chose the words poorly: my point is the long term risk to the climate posed by crypto seems marginal given the tech trends and incentives.
The idea that crypto mining is bad for the climate is short-sighted. It is based on the wrong assumption of a static universe.
But this world is not static. Let's say for example, all goverments would become more strict in taxing energy consumption. (Presumably to help save the climate.)
Now at some point there is a market incentive to develop mining techniques that optimize for less energy consumption above all else. This would lead to better technologies and thus environment friendly mining techniques.
So this would mean that two factors in this world have changed. Namely taxation on energy and energy consumption while mining crypto.
But this goes further. What if the usage of crypto enables reduction in carbon imprint in other sectors? This could be a possible development.
And so on. The world is always changing.
But this world is not static. Let's say for example, all goverments would become more strict in taxing energy consumption. (Presumably to help save the climate.)
Now at some point there is a market incentive to develop mining techniques that optimize for less energy consumption above all else. This would lead to better technologies and thus environment friendly mining techniques.
So this would mean that two factors in this world have changed. Namely taxation on energy and energy consumption while mining crypto.
But this goes further. What if the usage of crypto enables reduction in carbon imprint in other sectors? This could be a possible development.
And so on. The world is always changing.
Nonsense.
Bitcoin mining's main cost is energy usage. It already fully optimises for less energy consumption. But because the way bitcoin is designed, any gains in energy consumption will cause mining difficulty to go up, and with it energy consumption.
Bitcoin is designed to be anti-efficient. All improvement in efficiency of mining are immediately cancelled out by difficulty adjustments. That is the economic model of bitcoin: It will always use as much energy as you can buy with the mining rewards.
Bitcoin mining's main cost is energy usage. It already fully optimises for less energy consumption. But because the way bitcoin is designed, any gains in energy consumption will cause mining difficulty to go up, and with it energy consumption.
Bitcoin is designed to be anti-efficient. All improvement in efficiency of mining are immediately cancelled out by difficulty adjustments. That is the economic model of bitcoin: It will always use as much energy as you can buy with the mining rewards.
> Now at some point there is a market incentive to develop mining techniques that optimize for less energy consumption above all else.
There is already a market incentive for that (electricity is not free), and there is already a solution to this (proof of stake). Please stop advocating and using proof of work shitcoins.
There is already a market incentive for that (electricity is not free), and there is already a solution to this (proof of stake). Please stop advocating and using proof of work shitcoins.
Proof of stake leads to "rich gets richer" situation [1]. Proof of work is much more fair, it appears.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.14713.pdf
This particular paper shows that every proof-of-stake variant is fallible into the "rich get richer". That means these PoS schemes do look like shitcoins, not the other way around.
Given that and given that I do not like Biticoin in any of its capacities (PoW is not even the most wrong thing with btc), I would like to advise everyone to hate all cryptocurrencies equally strong.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.14713.pdf
This particular paper shows that every proof-of-stake variant is fallible into the "rich get richer". That means these PoS schemes do look like shitcoins, not the other way around.
Given that and given that I do not like Biticoin in any of its capacities (PoW is not even the most wrong thing with btc), I would like to advise everyone to hate all cryptocurrencies equally strong.
> Now at some point there is a market incentive to develop mining techniques that optimize for less energy consumption above all else. This would lead to better technologies and thus environment friendly mining techniques.
That's the insidious thing about PoW, though: it will absorb efficiency improvements by design. If a chip came out tomorrow that halved the amount of energy used per hash, instead of halving the CO2 use of PoW, miners would be incentivized just to double the network hash rate.
That's the insidious thing about PoW, though: it will absorb efficiency improvements by design. If a chip came out tomorrow that halved the amount of energy used per hash, instead of halving the CO2 use of PoW, miners would be incentivized just to double the network hash rate.
> Now at some point there is a market incentive to develop mining techniques that optimize for less energy consumption above all else.
The question is whether that will happen before serious consequences of climate change. While I agree that market (as well as government) incentive is likely to optimize these systems for less energy, and cleaner energy in general, humans are lazy all the way through the bell-curve. Because we developed for millions of years in a hostile world with scarce nutrition, we are inclined towards conserving nutrition and calories, thus we are still inclined mentally to be reactive more than proactive.
What I'm saying is that you might very well be right, but I am pessimistic in that I think we may react too late. Our efforts to change our ways have been, for all intents and purposes, a joke for the last 40 years.
> It is based on the wrong assumption of a static universe.
I am glad you bring up this point, although there's a flaw in it.
What I think you are saying is that the universe is full of change that the myopic human brain struggles to comprehend in its short lifetime. This is something I frequently have difficulty communicating to people.
For instance, one of my long time interests is in native plants and foraging. The truth about "native plants" is that little of it approaches a definition that can be considered truly "native". What's native to a person depends on their perspective. Native since when? Since humans showed up? Since before European settlers? Since the Pleistocene? What people think of as native plants are often as recent to an area as the 1400's or were carried by birds and critters from other parts of the world at some point in prehistory.
To your point, the world has always been changing long before we showed up, and attempting to keep it in suspended animation may be a losing game.
But many in the native plant community (yes, there are people simply interested in native flora) won't have that perspective, let alone consider it intellectually. I left those communities because my view that not every non-native plant is "invasive" or "noxious" was considered heresy. Because the world has always been in flux, I generally don't believe that living things introduced in our lifetime must be eradicated to maintain the image of the world we are familiar with. There are of course exceptions, but to many zealots every plant they don't like must be an exception. It doesn't even matter if an introduced plant doesn't pose a threat to surrounding plants and animals. They want it gone because reasons.
In some ways, climate change can be viewed in the same way. While I absolutely think that climate change caused by humanity is an alarming concern, I have trouble discussing the issue with people because they have the "static universe" world view. In their minds, our current Earth is the one that was always meant to exist, which is pretty anthropocentric. They believe that, at least until recently, we had just the right amount of glaciers, just the right amount of snow in the winter, and just the right amount of heat in the summer to melt the snow caps for drinking water and give us a nice tan; it's just as God intended!
The tricky thing about climate change is that a certain amount of it was destined to happen whether we were blowing CO2 into the atmosphere or not. This fact (and it is a fact) doesn't change my view that we should be concerned about the warming of the glove, but it's often ignored by people. They read facts about melting glaciers and simply conclude, based on their limited earthly experience, that glaciers shouldn't melt and that glaciers melting are necessarily a sign of doom. Ironically, some of them are still opposed to nuclear energy or seriously investing in solar technology, but that's neither here nor there.
On the other hand, some use the fluctuating-universe theory to rationalize their lack of concern. To them, all change is what God intended, figuratively speaking. It's the mirror image of the supposed counterargument.
There are solutions that should satisfy both sides of the coin. Will they ever agree to use those solutions proactively? It seems we are at a political impasse where one's position on these issues primarily depends on where their personality and temperament naturally drifts them towards rather by highly conscious choice. (arguments around free-will notwithstanding)
The question is whether that will happen before serious consequences of climate change. While I agree that market (as well as government) incentive is likely to optimize these systems for less energy, and cleaner energy in general, humans are lazy all the way through the bell-curve. Because we developed for millions of years in a hostile world with scarce nutrition, we are inclined towards conserving nutrition and calories, thus we are still inclined mentally to be reactive more than proactive.
What I'm saying is that you might very well be right, but I am pessimistic in that I think we may react too late. Our efforts to change our ways have been, for all intents and purposes, a joke for the last 40 years.
> It is based on the wrong assumption of a static universe.
I am glad you bring up this point, although there's a flaw in it.
What I think you are saying is that the universe is full of change that the myopic human brain struggles to comprehend in its short lifetime. This is something I frequently have difficulty communicating to people.
For instance, one of my long time interests is in native plants and foraging. The truth about "native plants" is that little of it approaches a definition that can be considered truly "native". What's native to a person depends on their perspective. Native since when? Since humans showed up? Since before European settlers? Since the Pleistocene? What people think of as native plants are often as recent to an area as the 1400's or were carried by birds and critters from other parts of the world at some point in prehistory.
To your point, the world has always been changing long before we showed up, and attempting to keep it in suspended animation may be a losing game.
But many in the native plant community (yes, there are people simply interested in native flora) won't have that perspective, let alone consider it intellectually. I left those communities because my view that not every non-native plant is "invasive" or "noxious" was considered heresy. Because the world has always been in flux, I generally don't believe that living things introduced in our lifetime must be eradicated to maintain the image of the world we are familiar with. There are of course exceptions, but to many zealots every plant they don't like must be an exception. It doesn't even matter if an introduced plant doesn't pose a threat to surrounding plants and animals. They want it gone because reasons.
In some ways, climate change can be viewed in the same way. While I absolutely think that climate change caused by humanity is an alarming concern, I have trouble discussing the issue with people because they have the "static universe" world view. In their minds, our current Earth is the one that was always meant to exist, which is pretty anthropocentric. They believe that, at least until recently, we had just the right amount of glaciers, just the right amount of snow in the winter, and just the right amount of heat in the summer to melt the snow caps for drinking water and give us a nice tan; it's just as God intended!
The tricky thing about climate change is that a certain amount of it was destined to happen whether we were blowing CO2 into the atmosphere or not. This fact (and it is a fact) doesn't change my view that we should be concerned about the warming of the glove, but it's often ignored by people. They read facts about melting glaciers and simply conclude, based on their limited earthly experience, that glaciers shouldn't melt and that glaciers melting are necessarily a sign of doom. Ironically, some of them are still opposed to nuclear energy or seriously investing in solar technology, but that's neither here nor there.
On the other hand, some use the fluctuating-universe theory to rationalize their lack of concern. To them, all change is what God intended, figuratively speaking. It's the mirror image of the supposed counterargument.
There are solutions that should satisfy both sides of the coin. Will they ever agree to use those solutions proactively? It seems we are at a political impasse where one's position on these issues primarily depends on where their personality and temperament naturally drifts them towards rather by highly conscious choice. (arguments around free-will notwithstanding)
It's not just Chinese crypto traders at a loss. I think almost all crypto traders are at a loss in this state.
[deleted]
And what about mining?
When will this be truly enforced?
When will this be truly enforced?
Wow, this I did not see coming.
I kind of assumed BTC mining was going to be owned by Chinese nationals within a couple years, at which point the government would nationalize it and BTC would no longer, in practice, have the promise of a distributed store of truth.
Egg on my face.
I kind of assumed BTC mining was going to be owned by Chinese nationals within a couple years, at which point the government would nationalize it and BTC would no longer, in practice, have the promise of a distributed store of truth.
Egg on my face.
[deleted]
While not a fan of PoW for evironmental reasons.
For instance El Salvador made bit-coin legal tender there... So china has out lawed what an other country has declared legal tender... Might make transactions between those 2 countries interesting....
For instance El Salvador made bit-coin legal tender there... So china has out lawed what an other country has declared legal tender... Might make transactions between those 2 countries interesting....
No, because El Salvador still accepts dollars.
This happens every other week.
Alternate headline: China says today is a good day to invest in crypto.
Trampoline sales fall as China declares gravity "illegal".
Trampoline "users" fall as China declares gravity illegal
Other than white listing and black listing transactions by the miners and exchanges, and governments declaring it illegal, Bitcoin is 100% censorship resistant.
>Bitcoin is 100% censorship resistant.
... as is everything else? Other than governments declaring it illegal and intermediaries black listing it, I mean.
... as is everything else? Other than governments declaring it illegal and intermediaries black listing it, I mean.
Serious question: In a place like China with the Great Firewall, can't they simply block crypto connections at the ISP level? Can't they more aggressively disallow VPN connections to locations outside of China? They might not be able to change the ledger but it seems like they could (will?) block access to them.
I think this is technically possible.
Relatedly, can they jam Starlink?
Relatedly, can they jam Starlink?
Bitcoin isn't, but Monero is.
It's not inconceivable that we could wind up in a period of hyperinflation where bitcoin (or some token) could be used to in a way similar to the Plano Real in Brasil back in the '90s. It could actually have a stabilizing (mostly psychological) effect, should things go haywire with fiat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano_Real
How much BTC is likely to be held in accounts that can no longer legally trade?
AFAIK there aren't any exchanges in mainland china, so everyone there has their crypto in offshore accounts that aren't subject to such regulations.
Pretty sure it's still illegal for Chinese citizens to use them.
Will we observe a significant hash-rate dive in near future?
No, miners already migrated. This is affecting Chinese holders more than anything.
> virtual currency does not have the same legal status as legal currency
> they are not legal and should not and cannot be used as currency in the market
So, you're not allowed to use it as a currency. Can you still use it as an asset?
> they are not legal and should not and cannot be used as currency in the market
So, you're not allowed to use it as a currency. Can you still use it as an asset?
If the Chinese Communist Party bans it, that’s good enough for me. They’re definitely making the kinds of changes and exerting power in a way that reassures me of their domestic and global aspirations.
This is about the 19th time they do this since I follow the crypt news.
Its irrelevant, the people there are under the control of he CCP and no crypt could help them escape.
Exchanges were already banned a while back.
Its literally just a restatement of their 2017 pronouncement with no changes.
Its being hyped as "new" but its not.
Its being hyped as "new" but its not.
Banning exchanges and banning use are two different things.
Financial institutions cant deal with it, no exchanges, no ICO's. They shut all the doors a while back. How do you use or own something when all legal avenues are closed unless you just do it illegally which is probably what some are doing.
Private persons could still exchange coins before. This time it is a total ban.
[deleted]
Apparently it never gets old.
Here's the 2017 announcement: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-09/04/content_5222657.htm
Here's the one from 2021: http://www.safe.gov.cn/safe/2021/0924/19911.html
There are changes. E.g. the 2017 announcement doesn't mention 衍生品 (derivatives) at all, while the 2021 announcement explicitly lists trading them among the prohibited activities.
Here's the one from 2021: http://www.safe.gov.cn/safe/2021/0924/19911.html
There are changes. E.g. the 2017 announcement doesn't mention 衍生品 (derivatives) at all, while the 2021 announcement explicitly lists trading them among the prohibited activities.
hooray, finally some good news this week.
even aside from reducing the amount of financial stupidity in the world, bitcoin uses as much electricity as entire countries! to process 4 TRANSACTIONS PER SECOND:
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transactions-per-second
what in the ever-loving fuck are we doing with ourselves.
even aside from reducing the amount of financial stupidity in the world, bitcoin uses as much electricity as entire countries! to process 4 TRANSACTIONS PER SECOND:
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transactions-per-second
what in the ever-loving fuck are we doing with ourselves.
I'm not sure why the market would react to this news. China is not an example to follow in just about anything these days.
I hope it all comes crashing down, so that cryptocurrencies will go back to their use of transacting instead of speculating.
Cryptocurrency was originally designed to be currency, not a transactional mechanism only.
If you think it through, it can't work as only a transactional mechanism, because the price won't be stable. It has to first become a big asset class with a lot of liquidity, which means it has to go through a growth phase, i.e. speculation.
If you think it through, it can't work as only a transactional mechanism, because the price won't be stable. It has to first become a big asset class with a lot of liquidity, which means it has to go through a growth phase, i.e. speculation.
hopefully more ocuntries will follow so that we finally get rid of POW
If every country in the world AND the UN "banned" cryptocurrencies, there would still be POW.
It's all about how much work the reward pays for. At current Bitcoin prices of around $43k, the block reward pays miners $14,125,500,000/year to spin ASICs all day. That kind of money buys a lot of wasted power.
If PoW is still around, but the price dumps low enough that miners are only burning, say, $1,000,000 a year worth of power, that'd be a great improvement.
If PoW is still around, but the price dumps low enough that miners are only burning, say, $1,000,000 a year worth of power, that'd be a great improvement.
Sure, but if no American, Canadian, European, Chinese, Japanese, etc person is willing to use it, then what's the point?
I for one, only like money that there is no proof it was worked for.
Crypto goes up, crypto goes down.
Panic/optimism/panic/whatever.
There’s nothing behind the price but pure sentiment.
Panic/optimism/panic/whatever.
There’s nothing behind the price but pure sentiment.
cryptocurrency?
Hah you brought a grin to my face. I fondly remember the late 90s when I was doing my BSc on computing. I was pretty into cryptography, stenography, data obfuscation and reverse engineering. Back then people doing "crypto" were called nerds by Software Engineers (the nerds of the nerds). Pretty great time.
ok, boomer.
just kidding. I see 'crypto', I think 'cryptography', and China banning cryptography (except for the party/government) doesn't seem that far fetched, so I think its a bad headline.
just kidding. I see 'crypto', I think 'cryptography', and China banning cryptography (except for the party/government) doesn't seem that far fetched, so I think its a bad headline.
I think cryptozoology. China should ban bigfoot, loch ness monster and chupacabra.
I'm curious to know how to will be spun into being good for bitcoin.
translation: the microchip shortage has finally become exhausting enough to begin picking low hanging fruit.
When will the defi movement realize how much centralized and regulated equipment and systems they rely on? Crypto-anarchists/libertarians are just living in a fever dream.
I hope the rest of world follows. There is nothing more volatile than a decentralised crypto currency. The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5% and energy consumption is beyond acceptable.
Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
It's ok to not like crypto but how about sticking to the truth?
* There's many things much more volatile than crypto, the biggest markets being vix if you're a hedgefund and pretty much all derivates like options if you're a gambling man. btc in particular is only 2x from many traditional markets: https://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-volatility-vs-other-asset...
* The second part of only 5% making a profit is made up and makes no sense. There's not a lot of days since it's inception where you could buy and hold some btc and it wouldn't be more worth later on. Sure if you fomo at a local top and panic sell the bottom you can get burned but it's an easy trade my guess would be more like 80% but like your number it's also just made up.
* Energy consumption you need to put it into relation of comparable resources, of course if you're determined it's worthless it's hard to justify any cost even if it's minor in comparison but that's a personal opinion of yours and many disagree.
One might disagree on what exactly is a comparable resource. A digital currency could just as well store everyone's balance in a giant SQL database. In exchange for utter centralization the energy consumption drops to essentially zero. IIUC a PoS coin will also have much smaller energy consumption. So we have a situation where a collection of people are using huge, huge amounts of energy to speculate not only on digital assets, but on decentralized PoW digital assets.
Digital money is as easy as you giving me $10 and me making a record of it in a text file that's not really what the rest of us are talking about.
I also wonder when people voicing environmental concerns will accept that there's a whole slew of newer Proof-of-stake blockchains that aren't using that much energy.
One example being Algorand which is carbon neutral: https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/how-algorand-offsets...
Oh and speaking of usage of crypto in China - i wonder how that affects VET / VeChain which is, largely, used by Walmart China to track their wares:
https://seevechain.com/contracts https://www.vechain.com/
One example being Algorand which is carbon neutral: https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/how-algorand-offsets...
Oh and speaking of usage of crypto in China - i wonder how that affects VET / VeChain which is, largely, used by Walmart China to track their wares:
https://seevechain.com/contracts https://www.vechain.com/
I won't downplay the environmental consequences of PoW, but the actual reason so many governments are speeding the push against crypto might be related to a future of high inflation and high gov debt. It would be the perfect storm for mainstream crypto adoption.
> the actual reason so many governments are speeding the push against crypto might be related to a future of high inflation and high gov debt
The reason why we have inflation and debt is to keep the value of our currencies stable. IE, if people want to use dollars, the US government can print more dollars to satisfy the demand. (And thus keep the value stable.)
Cryptocurrency's volatile value is a result of its inability to "print money" when more people want to use it.
Remember: Currency is not an investment. A good currency has a stable value over time; otherwise it's very difficult to conduct commerce.
The reason why we have inflation and debt is to keep the value of our currencies stable. IE, if people want to use dollars, the US government can print more dollars to satisfy the demand. (And thus keep the value stable.)
Cryptocurrency's volatile value is a result of its inability to "print money" when more people want to use it.
Remember: Currency is not an investment. A good currency has a stable value over time; otherwise it's very difficult to conduct commerce.
> The reason why we have inflation and debt is to keep the value of our currencies stable.
I'm not following. By definition, inflation is what happens when the price of a currency is not stable.
> Remember: Currency is not an investment. A good currency has a stable value over time; otherwise it's very difficult to conduct commerce
Agreed. But in countries with high inflation, such as mine, you will lose money if all your wealth is stored as fiat.
I'm not following. By definition, inflation is what happens when the price of a currency is not stable.
> Remember: Currency is not an investment. A good currency has a stable value over time; otherwise it's very difficult to conduct commerce
Agreed. But in countries with high inflation, such as mine, you will lose money if all your wealth is stored as fiat.
Stability operates on short and long time scales. 2% annual inflation means a currency is worth 99.994% as much tomorrow as it was today which in practice is generally fine.
Even fairly high inflation levels of say 7% annually can still be quite stable on a daily or monthly basis which is all you really need. As most people spend most of their paycheck every month and savings aren’t limited to the currency in question.
By comparison crypto coins tend to have much higher daily and monthly variations which isn’t a big deal for savings, but in practice it discourages their use for day to day expenses.
Even fairly high inflation levels of say 7% annually can still be quite stable on a daily or monthly basis which is all you really need. As most people spend most of their paycheck every month and savings aren’t limited to the currency in question.
By comparison crypto coins tend to have much higher daily and monthly variations which isn’t a big deal for savings, but in practice it discourages their use for day to day expenses.
You should look more into the real causes of inflation in your country, because they are probably not what you think
Even without knowing what country you are from, I would bet that inflation is because imports and exports imbalances and nothing to do with "printing too much money".
And anyway, if the problem is storing value, why you don't buy gold or dollars, yens or something like that?
Even without knowing what country you are from, I would bet that inflation is because imports and exports imbalances and nothing to do with "printing too much money".
And anyway, if the problem is storing value, why you don't buy gold or dollars, yens or something like that?
There is a huge difference between moderate inflation and ruinous hyperinflation. For example, before last year Australia had gone almost 30 years without a recession [0], in large part because their central bank's inflation target is a few points higher than the US's hard 2% ceiling. This gives their bank more flexibility in controlling the money supply.
That kind of stability is more beneficial to the middle class than any negatives that may come with that level of inflation.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/business/australia-recess...
That kind of stability is more beneficial to the middle class than any negatives that may come with that level of inflation.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/business/australia-recess...
> For example, before last year Australia had gone almost 30 years without a recession [0], in large part because their central bank's inflation target is a few points higher than the US's hard 2% ceiling.
Australia has gone 30 years without recession because we're supplying commodities like iron into the most miraculously productive miracle in all of recorded history, aka mainland China. And because we've got one of the highest rates of net migration in the developed world.
On a per capita basis Australia has had recessions, and it is a stretch to say that our inflation target did anything relative to all the other countries that have inflation targets.
Australia has gone 30 years without recession because we're supplying commodities like iron into the most miraculously productive miracle in all of recorded history, aka mainland China. And because we've got one of the highest rates of net migration in the developed world.
On a per capita basis Australia has had recessions, and it is a stretch to say that our inflation target did anything relative to all the other countries that have inflation targets.
Not sure why you're so downvoted.
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]
And if you're going to break the guidelines and comment on voting anyway, the very least that you could do is also add some value to the discussion, e.g. add some thoughts/elaboration/support for the points made.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And if you're going to break the guidelines and comment on voting anyway, the very least that you could do is also add some value to the discussion, e.g. add some thoughts/elaboration/support for the points made.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And that's fine. If you need stuff now, spend; if you don't, invest, at whatever risk level you're comfortable with. Just hanging onto purchasing power while doing neither is bad for the economy if too many people try it.
I will concede that switching out of a high-inflation currency to a stable one is a good idea, and that for many people using cryptocurrency is the only way of circumventing their country's laws on the subject.
However, bitcoin experiences 10-20% drops against the USD on a regular basis. It looks like this announcement has triggered another one. It's not stable, it's just (a) appreciated over time a lot and (b) is doing better against the USD than, say, the Argentine peso.
> By definition, inflation is what happens when the price of a currency is not stable
Inflation is what happens when the price of goods and services in a currency is not stable. It can be triggered without a change in the money supply by underlying shocks to the real economy (e.g. 70s oil shocks)
Bitcoin claims to guarantee money supply stability, but it cannot guarantee price stability.
However, bitcoin experiences 10-20% drops against the USD on a regular basis. It looks like this announcement has triggered another one. It's not stable, it's just (a) appreciated over time a lot and (b) is doing better against the USD than, say, the Argentine peso.
> By definition, inflation is what happens when the price of a currency is not stable
Inflation is what happens when the price of goods and services in a currency is not stable. It can be triggered without a change in the money supply by underlying shocks to the real economy (e.g. 70s oil shocks)
Bitcoin claims to guarantee money supply stability, but it cannot guarantee price stability.
> But in countries with high inflation, such as mine, you will lose money if all your wealth is stored as fiat
That's also the case in countries with low inflation. That's why, in the US, wealthy people don't stuff cash in mattresses, or keep most of their wealth in general bank accounts. They buy stocks, bonds, real estate, ect. This is also why, in the US, investment vehicles like 401ks and IRAs are highly encouraged.
That's also the case in countries with low inflation. That's why, in the US, wealthy people don't stuff cash in mattresses, or keep most of their wealth in general bank accounts. They buy stocks, bonds, real estate, ect. This is also why, in the US, investment vehicles like 401ks and IRAs are highly encouraged.
> Remember: Currency is not an investment. A good currency has a stable value over time; otherwise it's very difficult to conduct commerce.
Perhaps that is why countries like Japan are changing the definition of crypto and calling it "virtual assets" instead of "virtual currency".
Perhaps that is why countries like Japan are changing the definition of crypto and calling it "virtual assets" instead of "virtual currency".
> The reason why we have inflation and debt is to keep the value of our currencies stable
A stable currency would have an inflation rate of 0%. Inflation does not cause currency stability, it decreases the value of the currency.
By definition, its value is changing.
A stable currency would have an inflation rate of 0%. Inflation does not cause currency stability, it decreases the value of the currency.
By definition, its value is changing.
Not true, if money supply does not grow with population or economic growth it will be deflationary aka not stable. If deflation continues then people will hold onto money rather than buy things with it since things become relatively cheaper every day, which leads to economic downturn.
Is that a bad thing? Items would become more durable, planned obsolescence for products would all but disappear. Things would need to last a long time otherwise people won't spend on it. It would be good for landfills, fewer electronics and plastic garbage. I think it's sad that people in 2020s aftaid to hold savings because they know if they don't spend it, their buying power is reduced tomorrow.
[deleted]
Exactly! Sad to see this kind of financial illiteracy on HN in the GP
> A stable currency would have an inflation rate of 0%
Sure, and if the government had centralized control of all prices, it could mandate that. Since it doesn't (even those that assert that power don't have it in practice), what it seeks to do, as far as stability, is try to acheive low short-term price volatility, and as it turns out, experience shows that low-to-moderate inflation helps with that.
Sure, and if the government had centralized control of all prices, it could mandate that. Since it doesn't (even those that assert that power don't have it in practice), what it seeks to do, as far as stability, is try to acheive low short-term price volatility, and as it turns out, experience shows that low-to-moderate inflation helps with that.
The M1 [0] tracks physical currency in the economy. It would appear there is a rather large amount of literal money printing afoot. So while a sharp turn to dictatorship could stabilise the currency, there are probably less extreme measures the US government could take to keep inflation at 0%. 75% of (physical, not the important ones in bank accounts) dollars literally appeared after 2016.
The M1 isn't the measure that matters - but it is a fact that large amounts of money are appearing from somewhere and that is probably the most significant factor in the currency losing value. Price controls are an overreaction, there are easier ways to make the currency more stable.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m1
The M1 isn't the measure that matters - but it is a fact that large amounts of money are appearing from somewhere and that is probably the most significant factor in the currency losing value. Price controls are an overreaction, there are easier ways to make the currency more stable.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m1
> The M1 [0] tracks physical currency in the economy.
No it doesn't. M1 also includes demand deposit accounts (checking and savings accounts), among other things that aren't physical currency.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m1.asp
No it doesn't. M1 also includes demand deposit accounts (checking and savings accounts), among other things that aren't physical currency.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m1.asp
A stable currency would have a stable Velocity. This is something both USD(which is inflationary) and BTC(which is deflationary) get wrong. We need a flationary currency.
[deleted]
The USD historically has an inflation rate of 4% a year; or prices double every 17 years.
The USD is one of the most stable currencies in the world.
The USD is one of the most stable currencies in the world.
For China specifically, the reason to hate crypto currency is because it's a system where they don't have control. It's the same reason they are cracking down on the tech sector and Hong Kong. The CCP does not like having competitors for power or even something they don't have control over.
> The CCP does not like having competitors for power or even something they don't have control over.
The CCP is a bunch of unambitious individuals. Everything that causes troubles to the CCP means troubles for Xi and the possibility that his "president for life" title might be revoked, creating room for somebody else to ascend.
From a game theory standpoint it is better to be at the helm of a slightly less relevant organization than being a subordinate of an organization plowing ahead at full steam unrivaled.
This is even more true in politics and NGOs where the monetary compensation is very limited and it's all about the status.
The CCP is a bunch of unambitious individuals. Everything that causes troubles to the CCP means troubles for Xi and the possibility that his "president for life" title might be revoked, creating room for somebody else to ascend.
From a game theory standpoint it is better to be at the helm of a slightly less relevant organization than being a subordinate of an organization plowing ahead at full steam unrivaled.
This is even more true in politics and NGOs where the monetary compensation is very limited and it's all about the status.
China is performing a sort of seppuku, will be interesting to watch.
I sincerely think the main motivation is to protect people from losing too much when the bubble pops.
The bubble has been ongoing for a decade now. I suppose the challenge will be what is the line in the sand where it isn't a bubble? There isn't a lot of good evidence it is in a bubble.
This thing also poses a real threat to SWIFT and anyone trying to put together a successor to SWIFT. The US has been weaponising international currency transfers for a while now, and China would be facing problems controlling capital flows if people could just send money internationally without much consequence. There are good, selfish, reasons for why governments would intervene.
This thing also poses a real threat to SWIFT and anyone trying to put together a successor to SWIFT. The US has been weaponising international currency transfers for a while now, and China would be facing problems controlling capital flows if people could just send money internationally without much consequence. There are good, selfish, reasons for why governments would intervene.
Nonsense. Why would any sane person move a large part of their assets into something as volatile as crypto? If you want to protect yourself against inflation, buy real estate or equities if your time horizon is long enough. Even fixed income once rates are a bit better. But for the average person please stay clear of crypto!
If your time horizon is long enough, volatility shouldn't matter. Historically speaking Bitcoin is getting less volatile with every market cycle. I would not be surprised if in the future its volatility is comparable to the S&P500.
Why would any sane person invest in real estate? You have maintenance costs, property taxes, it's not liquid and you can go years with little growth. Not to mention if your area see's hard economic times (i.e. Detroit), the chance of a rebound is slim.
Why would any sane person invest in real estate? You have maintenance costs, property taxes, it's not liquid and you can go years with little growth. Not to mention if your area see's hard economic times (i.e. Detroit), the chance of a rebound is slim.
I can live on land. I can't live on a string.
You also ignore the premise being put forth, that Bitcoin as a currency still isn't ideal. You don't think "long term investment" with currency so much as short to medium term. Like, will bread and milk cost 10x as much next week?
"Stop thinking investment and start thinking survival" might be a good way to put it.
You also ignore the premise being put forth, that Bitcoin as a currency still isn't ideal. You don't think "long term investment" with currency so much as short to medium term. Like, will bread and milk cost 10x as much next week?
"Stop thinking investment and start thinking survival" might be a good way to put it.
The original comment was about protecting yourself against inflation. Not sure how your comment is related.
Ah. I got subthreads confused.
Less volatile with every market cycle?
Nassim Taleb disagrees: https://youtu.be/dLOeBSaq-Ps
I bet the CoinGeek conference audience were stunned by his keynote talk because Taleb used to be a supporter.
Nassim Taleb disagrees: https://youtu.be/dLOeBSaq-Ps
I bet the CoinGeek conference audience were stunned by his keynote talk because Taleb used to be a supporter.
The average person cannot buy real estate. The average person knows the system is rigged against them
Yes you can. Buy REIT ETFs. It's investing in real estate but with high liquidity and very low minimum investment.
I have no crypto as today due volatity as well.
At the same time, hedging against inflation is hard. The things you suggested come with their own risks.
I think a future in which crypto becomes stable due increased adoption is possible, and in that future it will be a good hedge.
At the same time, hedging against inflation is hard. The things you suggested come with their own risks.
I think a future in which crypto becomes stable due increased adoption is possible, and in that future it will be a good hedge.
> buy real estate or equities
Does that logic applies in China? Are real state or equities a protection from volatility on a self proclaimed communist country? What about South America, Lebanon or Turkey?
The incontestable precious and invaluable wisdom of the hacker news poster who potentially lives on US California or some rich western country on a comfortably fat salary.
Every. single. time.
Does that logic applies in China? Are real state or equities a protection from volatility on a self proclaimed communist country? What about South America, Lebanon or Turkey?
The incontestable precious and invaluable wisdom of the hacker news poster who potentially lives on US California or some rich western country on a comfortably fat salary.
Every. single. time.
Mainstream Crypto is the new year of Linux on the Desktop ;-)
Current inflation is due to the government “creating money” for the COVID-19 stimulus, the fact that governments can even do that is what’s so good about fiat currency.
Bailouts are another benefit. Governments can at will dull or even prevent financial contagion thus preventing another Great Depression.
All this has a cost in the form of inflation until the money is reabsorbed of course but it’s better than economic collapse.
Bailouts are another benefit. Governments can at will dull or even prevent financial contagion thus preventing another Great Depression.
All this has a cost in the form of inflation until the money is reabsorbed of course but it’s better than economic collapse.
All fair. But there is no free lunch.
The burden of the proof always lies with the person or the entity trying to sell something.
The government failed to sell QE and bailouts to the population, the government further failed to sell inflation target at 2% to the population.
Had government not failed in selling these concepts we'd not have bitcoin.
Government as always can't sell. Otherwise it won't be government.
The burden of the proof always lies with the person or the entity trying to sell something.
The government failed to sell QE and bailouts to the population, the government further failed to sell inflation target at 2% to the population.
Had government not failed in selling these concepts we'd not have bitcoin.
Government as always can't sell. Otherwise it won't be government.
>The government failed to sell QE and bailouts to the population
I recall a recent vote where someone was elected president by a significant majority running on just this platform.
I recall a recent vote where someone was elected president by a significant majority running on just this platform.
I don't think Biden campaigned for unlimited QE and unlimited bailouts
In any event even if this was true an ambitious organization such as the government can't be satisfied with 52% confidence in its financial planning
In any event even if this was true an ambitious organization such as the government can't be satisfied with 52% confidence in its financial planning
We won't be getting unlimited QE or bailouts, so it's all good.
As a democracy, there's no alternative to the government working with whatever majority it gets.
As a democracy, there's no alternative to the government working with whatever majority it gets.
> As a democracy, there's no alternative to the government working with whatever majority it gets.
The government managed to sell the need for the military industrial complex.
The military is the most popular branch of the Federal Governemnt whereas the Fed and Treasury linger at 50-60% depending on who is in the WH.
50-60% is very low, that's the reason why Bitcoin thrives. If that number was 92-95% then Bitcoin would not exist.
Is it possible to have that number at 92-95% ? Maybe, maybe not...in any event the answer is not attacking bitcoin because even if Bitcoin is destroyed that remaining 50% void will be filled pretty quickly by something else.
The government managed to sell the need for the military industrial complex.
The military is the most popular branch of the Federal Governemnt whereas the Fed and Treasury linger at 50-60% depending on who is in the WH.
50-60% is very low, that's the reason why Bitcoin thrives. If that number was 92-95% then Bitcoin would not exist.
Is it possible to have that number at 92-95% ? Maybe, maybe not...in any event the answer is not attacking bitcoin because even if Bitcoin is destroyed that remaining 50% void will be filled pretty quickly by something else.
It unfortunately that there is so much misinformation about things like the bailout. A lot of people think that the US government gave the banks free money when in fact it was just a loan of sorts that the banks had to pay back with interest.
In fact the the US government actually made money from the bailout.
> In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the global financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion, for a net profit of $121 billion.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#...
In fact the the US government actually made money from the bailout.
> In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the global financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion, for a net profit of $121 billion.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#...
> It unfortunately that there is so much misinformation about things like the bailout
If you are an organization with 6000 nukes, 22T GDP, largest navy and airforce you don't get to cry about "misinformation".
People don't like QE and bailouts. Period. The burden of the proof is always on the person/organization trying to sell something. Always. For sure the public didn't conceive QE or bailouts and didn't try to sell it to the government.
Bitcoin would not exist if QE and bailouts were marketed by master salesmen such as Steve Jobs, Dana White, Don King or David Geffen
We as investors should operate with what is perceived by the population, not textbooks.
Perceptions move the market, and in the case of Bitcoin perception created a market. From 0 to 2 trillions in 10 years.
If you are an organization with 6000 nukes, 22T GDP, largest navy and airforce you don't get to cry about "misinformation".
People don't like QE and bailouts. Period. The burden of the proof is always on the person/organization trying to sell something. Always. For sure the public didn't conceive QE or bailouts and didn't try to sell it to the government.
Bitcoin would not exist if QE and bailouts were marketed by master salesmen such as Steve Jobs, Dana White, Don King or David Geffen
We as investors should operate with what is perceived by the population, not textbooks.
Perceptions move the market, and in the case of Bitcoin perception created a market. From 0 to 2 trillions in 10 years.
Is water torture better than death?
You probably live in the first world and had never to worry about inflation or politicians/bureaucrats just straight destroying the fiat currency and your wealth in the process. That's why crypto sounds so "wasteful" to you. BTW, if we give the government the power to judge what is a waste of energy and what's not, I can assure you life would be 100% more miserable, to everyone.
Crypto"currencies" are not the only way to store value when an official currency is failing: people who want their savings preserved can get USD, EUR, gold.
Crypto *is* volatile and wasteful compared to any of those.
Crypto *is* volatile and wasteful compared to any of those.
All of those things can be tracked and confiscated - crypto is a lot harder. It's volatile, but it's significantly more secure against state actors.
Yes, and they should be, in order to deter and punish crime.
who defines what a crime is? Isn't it the same government that at some point decides to confiscate your assets?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak
It is actually less harder than FIAT (except Monero), if you want to track spending of corrupt politicians, not fungible cryptocurrencies as BTC are great tools.
You still need to attach final wallet(s) to the user, but in any case, I assume they would use Monero (or another privacy coin).
Inflation already affecting USD. All fiat currencies are inherently inflationary. Thanks but no thanks.
To paraphrase a relatively popular Twitter account ~
Behind every dollar is an unspoken promise that the US Marines will evacuate you middle of the night anywhere in the world if shit hits the fan.
Which has been recently proven to be quite an assumption.
Behind every dollar is an unspoken promise that the US Marines will evacuate you middle of the night anywhere in the world if shit hits the fan.
Which has been recently proven to be quite an assumption.
There's actual real fiat currencies for that. The USD, the EUR, the YEN, the CHF... plenty of choices that have been used for decades in the developing world. I'd much rather have my money in a stable-ish fiat currency like those than in some Bitcoin that goes up and down 10% at will or by Elon-tweet.
In fact some countries, e.g. Kosovo and Montenegro, in the Balkans, use the euro as a de facto domestic currency since 2002, even though they have no agreements with the EU.
In fact some countries, e.g. Kosovo and Montenegro, in the Balkans, use the euro as a de facto domestic currency since 2002, even though they have no agreements with the EU.
Yours is the top comment on this thread and it's a bit surprising. When you say less than 5%, what are you talk about? Can you point to any sources that back that up?
Maybe if he meant less than 5% of miners make money. I could potentially believe this, given the competitive nature of mining.
However, as an investment, as of right now, there is only a span of a few months where if you bought Bitcoin you would not be in the green right now.
However, as an investment, as of right now, there is only a span of a few months where if you bought Bitcoin you would not be in the green right now.
Every bubble does that all the time until it bursts.
Did people find a useful reason to buy Bitcoin already? Something that creates value, instead of hopping to sell higher for the next sucker?
Did people find a useful reason to buy Bitcoin already? Something that creates value, instead of hopping to sell higher for the next sucker?
My stocks are worthless to me, other than hoping to sell high for the next sucker.
It's not whether they are useful for you, it's whether they are useful for anybody at all. If they did never and will never pay a dividend or have a buyback, then yes, they are a pyramid.
But it was just a matter of thinking a bit about it. Everybody knows what Bitcoin is useful for: cyber-extortion and evading capital restrictions. There are even good reasons for practicing the last one... With that in mind, BTC still behaves like a bubble, but proving it's actually one depends on a quite laborious process of comparing the volumes and estimating how they will evolve.
But it was just a matter of thinking a bit about it. Everybody knows what Bitcoin is useful for: cyber-extortion and evading capital restrictions. There are even good reasons for practicing the last one... With that in mind, BTC still behaves like a bubble, but proving it's actually one depends on a quite laborious process of comparing the volumes and estimating how they will evolve.
Crypto != Bitcoin. There’s a lot of exciting innovation happening in defi and other areas. The argument that crypto is only used for trading is well out of date
Just because an asset is near an all-time high doesn't make it a good investment.
Bitcoin wanted to be the world's currency, with a techno goldbug understanding of what money is. That shades a lot of what we think of as crypto.
There are a lot of different versions of the idea though. A lot of variety exists in crypto now, and very little is deterministic. I don't want to rule out the positive possibilities, and outlawing is broad brush. The PCB grunted at crypto here. We can do
That said, the variety of possibilities also creates danger. Underregulated stable coins, for example, get very sketchy once you reach a certain size. If they keep growing, start embellished with dolaralized interest payments and such.... you now have a rogue banking system issuing its own US dollars. Good luck with that. The scale of fraud, and treacherously borderline fraud can be epic. I don't think we should downplay these.
OTOH, this is true of every part of the financial sector. Lets not pretend the current way the financial sector is structured isn't riddled with the kinds of problems crypto poses.
A country with some clever CB people, even a small one, should be bold and bring crypto into the pax. There's a lot you can do with a designed-4-a-purpose currency, and crypto is a very viable way to do many things. Bitcoin's origins, and much of crypto's present, is secrecy oriented. But, it's actually more natural to design a cryptocurrency for transparency. That's useful in a lot of circumstances.
Take time to understand wtf is going on and regulate, ban or encourage specific things for specific reasons. There's a lot to be gained, not just a lot to be lost. A properly regulated stable coin might be a great idea.
Keynes has made a comeback during the pandemic, and people are relearning war era ideas about controlling inflation. In that context and considering 2021's low interest rates, national savings bonds will probably soon be considered in various places. You don't need crypto to do this, but it does give you more flexibility in how you do it.
There are a lot of different versions of the idea though. A lot of variety exists in crypto now, and very little is deterministic. I don't want to rule out the positive possibilities, and outlawing is broad brush. The PCB grunted at crypto here. We can do
That said, the variety of possibilities also creates danger. Underregulated stable coins, for example, get very sketchy once you reach a certain size. If they keep growing, start embellished with dolaralized interest payments and such.... you now have a rogue banking system issuing its own US dollars. Good luck with that. The scale of fraud, and treacherously borderline fraud can be epic. I don't think we should downplay these.
OTOH, this is true of every part of the financial sector. Lets not pretend the current way the financial sector is structured isn't riddled with the kinds of problems crypto poses.
A country with some clever CB people, even a small one, should be bold and bring crypto into the pax. There's a lot you can do with a designed-4-a-purpose currency, and crypto is a very viable way to do many things. Bitcoin's origins, and much of crypto's present, is secrecy oriented. But, it's actually more natural to design a cryptocurrency for transparency. That's useful in a lot of circumstances.
Take time to understand wtf is going on and regulate, ban or encourage specific things for specific reasons. There's a lot to be gained, not just a lot to be lost. A properly regulated stable coin might be a great idea.
Keynes has made a comeback during the pandemic, and people are relearning war era ideas about controlling inflation. In that context and considering 2021's low interest rates, national savings bonds will probably soon be considered in various places. You don't need crypto to do this, but it does give you more flexibility in how you do it.
> with a techno goldbug understanding of what money is
I think this isn't emphasized enough. With existing fiat money I have some degree of democratic control over monetary policy. With BTC, critical monetary policy was set by one person and if that monetary policy ever changes it will be decided by a combination of engineers and mining conglomerates.
Given how critical these policies are and how ideologically focused many of the non-speculators are, I am worried about growing systems with disastrous policy consequences.
I think this isn't emphasized enough. With existing fiat money I have some degree of democratic control over monetary policy. With BTC, critical monetary policy was set by one person and if that monetary policy ever changes it will be decided by a combination of engineers and mining conglomerates.
Given how critical these policies are and how ideologically focused many of the non-speculators are, I am worried about growing systems with disastrous policy consequences.
I believe you lack understanding of BTC monetary policy. I'm 100% sure you don't think you do though.
BTC is at the point where if you don't have time or want to research what it really is, and only want to believe talking heads and authority figures, no one is going to take the time to explain it to you.
Those days are over, people have moved on and are using it for utility, without permission, how they see fit, whether as a currency or store of value.
Nothing can prevent a BTC transfer to anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. That is why China 'banned' it.
BTC is at the point where if you don't have time or want to research what it really is, and only want to believe talking heads and authority figures, no one is going to take the time to explain it to you.
Those days are over, people have moved on and are using it for utility, without permission, how they see fit, whether as a currency or store of value.
Nothing can prevent a BTC transfer to anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. That is why China 'banned' it.
> I believe you lack understanding of BTC monetary policy.
I am so tired of people insisting that I simply don't know anything.
The mining curve is monetary policy. For example, a 100% premined coin has very different properties than a coin with a fixed mining rate and no upper bound. The upper bound on the number of bitcoins is consistently pointed at by proponents as a means to prevent inflation. I can imagine no other phrase for this than "monetary policy".
I am so tired of people insisting that I simply don't know anything.
The mining curve is monetary policy. For example, a 100% premined coin has very different properties than a coin with a fixed mining rate and no upper bound. The upper bound on the number of bitcoins is consistently pointed at by proponents as a means to prevent inflation. I can imagine no other phrase for this than "monetary policy".
You claim you're tired of insisting you don't know anythig, yet you beleive you have no democratic say in BTC monetary policy. You don't know what you don't know.
I do not get a vote in BTC monetary policy by virtue of being a human. I'd get a vote according to my hash rate if I bought a mining rig. That isn't democracy.
That's not a vote on monetary policy. A vote on monetary policy is forking the algorithm and changing the nature of the cap.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrency es is a bunch of tech bros assuming they can run or set up a better monetary system than everyone else...
...without realizing that transaction media are an extremely powerful political and diplomatic tool, integral to maintaining national security, and will get stomped relatively quickly given enough time for governments to wrap their head around it.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrency es is a bunch of tech bros assuming they can run or set up a better monetary system than everyone else...
...without realizing that transaction media are an extremely powerful political and diplomatic tool, integral to maintaining national security, and will get stomped relatively quickly given enough time for governments to wrap their head around it.
You can fork the algorithm if you have a sustained >50% hash rate. I suspect that with BTC this will never happen in a meaningful way since something as basic as block sizes caused an insurmountable rift in the community.
Like I said, you don't know what you don't know.
Then share. I assure you that I am capable of understanding.
Why? The information is yours to seek. People only eat for a day when you give them a fish.
I'm seeking it right now. So let's try again.
The mining curve is reasonably described as monetary policy, seeing as it has a major impact on the distribution of coins and on inflation, which many crypto advocates worry about very deeply.
The mining curve was defined by Satoshi based on their original implementation. If there was to be a change in the mining curve we would need (1) a new version of the btc codebase that does mining rewards differently and (2) for the miners to swap to this fork. There is no mechanism for me, as a single person, to have a voice in this process except through contributing hash power to my preference. This is an amount of voting power associated with my wealth. That is antidemocratic.
Or do you want to just keep telling my that I am mysteriously ignorant over and over? That'll certainly endear people to the community.
The mining curve is reasonably described as monetary policy, seeing as it has a major impact on the distribution of coins and on inflation, which many crypto advocates worry about very deeply.
The mining curve was defined by Satoshi based on their original implementation. If there was to be a change in the mining curve we would need (1) a new version of the btc codebase that does mining rewards differently and (2) for the miners to swap to this fork. There is no mechanism for me, as a single person, to have a voice in this process except through contributing hash power to my preference. This is an amount of voting power associated with my wealth. That is antidemocratic.
Or do you want to just keep telling my that I am mysteriously ignorant over and over? That'll certainly endear people to the community.
There's pretty much nothing different to serve with bitcoin-style "public blockchain" tech. Nothing needs to be trustless, and nothing would securely work as trustless without currency-style incentives (why namecoin is a coin, etc.). (And "private blockchain" is just a term based on marketing hype tied to bitcoin, there's no new tech there, that fundamentally just means incorporating the same concepts as Git.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCHab0dNnj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCHab0dNnj4
Only PoW cryptos need extensive electricity and hardware.
Dont make crypto just bitcoins. If you really want to help make a dent in the energy consumption then people need to move away from PoW coins not from crypto in general.
Only PoW cryptocurrencies can be fairly distributed and avoid wealth concentration (although many fail to do so by concentrating most of emission in just the first few years).
Not true, you need capital to mine. Capital begets capital even on pow.
Pretty much that's why they say you need to let money work for you.
That's incorrect, especially in the context of bitcoin given how concentrated early emissions were, which you mentioned. A years-long ico, or incentives paid to users, would serve the same function but without economic waste.
At the same time it's true that no l1 to date did that on any non-negligible scale, and starting now would take years.
This is not true, saturation points on staking pools exist to encourage people moving to other pools, this causes more decentralization not less. Additionally, from a hardware perspective setting up a pool takes significantly less capital compared to PoW mining.
Fair distribution is not only completely subjective, but also meaningless. Given enough time, any valuable asset's distribution will be heavily concentrated in the hands of the rich.
> Given enough time, any valuable asset's distribution will be heavily concentrated in the hands of the rich.
That reads like a tautology—they're called "the rich" because they have wealth, so naturally if you look at the distribution of assets most will be in the hands of the rich. One doesn't accumulate assets purely by being rich, however, as many a lottery winner can attest. Barring the occasional (and usually short-lived) windfall, for the most part those who attain wealth do so because they possess certain habits and preferences related to saving and investing. Even if you reset the distribution of wealth those tendencies would remain and bring about a gradual return to the original economic structure.
That reads like a tautology—they're called "the rich" because they have wealth, so naturally if you look at the distribution of assets most will be in the hands of the rich. One doesn't accumulate assets purely by being rich, however, as many a lottery winner can attest. Barring the occasional (and usually short-lived) windfall, for the most part those who attain wealth do so because they possess certain habits and preferences related to saving and investing. Even if you reset the distribution of wealth those tendencies would remain and bring about a gradual return to the original economic structure.
You are alluding to PoS i assume. I never really understood that argument. How is wealth getting concentrated when the relative distribution of coins stays exactly the same?
Because that relative distribution that is unchanged by staking is concentrated to begin with.
But if those owners want to do anything with that capital they have to sell coins leading to more distribution. Plus you also have to pay taxes on staking income leading to more sales. But yes those shennanigans of many chain founders are certainly a problem.
How exactly do you incentivize anyone ever to abandon PoW coins rather than just adding non-PoW on the side?
How exactly do you think you could dethrone Bitcoin, overcoming its gigantic first-mover advantage?
I believe BTC could only come down with the rest of that "economy".
How exactly do you think you could dethrone Bitcoin, overcoming its gigantic first-mover advantage?
I believe BTC could only come down with the rest of that "economy".
Education and time. There is a limited number of people who can not see that PoW does not work long term and more importantly that we have working alternatives like FBA consensus. Once all (most) of these people bough BTC it can only go down hill long term because people who actually want to use it will move away as its simply to expensive.
Side-chains dont solve the problem no matter how many and how performant they are. On the main-chain the fees need to eventually cover the cost of running the network i.e. the whole energy, hardware and human labor. Currently this is still mostly paid by the block reward (aka paid by inflation). This pays about a quarter million USD every 10 minutes. It doesn't need much common sense to figure out that if the combined fees of all peoples transaction need to result in a quarter million USD every 10 minute then transaction can not be cheap. Bitcoin is currently running on subsidy by its own block reward that pays about as much as google pays for operation.
The average Tx fee is currently a few dollar but a subsidy of about 140 dollar is added form the block reward. Non-PoW based systems have outperformed bitcoin in terms of transaction for years with average Tx fees of less than a cent. Shouldn't this be enough incentivize? Surely it is for thous who actuality want to use the system. The gamblers and maxis will probably hodl their bag forever but once it loses market relevant it will sharply become insecure as well and the whole thing should collapse. Might take another 10 years, who knows but it eventually has to fail. Its like ICE cars vs. EVs it was always just a matter of time but it felt like it took forever.
>How exactly do you think you could dethrone Bitcoin, overcoming its gigantic first-mover advantage?
If you look at the bigger picture BTC loses market share and there is no sign that this will change. The gains are below average so people who only gamble have an incentive to gamble with something else.
Side-chains dont solve the problem no matter how many and how performant they are. On the main-chain the fees need to eventually cover the cost of running the network i.e. the whole energy, hardware and human labor. Currently this is still mostly paid by the block reward (aka paid by inflation). This pays about a quarter million USD every 10 minutes. It doesn't need much common sense to figure out that if the combined fees of all peoples transaction need to result in a quarter million USD every 10 minute then transaction can not be cheap. Bitcoin is currently running on subsidy by its own block reward that pays about as much as google pays for operation.
The average Tx fee is currently a few dollar but a subsidy of about 140 dollar is added form the block reward. Non-PoW based systems have outperformed bitcoin in terms of transaction for years with average Tx fees of less than a cent. Shouldn't this be enough incentivize? Surely it is for thous who actuality want to use the system. The gamblers and maxis will probably hodl their bag forever but once it loses market relevant it will sharply become insecure as well and the whole thing should collapse. Might take another 10 years, who knows but it eventually has to fail. Its like ICE cars vs. EVs it was always just a matter of time but it felt like it took forever.
>How exactly do you think you could dethrone Bitcoin, overcoming its gigantic first-mover advantage?
If you look at the bigger picture BTC loses market share and there is no sign that this will change. The gains are below average so people who only gamble have an incentive to gamble with something else.
Looks like FBA is not "trustless", which is actually excellent, but I'm not sure how that would fly in the current (criminal and fraudulent) cryptocurrency economy.
If you believe in free market capitalism, people should migrate from PoW to PoS coins, because PoS coins provide the same features with less expenses.
In practice this won't happen, because PoS coins don't deliver the same features (security, decentralization, permissionless) or the market doesn't believe they do.
Also the savings with PoS are not passed to the users of the cryptocurrency, but to the stakers, or big holders of the cryptocurrency. How do we even know, that these people will spend the money they make using some more enviromentally friendly way? Maybe they just buy lambos with the money and fly around with private jets.
Mining is quite small amount of the total transacted amount of BTC daily, and people are willing to pay the cost. If you want to replace Bitcoin with some more enviromentally friendly thing, you have to offer the same capabilities (or better). PoS coins fail to deliver this.
In practice this won't happen, because PoS coins don't deliver the same features (security, decentralization, permissionless) or the market doesn't believe they do.
Also the savings with PoS are not passed to the users of the cryptocurrency, but to the stakers, or big holders of the cryptocurrency. How do we even know, that these people will spend the money they make using some more enviromentally friendly way? Maybe they just buy lambos with the money and fly around with private jets.
Mining is quite small amount of the total transacted amount of BTC daily, and people are willing to pay the cost. If you want to replace Bitcoin with some more enviromentally friendly thing, you have to offer the same capabilities (or better). PoS coins fail to deliver this.
I believe in free market capitalism and you are incorrect. Please see my recent comments history for the "why PoW".
PoS is not the successor of PoW. FBA consensus is. PoS is and always was just a adjusted new version of same idea that only removed the energy problem. The comparison between PoW and PoS is a useless distraction. Its like comparing diesel ICEs with gas ICEs ignoring EVs completely.
>and people are willing to pay the cost.
No they are not. BTC runs on the block reward not on the fees. Without block reward the average Tx fee would be like 150 USD. (Not accounting for the fact that this would significantly drop the number of Tx which would then raise the cost for the rest of the transaction even higher.)
>and people are willing to pay the cost.
No they are not. BTC runs on the block reward not on the fees. Without block reward the average Tx fee would be like 150 USD. (Not accounting for the fact that this would significantly drop the number of Tx which would then raise the cost for the rest of the transaction even higher.)
> In practice this won't happen, because PoS coins don't deliver the same features (security, decentralization, permissionless) or the market doesn't believe they do.
It's been what, 2 or 3 years since decent PoS designs were introduced to the market? The crypto market is still trying to tell the difference between their right foot and a private key. Give it a few more years and eventually the market will settle convincingly on a design it values the most, be it PoW, PoS, or something else.
In the mean time, it's silly imo to say that the market has decided. The crypto space is still a volatile bloodbath of old chains dying and new competitors rising.
It's been what, 2 or 3 years since decent PoS designs were introduced to the market? The crypto market is still trying to tell the difference between their right foot and a private key. Give it a few more years and eventually the market will settle convincingly on a design it values the most, be it PoW, PoS, or something else.
In the mean time, it's silly imo to say that the market has decided. The crypto space is still a volatile bloodbath of old chains dying and new competitors rising.
Shall we just ban everything volatile and/or that uses more energy than you personally find acceptable? Or anything that isn’t profitable for an arbitrary number of its users? I don’t particularly care about cryptocurrency but seeing bandwagon arguments like this at the top of HN threads is frustrating.
> energy consumption is beyond acceptable
Do you have any resources or studies to describe this more? I have really struggled to find actually nuanced discussions and unbiased sources for this. It’s all at the extremes of it’s either the worst thing ever to not a problem at all.
I’d also be interested in comparisons to energy usage of say servers that run Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.
Do you have any resources or studies to describe this more? I have really struggled to find actually nuanced discussions and unbiased sources for this. It’s all at the extremes of it’s either the worst thing ever to not a problem at all.
I’d also be interested in comparisons to energy usage of say servers that run Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.
A lot of the energy consumption argument against bitcoin stems from this study [1]. Some have pointed out flaws in the study that over inflate the consumption numbers. This has sparked various indexes that have tried to measure the consumption in an unbiased way [2].
Additional studies [3] have shown that 39% of bitcoin miners are using renewables.
The energy consumption argument has led some to investigate the energy consumption of other assets such as gold with some estimating the energy requirements for gold to be 50x that of mining bitcoin [4].
Whenever energy consumption of other assets are pointed out to be higher than bitcoin the debate then shifts to utility; e.g it’s ok if Y consumes X energy because Y provides Z to society.
Some bitcoin miners are finding interesting way to utilize the heat produced by their mining equipment [5]. And some say that bitcoin mining can help reduce the cost of producing new green energy infrastructure since excess power that would’ve been wasted could be used for bitcoin mining to offset costs.
I agree with you that it is tough to find unbiased info on the subject.
- [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328581842_Bitcoin_e...
- [2] https://cbeci.org/
- [3] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-cc...
- [4] https://simon.medium.com/bitcoin-and-pollution-the-definitiv...
- [5] https://braiins.com/blog/green-innovation-in-bitcoin-mining-...
Additional studies [3] have shown that 39% of bitcoin miners are using renewables.
The energy consumption argument has led some to investigate the energy consumption of other assets such as gold with some estimating the energy requirements for gold to be 50x that of mining bitcoin [4].
Whenever energy consumption of other assets are pointed out to be higher than bitcoin the debate then shifts to utility; e.g it’s ok if Y consumes X energy because Y provides Z to society.
Some bitcoin miners are finding interesting way to utilize the heat produced by their mining equipment [5]. And some say that bitcoin mining can help reduce the cost of producing new green energy infrastructure since excess power that would’ve been wasted could be used for bitcoin mining to offset costs.
I agree with you that it is tough to find unbiased info on the subject.
- [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328581842_Bitcoin_e...
- [2] https://cbeci.org/
- [3] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-cc...
- [4] https://simon.medium.com/bitcoin-and-pollution-the-definitiv...
- [5] https://braiins.com/blog/green-innovation-in-bitcoin-mining-...
Thank you for the references!
Not supporting the parent’s opinion, but here’s a well researched report on the topic:
https://nydig.com/bitcoin-net-zero/
Thank you for the reference!
Interestingly enough, I had received an ad for this on my LinkedIn or Instagram before I ever clicked your link.
Interestingly enough, I had received an ad for this on my LinkedIn or Instagram before I ever clicked your link.
Do you really want to ban holding 12 words in your head? Or maybe you meant private keys to remain legal but let's ban cryptographic signatures? What exactly do you want to make illegal?
This is an american-centric view of the law; elsewhere in the world (including europe) judges don't reach silly decisions because a law was imperfectly drafted.
The law works fine without needing to be fully general at the base level. This is the same "illegal number" problem that tech people like to worry about but which isn't actually a problem. The law can distinguish between a private key extracted from some system and an arbitrary pair of prime numbers just fine.
There is plenty of profit being made from selling hardware and software services in the space.
Also, are you suggesting banning all assets whose volatility crosses a certain threshold?
As for energy consumption, does this also apply to Proof of Stake networks?
Also, are you suggesting banning all assets whose volatility crosses a certain threshold?
As for energy consumption, does this also apply to Proof of Stake networks?
Only those that challenge existing economic power structures.
This hits a little too close to truth.
I’m giving the parent comment the benefit of the doubt that they’re not an agent working to preserve the current financial system, at least not deliberately. Especially since their sentiment is so frequently expressed on these boards, it is bordering on consensus.
Exactly. It's literally just burning the world's resources just for the modern equivalent of beanie babies
For those who genuinely want decentralised currency, there's so many more efficient options
For those who genuinely want decentralised currency, there's so many more efficient options
"imagine if keeping your car idling 24/7 produced solved Sudokus you could trade for heroin"
https://twitter.com/Theophite/status/1030225104234373121
https://twitter.com/Theophite/status/1030225104234373121
I traded mine for ~50% of my house.
>Crypto as a tech to serve something different is totally fine of course.
Like what, NFTs for farts? Near as I can tell, the other main use cases for crypto - smart contracts, supply chain provenance tracking, and securities settlement processing really haven't panned out. Others have pointed out why it's not working as a currency. Literally all we have left is a vehicle for speculation.
Like what, NFTs for farts? Near as I can tell, the other main use cases for crypto - smart contracts, supply chain provenance tracking, and securities settlement processing really haven't panned out. Others have pointed out why it's not working as a currency. Literally all we have left is a vehicle for speculation.
maybe PoS powered micro payment in the browser instead of ads... one day in utopia
What do you actually want Western nations to ban? The purchase and sale of digital currencies?? What if a nation adopts Bitcoin as its national currency? You can no longer buy and sell another nation's currency? What if you want to visit that country? (The what ifs will not end at these few examples.)
I don't clearly see what you would actually propose banning. My opinion is it's technology, an idea, and that shouldn't be banned.
I don't clearly see what you would actually propose banning. My opinion is it's technology, an idea, and that shouldn't be banned.
First we should ban giftcards. I never understood the idea of using my versatile, national, currency to buy a restricted, local, currency. Esp. without getting a discount for the risk I take.
You do have a point there
> The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5%
I find it amusing how casually you just made up a statistic and used it as justification to ban something. Here's an actual statistic: 100% of people who held Bitcoin for longer than 4 years are up on their investment.
edit: Lots of downvotes for an easily verifiable fact. Anyone can look at the BTC chart and see that there is no 4 year span where the price ends up lower than it was at the start.
I find it amusing how casually you just made up a statistic and used it as justification to ban something. Here's an actual statistic: 100% of people who held Bitcoin for longer than 4 years are up on their investment.
edit: Lots of downvotes for an easily verifiable fact. Anyone can look at the BTC chart and see that there is no 4 year span where the price ends up lower than it was at the start.
95% is clearly a number pulled out of thin air, but it is likely that most people have not realized a profit from Bitcoin. Where would the money come from? The only way for a majority of investors to realize a (small) gain is for the minority to pay for it in a (larger) loss. And that's for a zero-sum game. In Bitcoin, since running the system involves continuously consuming real world value in the form of billions of dollars worth of energy per year, it's most likely that the majority of participants end up at a loss.
Just imagine everybody in the world buys as much Bitcoin as they can afford, immediately.
How much richer are we all, in aggregate, at the end of the day?
Just imagine everybody in the world buys as much Bitcoin as they can afford, immediately.
How much richer are we all, in aggregate, at the end of the day?
Madoff ran his scheme for decades. Till the day it fell apart 100% of his clients were up on their investments. They also learned that when you multiply decades of fantastic returns by a single zero your outcome is zero.
Millions can be wrong for decades. If history teaches anything is has to be this.
Millions can be wrong for decades. If history teaches anything is has to be this.
Even more amusing to call what is supposed to be a currency, an “investment”.
Nitpicking based on your definition of "investment" isn't really a dig at Bitcoin. I would argue that even fiat currencies are often used as investments to hedge against various types of risks. Bitcoin is not "supposed" to be anything, it's just a technology that has different uses for different people. Something that outperforms a majority of investments is certainly an investment to anyone who isn't gatekeeping.
Europe is currently facing electricity and chip shortages. Banning crypto in the EU would be an acceptable measure for addressing that.
Does anyone mine in Europe? I can't imagine that, considering the cost of electricity here.
Small-scale ETH mining on gaming GPUs does take place. But nothing like dystopian warehouses stacked with racks of hardware until the ceiling
Not Crypto just Fifa, more profitable...
https://kotaku.com/ps4-crypto-warehouse-was-actually-farming...
https://kotaku.com/ps4-crypto-warehouse-was-actually-farming...
This is just anecdotal, but some people run their GPU for mining during Winter since its 'free heat'. This basically renders the GPU into a space heater, which is 3x-4x less efficient than a heat pump.
Additionally, some individuals steal electricity (eg. from their workplace, or if they have electricity included in their rental contract). Cryptocurrencies have thus conveniently enabled a form of electricity theft and fraud previously impossible for the individual.
Additionally, some individuals steal electricity (eg. from their workplace, or if they have electricity included in their rental contract). Cryptocurrencies have thus conveniently enabled a form of electricity theft and fraud previously impossible for the individual.
Only PoW cryptos need extensive electricity and hardware. Its completely absurd to ban crypto. Thats like if you would ban all motorized vehicles to get rid of coal blasting diesel trucks without catalytic converter.
Needless to say that its also technically impossible to ban crypto. Its like banning torrents or even harder and we all know torrent was attacked heavily in the past but it did not go away.
Needless to say that its also technically impossible to ban crypto. Its like banning torrents or even harder and we all know torrent was attacked heavily in the past but it did not go away.
> Needless to say that its also technically impossible to ban crypto.
No one wants to ban crypto. The goal is to ban financial institutions that handle fiat from trading with institutions that handle crypto.
From there, if people want to accept funny money as payment for pizzas, it's up to them really.
No one wants to ban crypto. The goal is to ban financial institutions that handle fiat from trading with institutions that handle crypto.
From there, if people want to accept funny money as payment for pizzas, it's up to them really.
Drugs are the thing people have a strong incentive to accept crypto for, not pizzas.
All black markets have an incentive to use it - including state actors (e.g. weapons deals). Getting caught laundering Monero is preferable to getting caught selling missiles to the Saudis.
All black markets have an incentive to use it - including state actors (e.g. weapons deals). Getting caught laundering Monero is preferable to getting caught selling missiles to the Saudis.
You misses the point. There is no reason to ban anything.
You can also buy Pokemon cards and sell or trade them. Call them funny money cards if you want, but there is no legitimate reason why people should not be able to buy/sell them.
Also plenty places have already put cryptos in the laws declared them as alternative currency so they cant really prevent financial institution form handling it.
If they really would globally cut crypto form fiat. You wouldn't need to pay taxes with anything you do with crypt anymore since its just "funny money" this would boost crypto and devalue fiat and cause all kind of horrible side effects. You have in incentive to get paid in funny money if you dont have to tax it.
Just ban the fiat exchanges.
The hardcore crypto types would carry on using it but like 95% would give up - that's sufficient.
The hardcore crypto types would carry on using it but like 95% would give up - that's sufficient.
Oddly enough besides the hard-core aficionados and techies that would mostly leave the criminals, who would operate street level informal exchange systems.
For them, that would be back to square one in terms of money laundering.
Odds are that, given fiat to launder, or crypto that needs to be converted to fiat that still needs to be laundered, they would cut the useless step.
The only illegal industry that would still see the use for it is maybe ransomware, but ransomware is not a cyclic business, so it would be surprising that they'd find enough individuals on the street to convert their millions easily.
Odds are that, given fiat to launder, or crypto that needs to be converted to fiat that still needs to be laundered, they would cut the useless step.
The only illegal industry that would still see the use for it is maybe ransomware, but ransomware is not a cyclic business, so it would be surprising that they'd find enough individuals on the street to convert their millions easily.
The whole point for criminals is that it allows pseudonymous (or anonymous, in the case of monero), and remote dealing of illegal goods and services. Especially across international borders.
Another use is tax evasion and money laundering.
Why is crypto any better than cash if users are forced to deal in person? I understand the argument of not having to carry around a duffel bag that could be seized. But nations can disrupt crypto markets on a global scale.
At the very least, they can make it difficult to exchange for actual, usable, local currency. Which appears to be what China is poised to do.
Another use is tax evasion and money laundering.
Why is crypto any better than cash if users are forced to deal in person? I understand the argument of not having to carry around a duffel bag that could be seized. But nations can disrupt crypto markets on a global scale.
At the very least, they can make it difficult to exchange for actual, usable, local currency. Which appears to be what China is poised to do.
The same way we eliminated illegal drugs?
Drugs are addictive which is why people continue to use them even when illegal. Why would people use illegal crypto? It was hard enough to use them as a currency when legal, them being illegal would make them mostly worthless to most people.
On the whole world? Good luck with that. Name one thing the whole world has agreed on and is successfully enforced everywhere.
Well, for the energy consumption part yes. There the need for banning crypto concerns those "currencies" which do use PoW. Like Bitcoin what the article was about.
Banning crypto in a practical sense is actually quite easy. Prohibit any business and any bank in dealing with them. If you cannot do legal transactions with e.g. Bitcoins any more, the market mostly dries up. It is not necessary to ban any single coin in existance, but its wide-scale usage in the normal economy.
By the way, there was never an attempt to ban torrents itself. That would have been reasonably easy on a protocol level. It was about banning illegal torrents. As in the content, not the protocol.
Banning crypto in a practical sense is actually quite easy. Prohibit any business and any bank in dealing with them. If you cannot do legal transactions with e.g. Bitcoins any more, the market mostly dries up. It is not necessary to ban any single coin in existance, but its wide-scale usage in the normal economy.
By the way, there was never an attempt to ban torrents itself. That would have been reasonably easy on a protocol level. It was about banning illegal torrents. As in the content, not the protocol.
If its banned then not only can government shutdown large mining operations but government resources can be spent on 51% attacks to discredit them.
Or government could shut down exchanges that allow conversion to fiat. Then let's see how much you can really buy with crypto.
Performing 51% attacks in the hope of discrediting an asset would be a waste of resources. Such an attack on the Bitcoin ecosystem would nowadays cost several billion in hardware and electricity, and all the community has to do in order to repair the damage would be a hark fork. 51% attacks happened in the past and most of them had little to no impact on major assets.
It would not. Hardly anyone mines in Europe. Ironically power shortages are due to ESG initiatives that phased out power stations using fossil fuels and left unreliable power sources of wind and solar
Because we live in times of unprecedented institutional failure, not building reliable power sources and there is zero non-wishful thinking ahead.
Why not to ban steelmaking first?
Steel manufacturing requires tons of electricity, and it is already impossible in EU without enormous subsidies. It's an industry surviving entirely on life support.
Steel manufacturing requires tons of electricity, and it is already impossible in EU without enormous subsidies. It's an industry surviving entirely on life support.
Steelmaking is useful; you can build stuff out of steel.
Governments want a healthy steelmaking industry so when the time comes to defend your country you can make guns and tanks. When your country is being invaded how useful is your bitcoin going to be?
> When your country is being invaded how useful is your bitcoin going to be?
You can bribe enemy army staff with it.
But seriously, just how much is too much when it comes to steel subsidies, and just how much EU can tolerate its steel industry failing so hard to upgrade?
Rather than subsidising, say, buying new, more efficient blast furnaces EU countries basically just spend few hundred dollars extra of taxpayer money per ton of steel.
You can bribe enemy army staff with it.
But seriously, just how much is too much when it comes to steel subsidies, and just how much EU can tolerate its steel industry failing so hard to upgrade?
Rather than subsidising, say, buying new, more efficient blast furnaces EU countries basically just spend few hundred dollars extra of taxpayer money per ton of steel.
Or banning useless iot devices in cars fridges and toasters would be an even more acceptable measure.
BTW the chip shortage has nothing todo with mining, but if you believe that lie Nvidia and AMD tells you since 5 years...well then that's to bad.
BTW the chip shortage has nothing todo with mining, but if you believe that lie Nvidia and AMD tells you since 5 years...well then that's to bad.
I don't know where you got that 5% from but either way, you sound like you fell in the 95%.
Because PoW is the only consensus protocol, right? Because the amount of people making money from fiat printing is larger than 5%, right?
I think your conclusions are wrong even if I agree that bitcoin is overall bad for humanity.
Just because one crypto currency is like that doesn't mean there cannot be another decentralized crypto currency that is better.
Just because your or mine imagination does not reach there doesn't mean there can't be somebody that can figure it out.
Just because one crypto currency is like that doesn't mean there cannot be another decentralized crypto currency that is better.
Just because your or mine imagination does not reach there doesn't mean there can't be somebody that can figure it out.
I know HN's sentiment around cryptocurrency, regardless, how is this the top comment in this thread?
All money is highly volatile, but the goverments and the military work hard to hide that. That's why we have the occasional bubble where banks lose everything we ever made.
Is what you say less true of traditional exchanges? Maybe it is, but I haven't seen someone crunch the numbers - I'd be happy to read a comparison to that effect.
If you care so much about climate change have you completely stopped flying? Have you been in a car lately? The energy consumption from those activities is _beyond unacceptable_.
I don't fly in airplanes but I use crypto. So why should you get to choose to do some activities that blast CO2 directly into the atmosphere but I can't? It is a disgusting, authoritarian ideology you have.
Besides that crypto can run on solar. Airplanes cannot. So I propose we ban airplanes. /s
The reality is you just don't like the politics behind the crypto movement. The climate is just a convenient bludgeon for you.
I don't fly in airplanes but I use crypto. So why should you get to choose to do some activities that blast CO2 directly into the atmosphere but I can't? It is a disgusting, authoritarian ideology you have.
Besides that crypto can run on solar. Airplanes cannot. So I propose we ban airplanes. /s
The reality is you just don't like the politics behind the crypto movement. The climate is just a convenient bludgeon for you.
> If you care so much about climate change have you completely stopped flying? Have you been in a car lately?
Isn't this whataboutism? A is not so bad because you know, B does it too.
Isn't this whataboutism? A is not so bad because you know, B does it too.
The hate for crypto in HN is just tiring.
So don't use it duh
It’s an externalities problem. I can not use it, but I can’t opt out of the climate impact.
(Save the “it’s not really that bad” arguments, I’ve heard all the industry’s gaslighting, but their claims don’t match reality)
(Save the “it’s not really that bad” arguments, I’ve heard all the industry’s gaslighting, but their claims don’t match reality)
Yep, you also can't opt out of the impact on the semiconductor market, the e-waste production (kinda part of the climate too), the ransomware explosion, the wider economic consequences of LITERAL BILLION DOLLAR PONZI SCHEMES…
You can't also opt out of the Swift/Visa/MasterCard climate impact, or the ATM network, or the internet! how many millions of servers are running, day and night, to host millions of terabytes of content where only a fraction ends up being accessed ...and it's a cat video
What you can do is use and support the climate friendlier alternatives. There are crypto currencies created with that in mimd
What you can do is use and support the climate friendlier alternatives. There are crypto currencies created with that in mimd
It's true, and I'm allowed to (and do) care about the emissions of those, too. I'm objecting to the idea that I shouldn't be allowed to care (“don't use it duh”) as a non-user.
I am encouraged to see the transition to PoS and would love to see PoS overtake PoW, just from a bystander-concerned-about-the-environment perspective.
I am encouraged to see the transition to PoS and would love to see PoS overtake PoW, just from a bystander-concerned-about-the-environment perspective.
I do agree that PoW in a big scale is stupid. Those resources could be used to host cloud services, compute big important problems, etc...
PoW by now is basically PoS with extra steps
But, even for the environment, I can't take people thinking it is a good idea govs using PoW, or standard exchange problems, to ban All crypto-currencies. While creating their own fake digital coin
PoS is also not ideal since it keeps promoting the same rules has the old system. Who has more money will keep having more independent if their producing something useful
So I think we still need something new, and someone smart to come up with it
Something that works for big groups, like a combination of localized PoW plus global PoS with PoT. Proof of trust, like most systems work
PoW by now is basically PoS with extra steps
But, even for the environment, I can't take people thinking it is a good idea govs using PoW, or standard exchange problems, to ban All crypto-currencies. While creating their own fake digital coin
PoS is also not ideal since it keeps promoting the same rules has the old system. Who has more money will keep having more independent if their producing something useful
So I think we still need something new, and someone smart to come up with it
Something that works for big groups, like a combination of localized PoW plus global PoS with PoT. Proof of trust, like most systems work
That's right, but those who are invested in crypto really want everyone to invest too.
There are some concerns which I share, that Bitcoin, when it finally fails, leaves huge damages to all financial markets as too much money is already bound in there. And directly, the environmental damage done by bitcoin is quite severe, so everyone should be concerned about that.
It blows my mind that a community dedicated to technology would support this.
agreed!!!
“Nothing more volatile…” erm energy prices in the UK just jumped 70% and it’s not to do with crypto, co2 supply shrank to levels never seen before again nothing to do with crypto both of which affect whole populations. Try to avoid crypto hyperbole. Lastly, I don’t know anybody invested in crypto that hasn’t made money, so anecdotally that indicates the number is much higher than 5%.
> Lastly, I don’t know anybody invested in crypto that hasn’t made money, so anecdotally that indicates the number is much higher than 5%.
You make money when you exit and sell the asset for cash. Have they sold ?
You make money when you exit and sell the asset for cash. Have they sold ?
I thought this "asset" was supposed to replace cash. Why would you "sell it for cash"? Other than an equivalent for selling US dollars for Euros.
> I thought this "asset" was supposed to replace cash.
When you can buy food, house/rent and the doctor accepts bitcoins it will become cash.
When you can buy food, house/rent and the doctor accepts bitcoins it will become cash.
That's the massive problem with decentralized "currencies". Even if the Colombian peso is used by 0.6% of people in the world, it's still a currency because lots of people can pay with it in almost all their interactions with the economy. If a decentralized global "currency" is used by 0.6% of people, it's not a currency because almost nobody around you accepts it. Even at 6% it would not be a currency. Maybe at 60%, but how do you get there from 0.6% in the first place?
That’s great, the concierge company I work with handles all of these things and accepts bitcoin.
[deleted]
I am not fine with having every one of my transactions being 100% transparent to my government. Because that's the only alternative to Bitcoin^W cryptocurrency, given that real cash is on its deathbed for some reason. Bitcoin may very transparent, but other currencies like Monero are much better in that regard.
As to why >100% transparency is a desirable property, see recent regime changes and imagine how easy it would be to persecute the friends of the old regime by simply looking at their purchase history.
Edit:
As to why >100% transparency is a desirable property, see recent regime changes and imagine how easy it would be to persecute the friends of the old regime by simply looking at their purchase history.
Edit:
Huh? Bitcoin records every transaction you make on a public ledger that anyone in the world can view. Anyone who knows your wallet address can track your purchases
Bitcoin does, but it's not the only blockchain currency around. Some have more robust privacy guarantees. As far as I can tell, this rule in China bans those too.
I'd say that cash transactions are less transparent than BTC's public ledger.
Monero and similar currencies are available for those interested.
So you'd rather a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit, impose taxes via intentional inflation, and keep tabs on your every transaction? Interesting.
That’s not exactly how it works.
Not exactly, that is true - it is rather hard to describe international trade in 140 characters-or-less. It can not be denied that there is a lot of truth to the statement though even if it does not describe all factors of influence:
> a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit
This depends on whether the media are in to the party or not but when they are this is mostly true.
> impose taxes via intentional inflation
This is a fact in those countries which have control over their own currency.
> and keep tabs on your every transaction
This is a fact and one of the driving forces behind the "cashless society".
> a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit
This depends on whether the media are in to the party or not but when they are this is mostly true.
> impose taxes via intentional inflation
This is a fact in those countries which have control over their own currency.
> and keep tabs on your every transaction
This is a fact and one of the driving forces behind the "cashless society".
1) Central banks aren’t regulated by the media.
2) The expansion of the money supply is not necessarily inflationary.
3) Inflation is very different from taxation: if you hold cash you’re supposed to circulate it, either by spending it or by investing it. Inflation disincentivizes cash-hoarding, and also deflated the value of any debt you might have.
2) The expansion of the money supply is not necessarily inflationary.
3) Inflation is very different from taxation: if you hold cash you’re supposed to circulate it, either by spending it or by investing it. Inflation disincentivizes cash-hoarding, and also deflated the value of any debt you might have.
1) ...but I can only assume you realise they are sensitive to political pressure which again derives from public opinion which is controlled by the media...
2) ...but it generally is just that, inflationary. The fact that there can be exceptions to the rule does not make the rule less valid.
3) ...and inflation is also used by governments to provide funds (by "printing money" in some way or other, the actual implementation depends on how the currency is regulated) which otherwise would be provided through taxation, leading to inflation and as such reducing tax payer's purchasing power - just like taxation does.
2) ...but it generally is just that, inflationary. The fact that there can be exceptions to the rule does not make the rule less valid.
3) ...and inflation is also used by governments to provide funds (by "printing money" in some way or other, the actual implementation depends on how the currency is regulated) which otherwise would be provided through taxation, leading to inflation and as such reducing tax payer's purchasing power - just like taxation does.
1) central bank loss of independence is one of the hallmark of failed central banks. I hardly think it's reasonable to think that all central banks are dysfunctional in such a way: while these institutions can and do break down, they are not designed to break down in this way. You're free to argue whether a given central bank is or is not sufficiently independent, but that's a more specific problem than the over-generalization made here.
2) it's not an exception to the rule at all. The rule for inflation doesn't mention how much money exists, it only mentions how much money circulates. More money existing does not necessarily mean more money circulating (eg.: money tends to concentrate in certain places for various reasons, rather than diffusing freely).
3) Sure, but two things that have similar features are not always similar in essence or nature. Swords and needles are both sharp, but you wouldn't argue that they're essentially the same. In fact in your own example, taxation for certain purposes could be either inflationary or deflationary (eg.: austerity measures, including those that involve taxation, are deflationary by design).
2) it's not an exception to the rule at all. The rule for inflation doesn't mention how much money exists, it only mentions how much money circulates. More money existing does not necessarily mean more money circulating (eg.: money tends to concentrate in certain places for various reasons, rather than diffusing freely).
3) Sure, but two things that have similar features are not always similar in essence or nature. Swords and needles are both sharp, but you wouldn't argue that they're essentially the same. In fact in your own example, taxation for certain purposes could be either inflationary or deflationary (eg.: austerity measures, including those that involve taxation, are deflationary by design).
Yes, that is exactly how it works.
Regardless of law, intent, etc, this is how it functionally ends up happening, a nonzero amount of the time.
That's what ends up happening when an asset becomes economically meaningful. Crypto is still a joke to global economy, but on the off chance it gains mainstream adoption, it'll have the same kind of regulations, taxation and fraud attached to it.
Except crypto is less firmly anchored in the real world than in the digital realm. It's fundamentally harder to regulate it than a physical currency, which needs specialist equipment to generate.
Money as a concept is even less anchored in the real world. So is the law. The two have been dancing together since first human society. We have thousands of years of experience with this, and cryptocurrencies don't introduce anything new here, despite what some advocates may think.
As long as you can use something - be it a coin, a bill, a SWIFT transfer, a blockchain transaction or a Nuka-Cola bottle cap - to pay someone for something, and a third party would be able to identify it as a purchase, same things will happen. A criminal will be able to take your purchasing power and use it themselves. A taxman will be able to collect a percentage of your trade, and men with guns will take you in front of a judge if you refuse.
The manifestation of value doesn't matter, because money isn't a thing, it's a shared belief.
As long as you can use something - be it a coin, a bill, a SWIFT transfer, a blockchain transaction or a Nuka-Cola bottle cap - to pay someone for something, and a third party would be able to identify it as a purchase, same things will happen. A criminal will be able to take your purchasing power and use it themselves. A taxman will be able to collect a percentage of your trade, and men with guns will take you in front of a judge if you refuse.
The manifestation of value doesn't matter, because money isn't a thing, it's a shared belief.
While I agree, all of the ways you mentioned to pay for something are fundamentally something that requires infrastructure to create (industrial, banking, or a mint), and has a physical anchor that can be plucked from you by physical force (including the SWIFT transfer - though usually bank's prefer to comply than shut themselves down).
A blockchain based currency will exist as long as there's someone with a sufficiently powerful computing device connected to a sufficiently low-risk network that can be accessed legally or illicitly. A blockchain wallet will exist and be yours alone as long as you keep the password in your brain, never write it down, and resist attempts to extract it from you.
This means that, in comparison to conventional currency (including Nuka-Cola caps), a blockchain economy is much easier to operate undercover when it's outlawed.
A blockchain based currency will exist as long as there's someone with a sufficiently powerful computing device connected to a sufficiently low-risk network that can be accessed legally or illicitly. A blockchain wallet will exist and be yours alone as long as you keep the password in your brain, never write it down, and resist attempts to extract it from you.
This means that, in comparison to conventional currency (including Nuka-Cola caps), a blockchain economy is much easier to operate undercover when it's outlawed.
I'm not a cryptophile, cryptobug or whatever crypto nuts are called, however I do like to see HN turning so extremely negative on crypto. A few years ago such negative sentiment about crypto was rare on HN, now it's common.
Why is that interesting? Because popular sentiment (in the comments) on HN is very frequently wrong. HN is a tremendous resource for contrarian purposes.
Why is that interesting? Because popular sentiment (in the comments) on HN is very frequently wrong. HN is a tremendous resource for contrarian purposes.
You should educate yourself. Energy consumption is an old myth and cryptocurrency pushes a lot of innovations in this field. There is a great documentary on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7dMVcVWgc.
Energy is a zero sum game. Every watt you use for crypto mining is a watt not used for something more productive.
Every watt of renewable power generated to power a crypto miner, is a watt not being used to reduce the use of non-renewables in the wider energy grid.
I don’t care if your crypto gear is hooked up to a dedicated hydro plant, I care that the hydroplant is not connected to the wider grid and shutting down gas fired power stations.
Every watt of renewable power generated to power a crypto miner, is a watt not being used to reduce the use of non-renewables in the wider energy grid.
I don’t care if your crypto gear is hooked up to a dedicated hydro plant, I care that the hydroplant is not connected to the wider grid and shutting down gas fired power stations.
>Energy is a zero sum game.
Only from the view of the universe, not from the view of humans. It cost less energy to drill for oil than the energy you get out of the gasoline. It takes less energy to create a solar panel than what you can get out of it. It takes less energy to labor at the factory for an hour than the energy you get from the 150KwH of power you can buy for your house from that hour of motion you performed at the factory.
If I use some electricity to run PoW on an electronic litecoin transaction from me to my friend in Kenya, that's a hell of a lot lower energy than building and operating a Western Union in Kenya isn't it?
Only from the view of the universe, not from the view of humans. It cost less energy to drill for oil than the energy you get out of the gasoline. It takes less energy to create a solar panel than what you can get out of it. It takes less energy to labor at the factory for an hour than the energy you get from the 150KwH of power you can buy for your house from that hour of motion you performed at the factory.
If I use some electricity to run PoW on an electronic litecoin transaction from me to my friend in Kenya, that's a hell of a lot lower energy than building and operating a Western Union in Kenya isn't it?
> If I use some electricity to run PoW on an electronic litecoin transaction from me to my friend in Kenya, that's a hell of a lot lower energy than building and operating a Western Union in Kenya isn't it?
On an aggregated pre transaction basis we know this isn’t true. Crypto is not more energy efficient than existing financial infrastructure. Additionally you’re comparing a small part of a financial transactions (I.e. and database update) to a complete end-to-end transaction, including turning those digital funds into spendable cash.
Unless you friend in Kenya is also capable of spending that crypto, without turning it into fiat, then example is meaningless, because your ignoring all the infrastructure need to do that fiat conversion.
Additionally Kenya has digital banking infrastructure. Send a SEPA payment instead, no need to Western Union.
On an aggregated pre transaction basis we know this isn’t true. Crypto is not more energy efficient than existing financial infrastructure. Additionally you’re comparing a small part of a financial transactions (I.e. and database update) to a complete end-to-end transaction, including turning those digital funds into spendable cash.
Unless you friend in Kenya is also capable of spending that crypto, without turning it into fiat, then example is meaningless, because your ignoring all the infrastructure need to do that fiat conversion.
Additionally Kenya has digital banking infrastructure. Send a SEPA payment instead, no need to Western Union.
>including turning those digital funds into spendable cash.
Crypto can be spendable cash. You can buy a coffee or a bar of gold with it, even bullets. Sounds like it can be used as a currency to me. It only takes a willing counterparty.
> Crypto is not more energy efficient than existing financial infrastructure.
That depends on the place and circumstance. I concede that Kenya was a poor example and I should have used someplace like Central African Republic instead.
>Additionally Kenya has digital banking infrastructure. Send a SEPA payment instead, no need to Western Union.
Assuming you are one of the one third of Kenyans who have a bank account. And assuming the one sending the money has a bank account. Both of which involve documentation and KYC, something not necessary in most crypto transactions.
>because your ignoring all the infrastructure need to do that fiat conversion
Not really, crypto to fiat can be done informally. There's several people in my city who buy and sell it and all they need is a cellphone and local currency.
It's only from the perspective of someone that thinks like a loser, always trying to find something wrong, that you can find zero uses where using crypto is more energy efficient than other financial options. And not all cryptos use the same energy or transaction cost as others.
For an example of transaction efficiency, I can buy a bar of gold from some established bullion vendors in litecoin much cheaper than with a visa card due to lower transaction risks for the merchant and lower transaction fees. If you can't wait multiple days for an ACH transaction and have to buy precious metals online, crypto is actually the cheapest way in the US.
Crypto can be spendable cash. You can buy a coffee or a bar of gold with it, even bullets. Sounds like it can be used as a currency to me. It only takes a willing counterparty.
> Crypto is not more energy efficient than existing financial infrastructure.
That depends on the place and circumstance. I concede that Kenya was a poor example and I should have used someplace like Central African Republic instead.
>Additionally Kenya has digital banking infrastructure. Send a SEPA payment instead, no need to Western Union.
Assuming you are one of the one third of Kenyans who have a bank account. And assuming the one sending the money has a bank account. Both of which involve documentation and KYC, something not necessary in most crypto transactions.
>because your ignoring all the infrastructure need to do that fiat conversion
Not really, crypto to fiat can be done informally. There's several people in my city who buy and sell it and all they need is a cellphone and local currency.
It's only from the perspective of someone that thinks like a loser, always trying to find something wrong, that you can find zero uses where using crypto is more energy efficient than other financial options. And not all cryptos use the same energy or transaction cost as others.
For an example of transaction efficiency, I can buy a bar of gold from some established bullion vendors in litecoin much cheaper than with a visa card due to lower transaction risks for the merchant and lower transaction fees. If you can't wait multiple days for an ACH transaction and have to buy precious metals online, crypto is actually the cheapest way in the US.
> Crypto can be spendable cash. You can buy a coffee or a bar of gold with it, even bullets. Sounds like it can be used as a currency to me. It only takes a willing counterparty.
All true, but the same also applies to chickens, screwdrivers, oranges, dogs, cats etc. Just because you can barter with something doesn’t make it a currency.
Currencies are better identified by their fungibility (which crypto has), their value stability (which crypto currently doesn’t), and their wide acceptance for use in everyday transaction (also not true of crypto in the vast majority of the world).
> It's only from the perspective of someone that thinks like a loser, always trying to find something wrong, that you can find zero uses where using crypto is more energy efficient than other financial options. And not all cryptos use the same energy or transaction cost as others.
I’ll remind you of the guidelines, as you’ve clearly forgotten them.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments and suggest that you don’t actually have very strong argument, instead you’re forced to attack the character of the person your discussing with, due to an inability to attack their argument. Try harder.
I used be a fan of crypto, did plenty of trading, bought plenty of pizza etc with it. When to meetups, evangelised crypto to friends and family. Back then it looked realistic that crypto could be a genuine currency, and the concept of DAG was incredibly.
Unfortunately crypto has descended into little more than get rich quick schemes that take advantage of naïve investors, or produce profit by externalising all of the negative consequences of crypto mining (such as CO2 emissions). Forcing the rest of us to bear that long term cost, for a grifters short term profit.
I admit there are coins out there that potential address these issues, and still possibly have a future as a genuinely useful currency. One not manipulated by a small number of extremely large coin holders. But unfortunately that doesn’t change the damage caused by other coins.
> For an example of transaction efficiency, I can buy a bar of gold from some established bullion vendors in litecoin much cheaper than with a visa card due to lower transaction risks for the merchant and lower transaction fees. If you can't wait multiple days for an ACH transaction and have to buy precious metals online, crypto is actually the cheapest way in the US.
This is just an example of how slow and backwards the US financial system is. Most other countries have far quicker and cheaper payment rails. Here in the U.K. I can send an instant Faster Payment for free from my bank account, and the money moves faster than the app UI (I get a push notification from the receiving bank, before the UI in my banks app has had time to display the confirmation). The whole of Europe has similar payment systems that also work cross border.
The money moves so fast that when trading crypto the slowest part of buying or selling was always the confirmations. The fiat part was instant.
All true, but the same also applies to chickens, screwdrivers, oranges, dogs, cats etc. Just because you can barter with something doesn’t make it a currency.
Currencies are better identified by their fungibility (which crypto has), their value stability (which crypto currently doesn’t), and their wide acceptance for use in everyday transaction (also not true of crypto in the vast majority of the world).
> It's only from the perspective of someone that thinks like a loser, always trying to find something wrong, that you can find zero uses where using crypto is more energy efficient than other financial options. And not all cryptos use the same energy or transaction cost as others.
I’ll remind you of the guidelines, as you’ve clearly forgotten them.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments and suggest that you don’t actually have very strong argument, instead you’re forced to attack the character of the person your discussing with, due to an inability to attack their argument. Try harder.
I used be a fan of crypto, did plenty of trading, bought plenty of pizza etc with it. When to meetups, evangelised crypto to friends and family. Back then it looked realistic that crypto could be a genuine currency, and the concept of DAG was incredibly.
Unfortunately crypto has descended into little more than get rich quick schemes that take advantage of naïve investors, or produce profit by externalising all of the negative consequences of crypto mining (such as CO2 emissions). Forcing the rest of us to bear that long term cost, for a grifters short term profit.
I admit there are coins out there that potential address these issues, and still possibly have a future as a genuinely useful currency. One not manipulated by a small number of extremely large coin holders. But unfortunately that doesn’t change the damage caused by other coins.
> For an example of transaction efficiency, I can buy a bar of gold from some established bullion vendors in litecoin much cheaper than with a visa card due to lower transaction risks for the merchant and lower transaction fees. If you can't wait multiple days for an ACH transaction and have to buy precious metals online, crypto is actually the cheapest way in the US.
This is just an example of how slow and backwards the US financial system is. Most other countries have far quicker and cheaper payment rails. Here in the U.K. I can send an instant Faster Payment for free from my bank account, and the money moves faster than the app UI (I get a push notification from the receiving bank, before the UI in my banks app has had time to display the confirmation). The whole of Europe has similar payment systems that also work cross border.
The money moves so fast that when trading crypto the slowest part of buying or selling was always the confirmations. The fiat part was instant.
>Ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments and suggest that you don’t actually have very strong argument, instead you’re forced to attack the character of the person your discussing with, due to an inability to attack their argument. Try harder.
I did attack your arguments, including many other points and I never called you a loser. Quit being so defensive. I said those who continually look for ways to make something not work, rather than finding the ways they do, think like losers. And I back that 100%! The only of the two of us who had made an ad hominem against the other is you, by saying I have an "inability to attack their (your) argument." Thanks hypocrite!
>Unfortunately crypto has descended into little more than get rich quick schemes that take advantage of naïve investors, or produce profit by externalising all of the negative consequences of crypto mining (such as CO2 emissions). Forcing the rest of us to bear that long term cost, for a grifters short term profit.
I'm not a fan of stable coins, but how many people you reckon are buying DAI or USDT with the idea of striking it rich? I hear this sad sad false diatribe over and over, completely ignoring that crypto-currencies are currencies and not investment, with people getting mad that crypto is not an investment that is going to provide returns for naive "investors." And then they go on to attack crypto for not living up to being an investment!
>I used be a fan of crypto, did plenty of trading, bought plenty of pizza etc with it. When to meetups, evangelised crypto to friends and family. Back then it looked realistic that crypto could be a genuine currency, and the concept of DAG was incredibly.
So you were a dogmatist for, and then apparently now a dogmatist against. Try being a neutral pragmatist that doesn't believe crypto is an investment utility but rather one possible financial engine that allows electronic transactions without KYC or centralized authority.
I did attack your arguments, including many other points and I never called you a loser. Quit being so defensive. I said those who continually look for ways to make something not work, rather than finding the ways they do, think like losers. And I back that 100%! The only of the two of us who had made an ad hominem against the other is you, by saying I have an "inability to attack their (your) argument." Thanks hypocrite!
>Unfortunately crypto has descended into little more than get rich quick schemes that take advantage of naïve investors, or produce profit by externalising all of the negative consequences of crypto mining (such as CO2 emissions). Forcing the rest of us to bear that long term cost, for a grifters short term profit.
I'm not a fan of stable coins, but how many people you reckon are buying DAI or USDT with the idea of striking it rich? I hear this sad sad false diatribe over and over, completely ignoring that crypto-currencies are currencies and not investment, with people getting mad that crypto is not an investment that is going to provide returns for naive "investors." And then they go on to attack crypto for not living up to being an investment!
>I used be a fan of crypto, did plenty of trading, bought plenty of pizza etc with it. When to meetups, evangelised crypto to friends and family. Back then it looked realistic that crypto could be a genuine currency, and the concept of DAG was incredibly.
So you were a dogmatist for, and then apparently now a dogmatist against. Try being a neutral pragmatist that doesn't believe crypto is an investment utility but rather one possible financial engine that allows electronic transactions without KYC or centralized authority.
> The only of the two of us who had made an ad hominem against the other is you, by saying I have an "inability to attack their (your) argument." Thanks hypocrite!
Re-read my comment, that’s not what I said. It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who selectively quotes text, and deliberately ignores the wider context.
> I'm not a fan of stable coins, but how many people you reckon are buying DAI or USDT with the idea of striking it rich?
One of the original stated goals of USDT was to provide an on-ramp to other crypto, and do an end run around KYC and AML laws. People don’t buy these coins to get rich, they buy them to either purchase other coins, or to temporarily insulate themselves from crypto volatility, without having to resort to fiat. Additionally the fundamentals to USDT have been called in to question may times, with plenty of evidence that whole things scam and someone’s stolen the backing fiat.
> Try being a neutral pragmatist that doesn't believe crypto is an investment utility but rather one possible financial engine that allows electronic transactions without KYC or centralized authority.
I’m not sure how you’ve ended up deciding that you think I treat crypto as an investment, not a currency, after I’ve explicitly said the opposite.
As I said I believed that crypto could be a very interesting and useful currency, unfortunately it’s not panned out that way. Saying we should treat crypto like a currency when it doesn’t behave like one, and when most people don’t treat it like one, is hardly pragmatic. A more pragmatic approach is to observe how others are using it, observe how it behaves, and treat it like that. If it looks like an value gaining asset, and people treat it like a value gaining asset, then it’s a value gaining asset. Not a currency.
To cover your eyes and ignore the reality of the situation is just foolish. It certainly does nothing to advance the cause of crypto being a currency.
Re-read my comment, that’s not what I said. It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who selectively quotes text, and deliberately ignores the wider context.
> I'm not a fan of stable coins, but how many people you reckon are buying DAI or USDT with the idea of striking it rich?
One of the original stated goals of USDT was to provide an on-ramp to other crypto, and do an end run around KYC and AML laws. People don’t buy these coins to get rich, they buy them to either purchase other coins, or to temporarily insulate themselves from crypto volatility, without having to resort to fiat. Additionally the fundamentals to USDT have been called in to question may times, with plenty of evidence that whole things scam and someone’s stolen the backing fiat.
> Try being a neutral pragmatist that doesn't believe crypto is an investment utility but rather one possible financial engine that allows electronic transactions without KYC or centralized authority.
I’m not sure how you’ve ended up deciding that you think I treat crypto as an investment, not a currency, after I’ve explicitly said the opposite.
As I said I believed that crypto could be a very interesting and useful currency, unfortunately it’s not panned out that way. Saying we should treat crypto like a currency when it doesn’t behave like one, and when most people don’t treat it like one, is hardly pragmatic. A more pragmatic approach is to observe how others are using it, observe how it behaves, and treat it like that. If it looks like an value gaining asset, and people treat it like a value gaining asset, then it’s a value gaining asset. Not a currency.
To cover your eyes and ignore the reality of the situation is just foolish. It certainly does nothing to advance the cause of crypto being a currency.
Why are you wasting so many 'watts' sending this out? Every watt you use for debating on HN is a watt not used for something more productive. [ Personally I prefer units of energy like joule, power is not a measurement of wasted energy. If I wasted 10 kW for 1 minute it's not as bad as wasting 1 W for 11,000 minutes]
>If it looks like an value gaining asset, and people treat it like a value gaining asset, then it’s a value gaining asset. Not a currency.
>I’m not sure how you’ve ended up deciding that you think I treat crypto as an investment, not a currency, after I’ve explicitly said the opposite.
Again you go on contradicting yourself whenever you find it convenient. You are possibly the most disingenuous, contradictory, hypocritical person I've met on HN. Fine to waste 'watts' on social media news sites but not to send a payment to your unbanked cousin in El Salvador. Have fun thinking like a person who only looks for ways to fail, rather than ways to succeed.
Not a biblical person myself, but I'm going to take a note out of the bible on this one : " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
Have a good one.
>If it looks like an value gaining asset, and people treat it like a value gaining asset, then it’s a value gaining asset. Not a currency.
>I’m not sure how you’ve ended up deciding that you think I treat crypto as an investment, not a currency, after I’ve explicitly said the opposite.
Again you go on contradicting yourself whenever you find it convenient. You are possibly the most disingenuous, contradictory, hypocritical person I've met on HN. Fine to waste 'watts' on social media news sites but not to send a payment to your unbanked cousin in El Salvador. Have fun thinking like a person who only looks for ways to fail, rather than ways to succeed.
Not a biblical person myself, but I'm going to take a note out of the bible on this one : " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
Have a good one.
One bitcoin transaction: 1821.63 kWh
One comment on HN, probably around 100mWh.
One is not like the other. But please continue to pretend otherwise.
> Again you go on contradicting yourself whenever you find it convenient.
Please be explicit and show we’re I’ve contradicted myself. I don’t believe I have, but happy to be proven otherwise.
> Not a biblical person myself, but I'm going to take a note out of the bible on this one : " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
You make a good point. Why have I bothered to talk to someone who is so clearly disconnected from reality.
One comment on HN, probably around 100mWh.
One is not like the other. But please continue to pretend otherwise.
> Again you go on contradicting yourself whenever you find it convenient.
Please be explicit and show we’re I’ve contradicted myself. I don’t believe I have, but happy to be proven otherwise.
> Not a biblical person myself, but I'm going to take a note out of the bible on this one : " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
You make a good point. Why have I bothered to talk to someone who is so clearly disconnected from reality.
You are completely ignoring the fact that even if connected to the grid all power grids are structured to meet peak demand, and that there will always exist periods of excess power which, until bitcoin, had to go to ground.
Bitcoin makes use of energy that would otherwise be unused.
Bitcoin makes use of energy that would otherwise be unused.
We don’t operate renewable grids in most of the world, and for most of the world renewable energy supply isn’t great enough to supply the dips without fossil supplements.
All that means is that in almost all scenarios bitcoin mining will be directly causing an increase usage of non-renewable energy. There are of course certain times and places where this doesn’t hold true and there’s a genuine surplus of renewable power that can’t be stored. But that’s an exception not the rule. Try and tell me with a straight face that the majority of power consumed by crypto is surplus renewable energy.
All that means is that in almost all scenarios bitcoin mining will be directly causing an increase usage of non-renewable energy. There are of course certain times and places where this doesn’t hold true and there’s a genuine surplus of renewable power that can’t be stored. But that’s an exception not the rule. Try and tell me with a straight face that the majority of power consumed by crypto is surplus renewable energy.
Honestly, this is more of an argument against Excel and most office jobs.
Btw. we have truck driver and plumber shortages.
Btw. we have truck driver and plumber shortages.
So you are against investment in renewables. That is not as progressive as you think.
Clearly he thinks that investments in renewables are a good thing, since those would also "reduce the use of non-renewables in the wider energy grid". So I'm puzzled why you'd think what you just wrote.
"Every watt of renewable power generated to power a crypto miner," IS investment in renewable energy.. which he would rather was not invested in renewable energy. I don't see any other way to interpret that, unless you think that paying monies for renewables is somehow not 'investing' in renewables.
> "Every watt of renewable power generated to power a crypto miner," IS investment in renewable energy
Yes, that is true...
> which he would rather was not invested in renewable energy
...no, he would have used the generated electricity for something more useful, NOT make it so that it isn't generated in the first place.
Yes, that is true...
> which he would rather was not invested in renewable energy
...no, he would have used the generated electricity for something more useful, NOT make it so that it isn't generated in the first place.
So he is turning down real investment in renewables in the hopes that other more agreeable investment materializes out of thin air.. meanwhile his plan crashes the price of renewable energy endangering those industries and shrinking the market.. allowing established fossil fuel industries a bigger share. genius.
Please don’t overestimate the importance of crypto in this world. Crypto investments in renewables are, at best, a rounding error. The ROI from them certainly won’t offset the very real harm being done by all the additional fossil plants being brought online to deal with the increased demand they create.
Fossil fuels being used to fill demand of any sort is its own problem. We need global carbon taxes on a Montreal Protocol level to incentivize any excess demand (investment) to target renewables. -But with this, crypto would be a great boost to renewable technology, guaranteeing a minimum return for business investing in Research and Development.
Please defend this behaviour
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/old-coal-plant-i...
Its not unique either. There’s a company in the U.K. that bought an old coal plant, to convert to gas operators, to provide power solely for a crypto mining operation.
Simple fact of the matter is that it currently cheaper and easier for miners to use fossil fuels, then build renewables. Which is exactly what they’re doing.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/old-coal-plant-i...
Its not unique either. There’s a company in the U.K. that bought an old coal plant, to convert to gas operators, to provide power solely for a crypto mining operation.
Simple fact of the matter is that it currently cheaper and easier for miners to use fossil fuels, then build renewables. Which is exactly what they’re doing.
> So he is turning down real investment in renewables
No, he's not.
> meanwhile his plan crashes the price of renewable energy endangering those industries and shrinking the market.. allowing established fossil fuel industries a bigger share
It seems that you have completely missed the past four decades of renewable energy decreasing in price by a factor of 100x. The result of this decrease was not "endangering those industries", but rather making them viable in the first place and broadening the market massively. As per Jevons, the energy market doesn't shrink when prices get lower.
I'm puzzled as to how someone could make such a glaringly obvious mistake.
No, he's not.
> meanwhile his plan crashes the price of renewable energy endangering those industries and shrinking the market.. allowing established fossil fuel industries a bigger share
It seems that you have completely missed the past four decades of renewable energy decreasing in price by a factor of 100x. The result of this decrease was not "endangering those industries", but rather making them viable in the first place and broadening the market massively. As per Jevons, the energy market doesn't shrink when prices get lower.
I'm puzzled as to how someone could make such a glaringly obvious mistake.
>It seems that you have completely missed the past four decades of renewable energy decreasing in price by a factor of 100x.
And it seems you have completely missed the fact that investment from crypto miners helped to bring this efficiency saving about, if there wasn't so much demand, there would be nothing to invest in R&D and infrastructure that inevitably lower prices.
Crypto, or specifically PoW acts like a guarantee of sale under a certain price per KwH. It used to be necessary for governments to guarantee power prices, and offer subsidies to encourage investment in their countries infrastructure. PoW in part replaces this necessity and encourages companies to invest in renewable, efficient, power production.
And it seems you have completely missed the fact that investment from crypto miners helped to bring this efficiency saving about, if there wasn't so much demand, there would be nothing to invest in R&D and infrastructure that inevitably lower prices.
Crypto, or specifically PoW acts like a guarantee of sale under a certain price per KwH. It used to be necessary for governments to guarantee power prices, and offer subsidies to encourage investment in their countries infrastructure. PoW in part replaces this necessity and encourages companies to invest in renewable, efficient, power production.
It is a bit annoying that you assume that people critical of cryptocurrencies and specifically Bitcoin's environmental footprint are uneducated about the issues. It is not a myth. BTC's environmental footprint is preposterous. It's estimated that the network currently runs at 165 TWh/a, or around 19 GW, which means that one transaction uses around 5 GJ or 1500 kWh, and produces 800 kg of CO2, and 250 g of electronic waste.
For keeping track of a ledger that one dude in a basement with an Excel spreadsheet could keep track of, more or less.
For keeping track of a ledger that one dude in a basement with an Excel spreadsheet could keep track of, more or less.
> For keeping track of a ledger that one dude in a basement with an Excel spreadsheet could keep track of, more or less.
No, for protecting against the untrustworthiness of that one guy in his basement. You may disagree with the value of that function, but that's what cryptocurrency provides.
No, for protecting against the untrustworthiness of that one guy in his basement. You may disagree with the value of that function, but that's what cryptocurrency provides.
To underline how preposterous the whole PoW is - BTC is mined by hardware that consumes 2000-3000W each, all the while vast majority of these machines never mine a single block
Technically half true, they share the processing load of guessing the next valid block, and then share the profit when the one piece of hardware finally guessed it.
I do not remember when a Chinese ASIC miner ever shared something while I was mining with a laptop.
Network shares the load but winner takes it all, i thought.
Network shares the load but winner takes it all, i thought.
Those were the bad old days. There are pools now, like the old Seti@Home program. If your mining pool wins you get the percentage of the reward relative to the hashes you tried.
You can try to go it alone but your chances of finding the block reward are incomprehensibly low.
You can try to go it alone but your chances of finding the block reward are incomprehensibly low.
Measuring energy use per transactions makes no sense, as mining energy consumption is not related to the number of transactions processed.
Also a huge portion of the energy used by bitcoin would otherwise be wasted.
Also your figures are egregiously off and taken from flawed estimates
https://nydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NYDIG-Bitcoin-N...
Also a huge portion of the energy used by bitcoin would otherwise be wasted.
Also your figures are egregiously off and taken from flawed estimates
https://nydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NYDIG-Bitcoin-N...
> Measuring energy use per transactions makes no sense, as mining energy consumption is not related to the number of transactions processed.
Sure, measure energy use per amount of money transferred. That's not going to be very nice either.
> Also a huge portion of the energy used by bitcoin would otherwise be wasted.
Oh, come on. Now you're just trolling. It would have been used for something else that most likely wouldn't be waste, like in factories or in hospitals and such.
Sure, measure energy use per amount of money transferred. That's not going to be very nice either.
> Also a huge portion of the energy used by bitcoin would otherwise be wasted.
Oh, come on. Now you're just trolling. It would have been used for something else that most likely wouldn't be waste, like in factories or in hospitals and such.
> Measuring energy use per transactions makes no sense
I am well aware of the difference between average and marginal energy use. This would be particularly relevant if the blocks were not full, but mined anyway, so that any additional transaction could've been included "for free". However, more often than not, that's not the case, but the mempool is non-empty, and the constraint (of max transactions per block) is binding. [1]
Thus, one can not trivially argue that the marginal cost of a transaction is zero.
Next, yes, my figures (165 TWh/a = 19 GW) from Digiconomist [2]) are at the upper end of the estimates, but other figures (eg Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index) estimate 100 TWh/a, with reasonable bounds of 36 to 376 TWh/a, so 12 to 28 GW, so are largely in alignment, modulo a factor of 2. (Note that your source is also within a factor of 3 of those estimates, pegging BTC at 0.2% of global electricity consumption.)
At any rate, the average cost is just preposterous, even if off by a factor of 3.
[1] see for example https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,1w,count
[2] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
[3] https://cbeci.org
I am well aware of the difference between average and marginal energy use. This would be particularly relevant if the blocks were not full, but mined anyway, so that any additional transaction could've been included "for free". However, more often than not, that's not the case, but the mempool is non-empty, and the constraint (of max transactions per block) is binding. [1]
Thus, one can not trivially argue that the marginal cost of a transaction is zero.
Next, yes, my figures (165 TWh/a = 19 GW) from Digiconomist [2]) are at the upper end of the estimates, but other figures (eg Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index) estimate 100 TWh/a, with reasonable bounds of 36 to 376 TWh/a, so 12 to 28 GW, so are largely in alignment, modulo a factor of 2. (Note that your source is also within a factor of 3 of those estimates, pegging BTC at 0.2% of global electricity consumption.)
At any rate, the average cost is just preposterous, even if off by a factor of 3.
[1] see for example https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,1w,count
[2] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
[3] https://cbeci.org
Give me a break. Power consumption numbers are completely meaningless in this argument. Power usage does not correlate directly to CO2 emissions. Crypto can and does run on renewables. If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow. In reality, the climate issue is just a convenient political bludgeon.
CO2 emissions are Θ(P). I don't see how you could say this "does not correlate directly to CO2 emissions".
Its not complicated. It is not necessary for crypto PoW to be powered by CO2 emitting fuels. It can be powered with renewables. Therefore the power usage of Bitcoin can't be used to infer its environmental impact. You need to know how much of that usage was on the back of fossil fuels.
Energy is fungible. Unless those renewable-generated watts were unable to be used for other things, then all marginal use of energy uses emitting sources, since we are not yet at 100% green energy. There are a few exceptions where mining is done on grids that are at 100% green energy, but this is not the norm.
Sure in theory. In reality not all energy is fungible because not all power generating systems in the world are connected. If I stand up a geo-thermal farm to run my crypto mining operation that power would not have been available to the grid anyway because the economic incentive to build the power station was crypto, not selling it to the grid.
These cases exist, but they are not the dominant form of mining. If all mining was done in such circumstances (and the energy source couldn't be connected to a useful grid) then people wouldn't be as upset.
> It is not necessary for crypto PoW to be powered by CO2 emitting fuels. It can be powered with renewables.
That's completely irrelevant for the correlation. Renewables are theta-bound by fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are theta-bound by renewables. Only at zero emissions for a source this would stop being true. This is first semester math.
That's completely irrelevant for the correlation. Renewables are theta-bound by fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are theta-bound by renewables. Only at zero emissions for a source this would stop being true. This is first semester math.
> Only at zero emissions for a source this would stop being true
There are plenty of crypto operations that have their own, renewable power sources that operate in a closed zero emission fashion.
There are plenty of crypto operations that have their own, renewable power sources that operate in a closed zero emission fashion.
> renewable power sources that operate in a closed zero emission fashion
If you mean operational emissions, then this is a trivial statement. If you mean total emissions, then this is a wrong statement, unless these people manufactured their own generators using zero emissions in the process.
If you mean operational emissions, then this is a trivial statement. If you mean total emissions, then this is a wrong statement, unless these people manufactured their own generators using zero emissions in the process.
Energy is fungible.
If base load were to drop due to crypto miners being turned off, the energy with highest marginal cost would be turned off, which means fossil fuels, not renewables.
If base load were to drop due to crypto miners being turned off, the energy with highest marginal cost would be turned off, which means fossil fuels, not renewables.
The fungibility argument doesn't work when you consider that not all power generation in the world is connected to the same grid. There are crypto operations that use their own renewable power infrastructure. That energy never would have made it to the grid because there was no incentive for it to be put there (otherwise it would already have been there). The incentive is to use it for crypto not your mom's blender.
> Crypto can and does run on renewables.
Energy is fungible.
> If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow.
The fashion industry alone has more climate impact than air traffic and maritime traffic together. Aviation contributes around 1% of air pollution (though 5% of greenhouse effect, due to high altitudes).
But all of those (transport, fashion) provide utility. BTC usurps nearly 1% of world electricity without providing commensurate discernible utility.
Energy is fungible.
> If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow.
The fashion industry alone has more climate impact than air traffic and maritime traffic together. Aviation contributes around 1% of air pollution (though 5% of greenhouse effect, due to high altitudes).
But all of those (transport, fashion) provide utility. BTC usurps nearly 1% of world electricity without providing commensurate discernible utility.
I'm sure people who don't fly or follow fashion feel the same way about the perceived utility.
I for one think not having to pay 20% for a remmitance for someone who is trying to help their famiy in another country has huge utility, maybe others disagree.
I for one think not having to pay 20% for a remmitance for someone who is trying to help their famiy in another country has huge utility, maybe others disagree.
Oh, the old "EDuCaTE UrsElf" argument? I'm sorry, but Bitcoin's energy use doesn't even pass the smell test. If you're consuming ~1% of global power generation while providing only ~2% of world's narrow money, that's not very optimistic. The fact that its deflationary nature makes it unappealing for actual cash transactions should make it even worse should you go for transaction volume comparisons.
Define volatile. The only currency that has stood the test of time is gold, a private currency. Every fiat currency in history has failed.
Probably because heads of state like to print it to solve their short term problems essentially robbing everyone with an inflation tax. I dont call that stable or just. I work and save and expect my currency to hold up and not be abused which is not happening currently.
Edit: HN must be the worst platform in existence to debate. I have about 700 karma and cant comment more than 3 times on this thread. Your rules are not helping discussion or clearing clutter, they're just really annoying. Retrac: no ive hit a limit and cant respond anymore on the whole thread even with only a few comments.
Probably because heads of state like to print it to solve their short term problems essentially robbing everyone with an inflation tax. I dont call that stable or just. I work and save and expect my currency to hold up and not be abused which is not happening currently.
Edit: HN must be the worst platform in existence to debate. I have about 700 karma and cant comment more than 3 times on this thread. Your rules are not helping discussion or clearing clutter, they're just really annoying. Retrac: no ive hit a limit and cant respond anymore on the whole thread even with only a few comments.
> Every fiat currency in history has failed.
That's funny. The extant fiat currencies haven't failed. So, the only ones that have failed... are the failed ones. And those have failed, 100%, indeed.
That's funny. The extant fiat currencies haven't failed. So, the only ones that have failed... are the failed ones. And those have failed, 100%, indeed.
Actually all the euro area currencies that were removed from circulation in exchange for euros; franc, deutchmark, lira etc. did not fail at all.
Thus, not every currency has failed, although it could be argued that they still exist in a 'shadow' form, thus have not yet existed to the end of the infinite timeline.
Either way every failed currency has indeed failed, thus every currency in the future that fails will also be considered to be a failure, maintaining the 100% record for failure.
Thus, not every currency has failed, although it could be argued that they still exist in a 'shadow' form, thus have not yet existed to the end of the infinite timeline.
Either way every failed currency has indeed failed, thus every currency in the future that fails will also be considered to be a failure, maintaining the 100% record for failure.
What's the percentage of failed to non-failed? Are we pushing close to 100% ?
Hacker News has a short delay before you can reply to a new comment. I think precisely to stop instant replies and give people a chance to think about it?
Anyway. There's a cute video out there I can't find now of a man trying to use gold in New York to buy something. Anything. The results indicate its use as a currency was questionable. (No one would accept it as payment.)
Anyway. There's a cute video out there I can't find now of a man trying to use gold in New York to buy something. Anything. The results indicate its use as a currency was questionable. (No one would accept it as payment.)
Except gold is not a currency. It's a commodity. Gold coins used to be a currency in certain times and places. Insofar as they're not recognized anymore, at least where I live, they've actually failed.
I believe the Canadian maple series of gold and silver coins have some face value, and you can spend them like that if you wish. 1oz gold = 50CAD FV, and 1oz Silver = 5CAD if I'm not mistaken. However when you try to bring them across borders they are evaluated at their numanistic value.
Sure, there are countries where noble metal coins are still currency. That doesn't mean that this proves that "gold as currency has stood the test of time".
> The only currency that has stood the test of time is gold, a private currency.
I'm curious about what leads you to claim that gold is "a private currency". Can you elaborate on the rationale behind your claim?
I'm curious about what leads you to claim that gold is "a private currency". Can you elaborate on the rationale behind your claim?
Please educate yourself harder before making these ignorant statements, unless you have a motive behind
Instead of downvoting I decided to write this comment.
I don't agree with the sentiment of the parent either, but:
* Assume the best interpretation of a comment [1].
* Keep it on topic
* Don't attack the person, also not implicitly (e.g. "please educate yourself", don't say that)
Reread: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One can claim many things about the parent comment. But it's all directed to the topic at hand.
Cheers!
[1] The best interpretation I can come up with is: yes the energy issue with crypto/bitcoin are an actual problem to solve. Yes, using crypto might be a good use-case in certain situations. While I don't believe the profit claim (there's no source), I can't disprove it either. So it poses an interesting question as to whether that's true.
I don't agree with the sentiment of the parent either, but:
* Assume the best interpretation of a comment [1].
* Keep it on topic
* Don't attack the person, also not implicitly (e.g. "please educate yourself", don't say that)
Reread: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One can claim many things about the parent comment. But it's all directed to the topic at hand.
Cheers!
[1] The best interpretation I can come up with is: yes the energy issue with crypto/bitcoin are an actual problem to solve. Yes, using crypto might be a good use-case in certain situations. While I don't believe the profit claim (there's no source), I can't disprove it either. So it poses an interesting question as to whether that's true.
Got it, will make better comments next time
Just be yourself.
yep, i meant my next comments on yc will try to provide better arguments and/or concrete proofs bringing value to the discussions
For those of you keeping track, this is about the 20th time China has declared to have banned Bitcoin or crypto. The only thing they've done is demonstrated that crypto is a threat to their all-reaching power grab and that they are mostly powerless to control it.
> they are mostly powerless to control it.
What makes you think that? You do realise that they could easily outlaw 1) miners, 2) exchanges that convert to fiat, and 3) people privately exchanging to fiat, and (domestically) enforce that reasonably well, too.
And sure, there could still be an underground market - you can get still get weed and cocaine in China or Singapore, but I wouldn't recommend participating in it.
What makes you think that? You do realise that they could easily outlaw 1) miners, 2) exchanges that convert to fiat, and 3) people privately exchanging to fiat, and (domestically) enforce that reasonably well, too.
And sure, there could still be an underground market - you can get still get weed and cocaine in China or Singapore, but I wouldn't recommend participating in it.
You can exchange FIAT using P2P.
They literally did this already (miners were kicked out/shut down, the exchanges were shut down or put in line, and now the broad legality of simply owning/transferring them), and Bitcoin is still doing it's thing, more or less unphased (let's be real, a 10% dip is hardly remarkable in the crypto world) - demonstrating in technicolor how even the most empowered state, with far-reaching and unilateral control of every domain that cryptocurrency requires to operate (law, finance and telecommunication), is relatively useless in it's ability to hinder the mechanics of cryptocurrency. Driving it more underground will not squash it.
They banned crypto mining before, but did they really ban crypto transactions before? This seems like the last step to make crypto coins 100% illegal in China.
I would think the main thing they're afraid of is that it allows Chinese citizens to operate outside the state apparatus of surveillance.
Can you provide a source for some previous crypto ban? AFAIK this is the first time they've made crypto transactions illegal.
2013: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-05/china-s-p...
2015: https://archive.is/Higoz
2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-china-idUSKCN1BJ1...
2018: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-eliminates-all-cryptoc...
2021: https://archive.is/s7nbw
"China Has Banned Bitcoin 13 Times Since 2012":
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-great-bitcoin-mining-mi...
2015: https://archive.is/Higoz
2017: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-china-idUSKCN1BJ1...
2018: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-eliminates-all-cryptoc...
2021: https://archive.is/s7nbw
"China Has Banned Bitcoin 13 Times Since 2012":
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-great-bitcoin-mining-mi...
Your link from 2013: "The public is free to participate in Internet transactions provided they take on the risk themselves, it said."
It happened so often even prior to 2014 that it was meme-worthy:
https://imgur.com/a/KDwtE#WzkZ3W5
That doesn't sound as reassuring as you think it does.
This is a country rounding up a whole population of a religious minority and sending them to reeducation camps. A country that mobilized over a billion people to almost completely control covid. You are vastly underestimating the CCP, as most Westerns continue to do.
I've noticed this quite a bit, and I don't understand it. People keep writing articles and saying things amounting to 'it just won't last forever'. But the reason is, because it just won't, totalitarian governments don't last.
Why wouldn't it? Strong central government. Clear economic and social goals with the ends justifying whatever unethical means. A complacent middle and upper class satiated by enough new wealth to make them fat(ter than they used to be) and happy.
Why won't they be the next world power for the foreseeable future? Is there an anti-party faction in China that's larger and more powerful than I see in US media?
Or is this just wishful thinking from the west?
Why wouldn't it? Strong central government. Clear economic and social goals with the ends justifying whatever unethical means. A complacent middle and upper class satiated by enough new wealth to make them fat(ter than they used to be) and happy.
Why won't they be the next world power for the foreseeable future? Is there an anti-party faction in China that's larger and more powerful than I see in US media?
Or is this just wishful thinking from the west?
Nothing wrong with the fundamentals of your argument, but growth can’t be unlimited. Eventually it’s starts slowing down, then those complacent middle class will start being less complacent and start demanding more freedom.
I think it’s reasonable to say the CCP will keep their grip on power for as long as they can continue delivering wealth to the middle class, and lifting those in poverty into the middle class. What’s not clear is how long the CCP can continue delivering that wealth.
The ongoing crisis with Everglade is showing that the CCP power and ability to generate wealth is not unlimited. I doubt it’s the beginning of the end, but it does shine a light on the long term structural flaws of their strategy. It’ll be interesting to see how the CCP deals with this over the next 10 to 20 years, maybe they’ll find a new strategy to maintain power, or maybe they’ll start a slow and gentle transition into democracy, allowing them to placate the middle class who won’t be seeing outsized wealth growth anymore.
I think it’s reasonable to say the CCP will keep their grip on power for as long as they can continue delivering wealth to the middle class, and lifting those in poverty into the middle class. What’s not clear is how long the CCP can continue delivering that wealth.
The ongoing crisis with Everglade is showing that the CCP power and ability to generate wealth is not unlimited. I doubt it’s the beginning of the end, but it does shine a light on the long term structural flaws of their strategy. It’ll be interesting to see how the CCP deals with this over the next 10 to 20 years, maybe they’ll find a new strategy to maintain power, or maybe they’ll start a slow and gentle transition into democracy, allowing them to placate the middle class who won’t be seeing outsized wealth growth anymore.
That newly freedom-thirsty middle class could be simply brutally suppressed by an automated police force, powered by AI-driven surveillance. The CCP is a long-term thinking government, I'm sure they are at least considering how it would work.
The problem comes from the fact that educated, wealthy middle classes are not fungible I'm the same way peasants are.
You can crush a thousand peasant farmers and replace them easily, you can't do that with the middle class without heavily setting back your economy and therefore being less competitive on the world stage.
The CCP will need to decide whether they want to release control and let their population produce value, or keep control and be unable to compete as a world power.
That's my take.
You can crush a thousand peasant farmers and replace them easily, you can't do that with the middle class without heavily setting back your economy and therefore being less competitive on the world stage.
The CCP will need to decide whether they want to release control and let their population produce value, or keep control and be unable to compete as a world power.
That's my take.
Considering the cultural revolution in China, the Siberian extermination camps of Soviet Russia, and the utterly bizarre treatment Imperial Britain had for petty criminals at the turn of the century, and the US Southern states fighting and dying for the right to enslave… I think that authoritarian governments would rather see tens if not hundreds of millions die before they ever lose their grip on power.
When things go poorly there is always an internal scapegoat, and knowing that no matter how low your situation is it’s (a) not your fault and (b) there is someone who has it worse is a great way to keep social cohesion through troublesome times. And if all else fails, one can find an external party and invade them as both a distraction and a way to deliver spoils to your loyalists.
I’d bet that things will get worse for ethnic and religious minorities in China during a downturn in the economy and if the economy continues to slowly slide for a decade then the neighbors of China like the Philippines will see more of their territory taken away.
When things go poorly there is always an internal scapegoat, and knowing that no matter how low your situation is it’s (a) not your fault and (b) there is someone who has it worse is a great way to keep social cohesion through troublesome times. And if all else fails, one can find an external party and invade them as both a distraction and a way to deliver spoils to your loyalists.
I’d bet that things will get worse for ethnic and religious minorities in China during a downturn in the economy and if the economy continues to slowly slide for a decade then the neighbors of China like the Philippines will see more of their territory taken away.
Perhaps, but a brutally suppressed population doesn’t tend to be a very productive one.
Not saying it won’t happen, but I don’t think it’s a clear cut as you make it, and I think the CCP are smart enough to know that. They already do an astonishingly good job of treading the line between an authoritarian government that exploits it population for wealth, and one that empowers its populations for productivity and even greater wealth.
Not saying it won’t happen, but I don’t think it’s a clear cut as you make it, and I think the CCP are smart enough to know that. They already do an astonishingly good job of treading the line between an authoritarian government that exploits it population for wealth, and one that empowers its populations for productivity and even greater wealth.
My bet is on good ole drugged troops over AI.
> then those complacent middle class will start being less complacent and start demanding more freedom.
They will not start demanding more freedom (only a small minority will do that). They will become increasingly agitated and demand the kind of economic progress they had before, which the CCP won't be able to deliver (the easy, fast, low-debt growth has largely been saturated).
Specifically the CCP | people-of-China socioeconomic pact is based on the country continuing to deliver massive economic gains to the bulk of the population.
Xi has begun a new cultural revolution (just ahead of the curve) because he recognizes it's going to be required to stomp down on the population in order for the CCP to retain its position, as the easy economic gains are well over. The leadership of the CCP recognizes what's inevitable about their context: they either had to let go of power increasingly, or they have to become more totalitarian, as the growth pact begins to falter. What waits for China the next 30 years, is significant demographic erosion, slow growth and epic persistent debt problems (which doesn't mean they aren't going to be a superpower, they are).
They will not start demanding more freedom (only a small minority will do that). They will become increasingly agitated and demand the kind of economic progress they had before, which the CCP won't be able to deliver (the easy, fast, low-debt growth has largely been saturated).
Specifically the CCP | people-of-China socioeconomic pact is based on the country continuing to deliver massive economic gains to the bulk of the population.
Xi has begun a new cultural revolution (just ahead of the curve) because he recognizes it's going to be required to stomp down on the population in order for the CCP to retain its position, as the easy economic gains are well over. The leadership of the CCP recognizes what's inevitable about their context: they either had to let go of power increasingly, or they have to become more totalitarian, as the growth pact begins to falter. What waits for China the next 30 years, is significant demographic erosion, slow growth and epic persistent debt problems (which doesn't mean they aren't going to be a superpower, they are).
In this vein, this is the United States' opportunity to out-compete China. We need to refactor immigration and foreign policy to embrace adding regions, refugees, and other migrants to our fold. Otherwise they will be added adhoc in overwhelming numbers and much to the surprise of government and the people. The world is getting hot. This causes unforseen changes like political upheaval and subsequent migrations (Hatian example recently).
The only answer might be adding other countries into our representative government system (not colonialism, but peacefully and equitably adding other willing states that want to benefit from stable government). Seems people are already voting to join with their feet. Embrace it.
The only answer might be adding other countries into our representative government system (not colonialism, but peacefully and equitably adding other willing states that want to benefit from stable government). Seems people are already voting to join with their feet. Embrace it.
I feel like North Korea shows that it's not just about growth. I would expect the CCP to hold power in the same way North Korea's dictator holds power even when the majority of the country is starving. Am I wrong?
> ongoing crisis with Everglade
What is this? "Everglade" is a common enough word that I can't find anything besides mentions of the wetlands in Florida.
What is this? "Everglade" is a common enough word that I can't find anything besides mentions of the wetlands in Florida.
> What is this? "Everglade"
GP needs to learn to spell
Evergrande is an indebted chinese property developer which is the current ticking financial time bomb this week in China.
GP needs to learn to spell
Evergrande is an indebted chinese property developer which is the current ticking financial time bomb this week in China.
[deleted]
>The ongoing crisis with Everglade
You mean Evergrande (3333.HK)
You mean Evergrande (3333.HK)
> Or is this just wishful thinking from the west?
It's state propaganda. A (clever and very well designed) mix of known government actors and easily influenced third parties that work to push a specific narrative online. The thundering irony is that the west reports on such practices extensively when it comes to China, but the far more obvious actor (visible in the west) is your own government.
It's state propaganda. A (clever and very well designed) mix of known government actors and easily influenced third parties that work to push a specific narrative online. The thundering irony is that the west reports on such practices extensively when it comes to China, but the far more obvious actor (visible in the west) is your own government.
I don’t think that it’s “a sure fire thing that it’ll collapse in N years” or anything, but I do have to wonder if a system that concentrates power that significantly would be less long-term stable, as all you need is one less-competent supreme leader to send the whole thing tumbling.
Where did GP write "it just won't last forever"?
>A country that mobilized over a billion people to almost completely control covid.
What do you mean by completely control covid? What intended result have they managed to arrive at?
What do you mean by completely control covid? What intended result have they managed to arrive at?
They have almost 0 community spread. A fact which many in the west respond to by saying that they’re faking their numbers, which completely ignores all of the counter measures they’ve taken. I have colleagues in China, and the Chinese lockdowns literally looked like a Zombie movie. It’s not surprising they were able to contain spread.
I think they do both. I mean, the gross misreporting of the numbers, AND the harsh lockdown measures.
Its not ccp only. Many asian countries were very obedient and self controling, contrary to many western places.
That's a ridiculous and obvious lie. This kind of absurd nonsense can only be founded on bigotry.
I am a bigot for reading Wikipedia?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps
You're a bigot for pretending to believe such obvious bullshit.
And you are choosing to ignore the most unsavory aspects that have been raised in the west because your local media has told you otherwise. Its absolutely true! There are very strong analogies here with Holocaust denialism, which some states see as such a problem they outlaw the philosophy!
It is not bigotry to stand up to authoritarianism and human rights abuses. You wield that term bigot to downplay the vast and monstrous human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang. Its absolutely nothing to do with race or nationality. There is nothing intrinsic that would permit such actions to be attributed to this. It is not about bigotry. Connecting the two is all part of the metagame in pushing a state propaganda. Make your accuser seem less credible so you never have to address the actual substance of the complaint.
The reported incidents include Forced Labor and Sexual Abuse, Organ Harvesting and Genocide. On mass. This happened. This is happening. There is plenty of neutral international sources on this. Saying it doesn't exist is absurd. There is clear evidence of this!
These are not lies told by the western media, as the Chinese media claims. These are happening, they have been reported by people that have escaped, they have been raised to the UN. Most of the world has denounced this...
It is not bigotry to stand up to authoritarianism and human rights abuses. You wield that term bigot to downplay the vast and monstrous human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang. Its absolutely nothing to do with race or nationality. There is nothing intrinsic that would permit such actions to be attributed to this. It is not about bigotry. Connecting the two is all part of the metagame in pushing a state propaganda. Make your accuser seem less credible so you never have to address the actual substance of the complaint.
The reported incidents include Forced Labor and Sexual Abuse, Organ Harvesting and Genocide. On mass. This happened. This is happening. There is plenty of neutral international sources on this. Saying it doesn't exist is absurd. There is clear evidence of this!
These are not lies told by the western media, as the Chinese media claims. These are happening, they have been reported by people that have escaped, they have been raised to the UN. Most of the world has denounced this...
Stop spreading "opinions" please. a whole population means basically you have inflated the inflated 1 millions to 7 or 8 millions people. Use your brain.
You're trying to say that because the Chinese Government has only detained an estimated million+ Uyghurs, it's completely fine because it wasn't literally all of them? You must realize that these flimsy efforts to defend the Chinese Government only makes it more obvious that the government is increasingly detached from the reality the rest of the world lives in, to the point where it says 2+2=5 and without irony believes it.
No, I am not. I am trying to say, stop making unreasonable accusations, regardless your motive. Media already publish only sensational headlines, at least, we, normal people, can behave better than them.
Because you believe you are righteous does not mean you can spread false information you can easily question with your brain, the same as you believe you are righteous does not mean you can go into other country for WMD.
Because you believe you are righteous does not mean you can spread false information you can easily question with your brain, the same as you believe you are righteous does not mean you can go into other country for WMD.
deja vu!
China bans your crypto as illegal, while preparing their own national crypto chain(s). Sweden too right? US Fed in the mix with their own plans.
"big thieves hate little thieves"
"big thieves hate little thieves"
They just want their power plants to be used for useful stuff that’ll create growth, I get it.
Sweden was working on a digital currency. A friend in Sweden told me they over-engineered it by allowing other central banks to use it, and progress stalled.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, but it was just conversation over a beer. Someone else to confirm.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, but it was just conversation over a beer. Someone else to confirm.
It's a way to move capital out of the country. Bad.
China is trying to prop up domestic stocks and investment. Crypto blunts that effort. Moreover, following or reclaiming the money is difficult, slow, and sometimes impossible. Very bad.
Crypto is probably something that the NSA can headshot and easily kill your cottage industry. Also bad, but to a much lesser degree than the capital flight.
China is trying to prop up domestic stocks and investment. Crypto blunts that effort. Moreover, following or reclaiming the money is difficult, slow, and sometimes impossible. Very bad.
Crypto is probably something that the NSA can headshot and easily kill your cottage industry. Also bad, but to a much lesser degree than the capital flight.
Pollution is also a huge problem in China. While China would like to still keep its electricity cheap, especially in the hinterland where people can’t really afford higher prices (and otherwise would resort to direct coal use for heating), crypto miners taking advantage of the cheap rates in a way that government didn’t intend.
That's an interesting insight. Thank you!
Agreed. the CCP wants control and cryptocurrencies weaken that control.
I wonder how China intends to enforce this ban. I assume they will be looking at power usage and breaking down doors but that really will only work for POW coins. So that leads me to wonder what they plan to do, technically speaking, to ban all crypto mining. Seems like a fruitless effort.
The Chinese government is experienced in internet traffic monitoring and filtering.
A plan for enforcement isn't really a prerequisite for regulation. It's especially not a prerequisite when there's no limit to the regulator's capacity to investigate and escalate penalties, should existing measures fall short.
China, nor the USA nor Sweden is creating a cryptocurrency. How is such nonsense on the top? No wonder misinformation is running amok.
They’re likely referring to the digital yuan project which is very real and is already being tested in certain parts of china.
The digital yuan is not a cryptocurrency, furthermore, digital money is not cryptocurrency.
What defines cryptocurrency then?
Not saying your wrong, but I'm curious.
Not saying your wrong, but I'm curious.
I'm not sure there's an "official" definition, but generally crypto(currencies) are referring to currencies that are setup on a blockchain, or distributed ledger. In addition validator models, such as proof-of-stake and proof-of-work are used to validate and maintain the ledger.
A digital currency does not require a distributed ledger, nor does it require a validator model as it is not distributed or trustless to begin with as it's inherently centralized and backed by a government and existing monetary infrastructure usually.
In other words, digital money is nothing like cryptocurrencies.
A digital currency does not require a distributed ledger, nor does it require a validator model as it is not distributed or trustless to begin with as it's inherently centralized and backed by a government and existing monetary infrastructure usually.
In other words, digital money is nothing like cryptocurrencies.
I agree there is a difference but nothing about a cryptocurrency or blockchain requires a distributed ledger or distributed consensus mechanism. In fact there are plenty of centralized cryptocurrencies out there today.
Entries in a company’s database do not a cryptocurrency make.
Maybe if they used an authenticated append-only list to store the state or state changes, and published a summary of the head periodically in a way such that users could at least validate that the state changes were valid, or at least not violate certain rules, that might count.
If cryptography isn’t used in order to make something verifiable, it isn’t really a cryptocurrency, I’d say.
Maybe if they used an authenticated append-only list to store the state or state changes, and published a summary of the head periodically in a way such that users could at least validate that the state changes were valid, or at least not violate certain rules, that might count.
If cryptography isn’t used in order to make something verifiable, it isn’t really a cryptocurrency, I’d say.
A blockchain is a database of blocks which are cryptographically hashed such that manipulating any previous entries would invalidate all future ones referencing it. That is pretty much it. This can be constructed on a single machine in someone's basement if one so desires. In fact, the entire point of Bitcoin is that the entire blockchain can be validated by any node which anyone can start with something as trivial as a raspberry pi. Now Bitcoin adds a decentralized mechanism on top of this using Proof of Work. But that is not inherent to blockchains.
Yes, I think that fits under (or is perhaps synonymous with?) the “authenticated append only list” that I said.
I think the term referrer to cryptography aspect of the currency.
In a blockchain system, you can generate transaction off-chain(as in, no need for internet access), then you signed it with your private key, and send to a node in the chain. The nodes can verifiy/confim using your public key. The wallet address is a result of hashing your public key.
Compare with a digital currency, you most likely need an account and some sort of credential that managed by the company which issues the currency.
In a blockchain system, you can generate transaction off-chain(as in, no need for internet access), then you signed it with your private key, and send to a node in the chain. The nodes can verifiy/confim using your public key. The wallet address is a result of hashing your public key.
Compare with a digital currency, you most likely need an account and some sort of credential that managed by the company which issues the currency.
Cryptocurrency is a distributed ledger over a blockchain. The real question is what is a digital money ?
Digital money is the digital equivalent to cash. It's money that is emitted by the central bank in digital form that you really own, not a debt that a bank somehow owes you.
Cryptocurrency or not, central bank application or other, it's all implementation detail. The important definition is : it's money you can own but that you can't touch.
Digital money is the digital equivalent to cash. It's money that is emitted by the central bank in digital form that you really own, not a debt that a bank somehow owes you.
Cryptocurrency or not, central bank application or other, it's all implementation detail. The important definition is : it's money you can own but that you can't touch.
[deleted]
they ban bitcoin every year. what is the news?
Doge Coin to the moon!
/s
/s
Wonder if this will free up Graphics cards for gamers or if the mines will move country?
Bsckground There is a severe shortage of gaming GPUs Geforce 30xx. Possibly semi conductor shortage / crypto mining.
Bsckground There is a severe shortage of gaming GPUs Geforce 30xx. Possibly semi conductor shortage / crypto mining.
One can hope, it's been a problem for a while now that's impacting the regular cycle of game development.
The use of “illegal” in this article is highly ambiguous.
I can't read the text and be certain whether it means that transactions in it are prohibited, or that it simply does not have the same status as legal tender, as in currency that companies are required to accept.
I can't read the text and be certain whether it means that transactions in it are prohibited, or that it simply does not have the same status as legal tender, as in currency that companies are required to accept.
"The directive, which sent Bitcoin dropping as much as 5.5%, comes as global markets grow increasingly concerned over a debt crisis involving Chinese property developer Evergrande."
5.5%???? for bitcoin it means nothing.
5.5%???? for bitcoin it means nothing.
Some China FUD on the last Friday of the month that is an almost verbatim reprint of headlines printed a couple months ago... You surely realize the purpose of this right? Just look at all those 40k strike puts...
I don’t really understand these types of claims.
You think the CCP and central bank of China are just putting out statements to help a few foreign traders win on leveraged trades? The central planners of the economy that if fast becoming the largest in the world care a ton about some random traders in other countries? LMAO.
You think the CCP and central bank of China are just putting out statements to help a few foreign traders win on leveraged trades? The central planners of the economy that if fast becoming the largest in the world care a ton about some random traders in other countries? LMAO.
Oh China is definitely cracking down on crypto, what I'm pointing out is that Western financial rags print the story late on expiry day to manipulate the market.
The odd thing about their repeated attempts to damage crypto is that it feels like a strategic miss to me.
If I was the CCP I'd try to leverage BTC (and others) as a weapon against the dominance of USD.
Instead it looks like they just want to implement their own variant that gives them total control and transparency of in-country transactions. At a minimum they could do both (ban BTC use internally, but still allow mining in the country). I must be missing something.
Their authoritarian currency does allow for some interesting things like expiring credits or instant distribution of benefits, refunds, stimulus to the public (with constraints baked in) - but the obvious negatives are pretty extreme especially with the CCP's track record.
If I was the CCP I'd try to leverage BTC (and others) as a weapon against the dominance of USD.
Instead it looks like they just want to implement their own variant that gives them total control and transparency of in-country transactions. At a minimum they could do both (ban BTC use internally, but still allow mining in the country). I must be missing something.
Their authoritarian currency does allow for some interesting things like expiring credits or instant distribution of benefits, refunds, stimulus to the public (with constraints baked in) - but the obvious negatives are pretty extreme especially with the CCP's track record.
It hard to leverage it as a hedge against USD when it can be used against you, so many miners are already in China, and no real international transactions are happening in it (oil still USD).
And the anti-cryptocurrency sentiment I've seen all over HN --- which appeared suddenly a few months ago --- is totally organic, right?
I'm sick and tired of everything being a narrative manipulation op.
I'm sick and tired of everything being a narrative manipulation op.
Of course it's organic. The community is divided on the topic same way it is on every divisive topic. Both sides overgeneralize and think the community is against them—people on sides always do that.
If you think anti-cryptocurrency sentiment on HN "appeared suddenly a few months ago" you really haven't been paying attention. People have been whining that HN is so so negative about cryptocurrencies for years.
Other than occasionally promoting ethereum and connected scams that have been heavily invested in by SV VC firms HN has been pretty reliably negative on cryptocurrency.
Even pure tech work that just happens to have been done by Bitcoin related folks tends to get downvoted and flagged, e.g.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27573315
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18645790
Even pure tech work that just happens to have been done by Bitcoin related folks tends to get downvoted and flagged, e.g.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27573315
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18645790
HN has been mostly anti crypto as far as I can remember.
It actually makes sense, the "YC generation" turnover is overdue. A few will pass through to the next dialectical synthesis successfully, but a lot are going to be left behind.
Crypto is one of several things which are going to carry things through to the new order. (Avatar embodiment and pseudonymous identity is another, and DAOs taking the place of traditional startups is another.) A lot of people here are going to be left confused and angry, but that's the nature of change: the innovators of the past boil slowly into being stuck in their ways and unable to adapt.
Crypto is one of several things which are going to carry things through to the new order. (Avatar embodiment and pseudonymous identity is another, and DAOs taking the place of traditional startups is another.) A lot of people here are going to be left confused and angry, but that's the nature of change: the innovators of the past boil slowly into being stuck in their ways and unable to adapt.
I'd love to hear what else you believe is a narrative manipulation op.
HN's anti-crypto silliness goes back to the very early days of bitcoin.
What has been announced now (by the Chinese central bank and a bunch of regulators) is that all crypto related transactions will be banned.
[1] http://bitcoin.sipa.be/