Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Thank goodness it’s impossible to ban crypto! Everyone in SK withdraw from the exchanges before they seize it!

> Thank goodness it’s impossible to ban crypto!

No it's not. It may be hard to prevent all SK citizens from using cryptocurrencies as SK is a reasonably open society, but it would be straightforward to ban their use.

A ban won't stop crypto any more than it stops illegal drugs, prostitution, etc. That said, there would be an effect on the crypto markets if a handful of major nations took action. So the question I have would be: will they aim for the taxes (presumably allowing crypto trading), or for an outright ban?

Sure, but unlike drugs or prostitution, aggressive police action doesn't harm any underprivileged classes, but rather a bunch of affluent tax evaders.

Do you think most people owning cryptocurrencies are affluent tax evaders?

Well, they are now the price has shot up. Although this does remind us that "affluent" and "liquid" are not the same thing and that capital gains tax usually requires realising gains to be a taxable event.

The 1000 or so majority owners probably are.

Yes? It's certainly not the people struggling to buy food if that's what you are implying.

They may be affluent, particularly when compared to people struggling to buy food. That doesn't make them tax evaders. Though it should be added that the tax situation regarding crypotcurrencies isn't clear in every country.

Its ironic that the same people who keep saying cryptocurrency has no underlying value, that its just a speculative bubble, are saying that profits from its increase in price should be aggressively taxed.

I don't see why it's ironic. Whether something is useful or not, and whether it's increases in value should be covered under financial taxes like any other commodity are separate issues.

Commodity: noun, plural commodities. 1.an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service. 2.something of use, advantage, or value. 3.Stock Exchange. any unprocessed or partially processed good, as grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals. 4.Obsolete. a quantity of goods.

So if you're saying its a commodity (and therefore should be taxed), it has value (and has to be based on something).

But semantics aside, taxation is theft, even more so in this case - there's no justifiable reason to hand over a portion of the gains to a government that had no involvement in the creation of the source of revenue.

"But semantics aside, taxation is theft,"

No, not in the slightest.

> taxation is theft

Please keep generic ideological tangents off HN. They lead to angry-samey discussion rather than thoughtful-curious. Fortunately that didn't happen in this case, but then not all sparks lead to wildfires, even in a dry forest.

Such as e.g. affluent tax evaders in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, or in Argentina a few years ago?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/31/africa/zimbabwe-bitcoin-su...

The people in Venezuela and Zimbabwe that are now using crypto as an opportunity not to starve now that their fiat currency is worth less than toilet paper disagree.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/venezuelans-bitco...

edit: Rather than downvote - could you please explain why you think crypto is not beneficial to the billions of people worldwide currently excluded from the financial system?

I don't know why people are downvoting, but what I'd like to know is how prevalent Bitcoin usage is in each country. Is it 10%? 50%? Who is it leaving behind? The article suggests it's not based on a scientific sample. I also wonder what the skew is in usage demographically and geographically.

And then I'd like to see this contrasted with other hyperinflation instances were people abandon the local currency and start trading in either a neighbor's currency or even USD.

Its probably impossible to quantify (mostly because those people using crypto are largely doing it at risk of imprisonment or death) - I'd imagine its a small number of tech savvy individuals.

I always downvote those Venezuela posts because they are invariably Bitcoin propaganda. The linked stories inevitably originate in a bitcoin news site and are backed by more wishful thinking than actual data.

The article I linked to was from ABC news (as mainstream a news source as you could find).

How is this propaganda? You're saying people in countries with hyperinflated currency have no use for crypto and don't use it? Can you back this up? Can you explain why there are significant premiums for Bitcoin when buying from exchanges from these countries? Or is this propaganda too?

Of course there isn't data (except of course from the exchange rates). These people are breaking the law and at risk of death or imprisonment. What type of evidence would satisfy you?

That article honestly sounded like an advertisement for Colibit.

People are downvoting because we've seen the Venezuela example used thousands of times by now. Yes there is value in a thing that is difficult for oppressive governments to seize of devalue. The question is whether that is in any way related to the current price of BTC. It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth. This isn't a technology that protects the developing world against monied interests. Its a technology that amplifies inequality due to an enormous difference in cost depending on when you joined the network.

> The question is whether that is in any way related to the current price of BTC.

Of course it is. People paying money on foreign exchanges contribute to the price too. Foreign remittances are a fantastic use case for crypto (mostly to these same countries).

Also, what inspires many people to enter crypto, is general lack of trust in government and financial institutions. People choose to buy crypto rather than buying other asset classes or to hold fiat (this is a decision with a strong geopolitical basis).

> It seems like the large majority of trading is happening among people who live in other nations and who already have wealth.

Possibly, but thats besides the point. This argument is a refutation to several arguments that detractors make: - there's no use case for crypto - there's no underlying value to crypto - crypto can't replace a fiat currency

> This isn't a technology that protects the developing world against monied interests. Its a technology that amplifies inequality due to an enormous difference in cost depending on when you joined the network.

As the Big Lebowski said "that's just like, your opinion man".

Joking aside, there are good reasons to think that crypto could in fact allow many people who are currently stuck outside the financial system to have access. This may me a small use case right now but its still early days for the technology.

I'd encourage you to watch: A. M Antonopoulos 'What Bitcoin Means For Unbanked Economies https://youtu.be/xeSfDbbcN2c

venezuela shows exactly why bitcoin cannot be used as currency. venezuela currency lost its value because the trust in central authority has evaporated, meaning it is now decentralized. look at it - venezuela currency value graph looks like bitcoin value graph upside down. people are quoting different value. some local areas are creating their own currency (just like bitcoin forks!). it is totally out of control. nobody can use it as currency.

If South Korea bans exchanges in the country or at least restrict their operations that could have a major impact. It would still be easy for Koreans to trade one crypto for another but much more difficult to exchange crypto for USD or any other currency.

I don't think law makers ever expect a law to stop a criminal behaviour. Making it more difficult (remove apps, shut down web sites) is likely to have some impact though.

What is the crime here exactly? Breaking up the financial cartels? Regardless, I have no doubt that the government will do their best to use this as yet another opportunity to steal wealth from their citizens.

You could consider it a crime to help facilitate actions that can be a danger to the society and individuals, like others have explained elsewhere in comments. This would be similar to unregulated lotteries, ponzi schemes, smoking bans, etc.

I definitely don't agree about criminalisation of cryptocurrencies (which also didn't happen), but there are valid points that are not only about stealing wealth.

> Everyone in SK withdraw from the exchanges before they seize it!

Pick 100 random Koreans who traded in any cryptocurrency in the past 30 days, and I guarantee that 95 of them will never figure out how to store their coins in their hard drive even if someone held a gun to their heads.

You don't have to bust doors to seize cryptocoins. Just make its usage sufficiently "socially unacceptable", and people will find it's not worth the hassle.

Sure, some determined people will keep using them, but they are not what the government is worried about. The government is worried about all those average Kims and Parks who threw their life savings into $(some coin nobody heard about), because when the inevitable hits these people and their families may lose jobs, career, and livelihood.

SK has quite a "policeable" internet; for a while they required use of real names, although that has ended. https://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/08/23/south-korea-scraps-la...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com