The discussions around crypto here kind of proves that you cannot use popular opinion in HN to predict the future. People were very negative (and still are) about crypto. Market cap kept proving them wrong year after year and we are here with around $2.6 Trillion and yet people here still think crypto is going to die.
It's interesting because in startups, you learn from the first day that you should listen to customers and follow the demand. The demand is very high and some people were puzzled how other people where depositing money in "shady" exchanges. Yet, that's a perfect example of "demand" that needs instruments to be satisfied.
Reality check: Most of the world suffers from hyper-inflation at worst and inflation at best. Not everyone lives in the USA/Europe and has access to good banking and investment options. Not everyone cares about their governments like in a developed first-world country.
Crypto is here to stay and it is going to play a significant role in global finance. Somebody here should read what the bureaucrats at the IMF thinks, or look at the roads in New Delhi. Gov. blocking crypto, yeah, right.
An interesting angle that seems overlooked in articles about India and China "banning" cryptocurrencies is that these efforts are often linked to a desire to create centralized digital currencies.
e.g. from this article: "India is also looking to make a framework for the official digital currency that will be issued by the Reserve Bank of India."
Do you have evidence that "a desire to create centralized digital currencies" has anything to do with "banning cryptocurrencies"? Because lots of countries have expressed interest in CBDCs and most of them aren't talking about banning anything. Indeed, it's often central banks talking about CDBCs, which aren't even in the position of banning anything.
Seems to me that CDBCs are just the new topic for conspiracies about how cryptocurrencies are being held back by the Powers That Be.
Well, they can try, but even with centralized exchanges, a VPN will do. And then there are decentralized protocols.
Once you have some of your money in cryptocurrency there's no real way for anyone to stop you from moving your money around however you like. The only points that can be controlled are interfaces with banks.
If it's illegal to exchange goods or official currency for cryptocurrency in the nation you are in, the usefulness of cryptocurrency is going to be considerably constrained. This depends on how thorough or draconian the state is but a lot of people just shy away from illegal activity without enforcement being that strong. After all, if buy a tangible good, I want legal title to it and having engaged in an illegal transaction to get the stuff makes that less certain.
> Once you have some of your money in cryptocurrency
That is a pretty big condition. Most of the people who buy crypto wants to buy from some trustworthy site, and if that is stopped there will be effectively zero new crypto being brought inside the country. Also no one knows how much hassle will it be to convert it into money in bank, this is likely to stop almost all trades.
If you are willing to break the law and risk being caught, sure, there is no way to actually stop from transacting using decentralized protocols. But there are plenty of other ways for the government to find out whether or not you are using crypto. Your bank will definitely keep tabs on your fiat transactions and continue to report KYC/AML information. Current KYC/AML is actually pretty good at detecting anomalies in cashflow and spending. Sure, you can lie about all this stuff but you might just be digging yourself into a hole.
not just banks, but everywhere you can spend it in country. fine you can move money between virtual accounts and buy NFTs all day, but government can control whether local business are allowed to accept your crypto as payment, so you’ll need to liquidate crypto into local currency - which kind of sucks to do if the banks aren’t there to help.
Banks can block accounts of centralized exchanges (and have done so in the past when govt asked them to). And once conversion from and to fiat money is disabled, there's very little value left in cryptocurrency.
Honest question I constantly think about and have never been able to answer about the future of cryptocurrency development: Why/when would a government ever want less control over the primary means used to transact within its borders?
This is one of the, if not the most, important levers it has to wield power. Governments have fought wars and enslaved entire continents to protect and increase the value of their means of account. Even recently, think of how hard the US works to maintain the dollar as the only currency that can be used international oil transactions aka the petrodollar.
Ultimately, cryptocurrency is a technological attempt to solve the problem of a fundamental lack of trust in our traditional institutions. After all, its powered by a set of de-centralized, trustless protocols. If you use crypto as an inflation hedge, that means you don't trust your government to not de-value your labor via printing tons of new currency. If you use it to carry out transactions, it means at least a small part of you has doubts that our that our current, centralized payment processing institutions won't unilaterally roll those transactions back or eliminate them outright in the future. Ditto for property rights and NFTs (and all the other use cases that guarantee a transaction is recorded by distributing it on chain).
Allowing crypto-currencies to supersede local currencies would not only put governments at the mercy of the mob (or perhaps a small number of whales and exchanges) for determining the value of their citizen's output, it would be an existential admission of their failure. Other than governments that have already failed at administering a currency like El Salvador, why would any self-respecting government with a functioning currency admit defeat like this?
Agreed. As long as people make some quick profits, they will blindly support anything, even fight governments - even if that thing makes it easy for criminals to launder money.
It is going to be an interesting battle. I got my popcorn and enough fiat currency to survive whichever way this goes. In the worst case my plan is https://xkcd.com/538/
Easiest way would be to block exchanges. Though one could go to another country and withdraw and convert the money, the more countries that block exchanges, the more targeted one could be towards the remainder for money transfers.
Majority of the people who gamble on crypto are doing so only to make a quick buck. They neither know nor care about the ideology, decentralization, removing intermediaries and other such lofty goals of crypto. Most people are in it because they either saw someone making a lot of money or read about it in the media and they also want a piece of it.
It's speculation, plain and simple. If not ban, government needs to regulate it like it regulates other speculative markets.
As for the libertarian goals of removing the central authority - that's not happening.
Crypto is increasingly looking like a Ponzi scheme to me. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion on HN but it's no less true.
The fact is that blockchain solves a problem for almost nobody. The primary use seems to be to avoid real or threatened government intervention. These uses are largely illegal, by definition (eg bypassing capital controls in China). Now you can argue the morality of such laws but that's irrelevant.
Cyrptos have wildly failed as a "currency". Even so-called "stablecoins" just peg themselves directly or indirectly to fiat currencies so they're really just adding another point-of-failure. We should be calling them "cryptoassets" not "cryptocurrencies".
As for escaping government seizures and the like, try telling that to Ross Ulbricht [1]. This year, China started to crack down on crypto mining [2].
The "security" of crypto is a myth. They can and have forked and have well-known weaknesses (eg 51% attack). I can't help but think of this [3] wrt security.
Proof-of-work wastes a ton of energy for basically nothing and, just like China, countries will increasingly clamp down on this, especially as voters increasingly face rising energy costs.
Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy of how we'll solve PoW problems with a lot of hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.
All it really takes is for action by the US and/or EU to say something like "financial institutions who trade in cryptos lose access to the banking system" and the market implodes. Sure the government can't stop you adding more transactions to the blockchain but for what? If no one can take your "currency" what value does it have?
Weirdly, crypto has seen the resurgence of gold bugs who have long held an irrational hatred for fiat currencies, completely with false claims in some cases (eg the US dollar was never 100% backed by gold, ever).
Things like reversible transactions and the ability to print money are actually a feature not a negative as they're often portrayed.
And even if you get past all this, you want users to securely manage a wallet when failure to do so means they could be irreversibly be robbed of their balance?
Governments are slow to react and they tend to only react to things that become viewed as a threat. Crypto is so niche it's not a threat. But that doesn't mean the US government couldn't fatally wound the crypto market tomorrow if it chose to.
This is really a popular opinion on HN. It is kind of self evident too.
Defi, NFT, Crypto all have Ponzi features. The people who win are early investors and the ones who lose are those who are late to the game. So, we invent "new" schemes like NFT, Defi etc.
There is no product. Nobody uses Defi to "borrow". 99.999% of the people want to put their crypto in and magically get some crazy XY.ABC% APR on their crypto. Everything runs on greater fool theory.
When the bear market hits there will be a lot of bag holders wondering why the hell they paid $10k on a monkey pic with sunglasses and a cigar.
During the euphoria phase people act like they are misunderstood geniuses and people who rightly call this a ponzi scam are those who don't get "it"!
The rest of your post is a very standard HN response to crypto, to the point where I'm not even sure if you wrote it or copied it.
I just want to respond to this:
>Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy of how we'll solve PoW problems with a lot of hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.
PoS is bog standard for new chains. Every "up and coming" chain is essentially a clone of Ethereum with some scalability improvements and proof-of-stake for consensus. See: Harmony, Luna, Avalanche, &c
Another thing is the more people will use crypto the more they will actually want it to be regulated. The more money there is more guarantees will holders want. And it will slowly turn into the same currencies we now have - centralized, regulated, traceable, stable. What an irony for crypto fans
Not unpopular. Programmers who can understand the underlying technology and look beyond the lofty ideological BS of blockchain will immediately know, this will not work in real world scenarios.
I tried to find any company who was using blockchain in any meaningful way. I couldn't find any. All I could find was promotional pieces mentioning what COULD BE DONE with blockchain or a trial that some big name company was CONSIDERING. No updates on the results of those trials or if anyone actually carried out the trial.
Proof-of-worrk blockchain is such a terrible, wasteful and bad concept that anyone who has ever worked with any database would know it's not even close o being useful.
[+] [-] csomar|4 years ago|reply
It's interesting because in startups, you learn from the first day that you should listen to customers and follow the demand. The demand is very high and some people were puzzled how other people where depositing money in "shady" exchanges. Yet, that's a perfect example of "demand" that needs instruments to be satisfied.
Reality check: Most of the world suffers from hyper-inflation at worst and inflation at best. Not everyone lives in the USA/Europe and has access to good banking and investment options. Not everyone cares about their governments like in a developed first-world country.
Crypto is here to stay and it is going to play a significant role in global finance. Somebody here should read what the bureaucrats at the IMF thinks, or look at the roads in New Delhi. Gov. blocking crypto, yeah, right.
[+] [-] iskander|4 years ago|reply
e.g. from this article: "India is also looking to make a framework for the official digital currency that will be issued by the Reserve Bank of India."
[+] [-] rufusroflpunch|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiralx|4 years ago|reply
Seems to me that CDBCs are just the new topic for conspiracies about how cryptocurrencies are being held back by the Powers That Be.
[+] [-] trasz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radicaldreamer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dboreham|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rip_netrunner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betwixthewires|4 years ago|reply
Once you have some of your money in cryptocurrency there's no real way for anyone to stop you from moving your money around however you like. The only points that can be controlled are interfaces with banks.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProfessorLayton|4 years ago|reply
That's... A big deal?
[+] [-] YetAnotherNick|4 years ago|reply
That is a pretty big condition. Most of the people who buy crypto wants to buy from some trustworthy site, and if that is stopped there will be effectively zero new crypto being brought inside the country. Also no one knows how much hassle will it be to convert it into money in bank, this is likely to stop almost all trades.
[+] [-] ngokevin|4 years ago|reply
At that point, you cannot move your money around however you like, you can only move the tokens around on the blockchain.
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] instagraham|4 years ago|reply
A ban would force the wallet's company to stop allowing its use on crypto exchanges.
[+] [-] jazzyjackson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hooray_Darakian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathnmusic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idiotsecant|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brighton36|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bob331|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] victoro|4 years ago|reply
This is one of the, if not the most, important levers it has to wield power. Governments have fought wars and enslaved entire continents to protect and increase the value of their means of account. Even recently, think of how hard the US works to maintain the dollar as the only currency that can be used international oil transactions aka the petrodollar.
Ultimately, cryptocurrency is a technological attempt to solve the problem of a fundamental lack of trust in our traditional institutions. After all, its powered by a set of de-centralized, trustless protocols. If you use crypto as an inflation hedge, that means you don't trust your government to not de-value your labor via printing tons of new currency. If you use it to carry out transactions, it means at least a small part of you has doubts that our that our current, centralized payment processing institutions won't unilaterally roll those transactions back or eliminate them outright in the future. Ditto for property rights and NFTs (and all the other use cases that guarantee a transaction is recorded by distributing it on chain).
Allowing crypto-currencies to supersede local currencies would not only put governments at the mercy of the mob (or perhaps a small number of whales and exchanges) for determining the value of their citizen's output, it would be an existential admission of their failure. Other than governments that have already failed at administering a currency like El Salvador, why would any self-respecting government with a functioning currency admit defeat like this?
[+] [-] seaman1921|4 years ago|reply
It is going to be an interesting battle. I got my popcorn and enough fiat currency to survive whichever way this goes. In the worst case my plan is https://xkcd.com/538/
[+] [-] onemoresoop|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shubhank19|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] givemeethekeys|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
even bitcoin’s taproot amendment that just got passed and implemented does this to a limited extent
[+] [-] SpaceManNabs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sekura|4 years ago|reply
https://coindcx.com
[+] [-] largbae|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endisneigh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yashg|4 years ago|reply
It's speculation, plain and simple. If not ban, government needs to regulate it like it regulates other speculative markets.
As for the libertarian goals of removing the central authority - that's not happening.
[+] [-] seaourfreed|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thepasswordis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heywherelogingo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gvv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathias|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|4 years ago|reply
The fact is that blockchain solves a problem for almost nobody. The primary use seems to be to avoid real or threatened government intervention. These uses are largely illegal, by definition (eg bypassing capital controls in China). Now you can argue the morality of such laws but that's irrelevant.
Cyrptos have wildly failed as a "currency". Even so-called "stablecoins" just peg themselves directly or indirectly to fiat currencies so they're really just adding another point-of-failure. We should be calling them "cryptoassets" not "cryptocurrencies".
As for escaping government seizures and the like, try telling that to Ross Ulbricht [1]. This year, China started to crack down on crypto mining [2].
The "security" of crypto is a myth. They can and have forked and have well-known weaknesses (eg 51% attack). I can't help but think of this [3] wrt security.
Proof-of-work wastes a ton of energy for basically nothing and, just like China, countries will increasingly clamp down on this, especially as voters increasingly face rising energy costs.
Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy of how we'll solve PoW problems with a lot of hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.
All it really takes is for action by the US and/or EU to say something like "financial institutions who trade in cryptos lose access to the banking system" and the market implodes. Sure the government can't stop you adding more transactions to the blockchain but for what? If no one can take your "currency" what value does it have?
Weirdly, crypto has seen the resurgence of gold bugs who have long held an irrational hatred for fiat currencies, completely with false claims in some cases (eg the US dollar was never 100% backed by gold, ever).
Things like reversible transactions and the ability to print money are actually a feature not a negative as they're often portrayed.
And even if you get past all this, you want users to securely manage a wallet when failure to do so means they could be irreversibly be robbed of their balance?
Governments are slow to react and they tend to only react to things that become viewed as a threat. Crypto is so niche it's not a threat. But that doesn't mean the US government couldn't fatally wound the crypto market tomorrow if it chose to.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/business/china-cryptocurr....
[3]: https://xkcd.com/538/
[+] [-] romeros|4 years ago|reply
Defi, NFT, Crypto all have Ponzi features. The people who win are early investors and the ones who lose are those who are late to the game. So, we invent "new" schemes like NFT, Defi etc.
There is no product. Nobody uses Defi to "borrow". 99.999% of the people want to put their crypto in and magically get some crazy XY.ABC% APR on their crypto. Everything runs on greater fool theory.
When the bear market hits there will be a lot of bag holders wondering why the hell they paid $10k on a monkey pic with sunglasses and a cigar.
During the euphoria phase people act like they are misunderstood geniuses and people who rightly call this a ponzi scam are those who don't get "it"!
[+] [-] iskander|4 years ago|reply
I just want to respond to this:
>Proof-of-stake is basically a fantasy of how we'll solve PoW problems with a lot of hand-waving. It having not happened yet is pretty good evidence of this being a fantasy.
PoS is bog standard for new chains. Every "up and coming" chain is essentially a clone of Ethereum with some scalability improvements and proof-of-stake for consensus. See: Harmony, Luna, Avalanche, &c
[+] [-] lordnacho|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zamicol|4 years ago|reply
This couldn't be further from reality. Blackcoin (2014), Peercoin, Decred, etc...
Eth 2.0 is running, right now, with billions in value. The whole of Eth is planned to move to 100% PoS quarter 1 of 2022.
[+] [-] masa331|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yashg|4 years ago|reply
I tried to find any company who was using blockchain in any meaningful way. I couldn't find any. All I could find was promotional pieces mentioning what COULD BE DONE with blockchain or a trial that some big name company was CONSIDERING. No updates on the results of those trials or if anyone actually carried out the trial.
Proof-of-worrk blockchain is such a terrible, wasteful and bad concept that anyone who has ever worked with any database would know it's not even close o being useful.
[+] [-] TrinaryWorksToo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bob331|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]