Hacker News Reader

Comment by chollida1 | Hacker News Reader

Makes sense.

You'd think that country that has issues with tax compliance and has already done things like removing large denomination bills would want to move to a fully traceable currency.

Furthermore it would make even more sense that it would use a currency of its own creation rather than one that isn't under its own control.

I think most of finance has accepted that cryto currencies are the future, it just won't be bitcoin or Etherium but rather a currency for each country/region just like fiat currencies we currently have.

View on HN

Cryptocurrencies don't make any sense unless they're decentralized and not controlled by governments. That's where the value is. Bitcoin has value because it cannot be controlled, printed (inflated) or easily confiscated. It gives financial sovereignty and freedom.

But, it's not for everyone. You obviously believe that governments need to control finances. That's fine. I think most people don't want freedom. But there's certainly SOME percentage of the population that really want and value freedom. That's why Bitcoin has and will continue to have value.

Devil’s advocate: Financial freedom requires freedom from forceful confiscation. Thus, without a military backing of some sort, perhaps by the sovereign nation state the crypto’s owner resides in, cryptocurrencies will always be vulnerable to real-world regulations and bans.

Forceful confiscation is pricey if you don't know whom to confiscate it from and how. A person may not have bitcoins. Or he might have it stored securely in another country to which he doesn't have immediate access. Those who have a lot already prepared themselves accordingly. And confiscating a little from many people is really pricey.

I agree that confiscation requires knowledge on who the owners are and rough amounts they own. With that knowledge, physical threats to demand exchanging cryptos for safety or freedom could be used quite efficiently depending on the laws and customs of each country.

The fact that the assets may not be easily traceable make them a more lucrative target for criminals to use unlawful threats against innocent owners as well.

Confiscation is, as you've identified, fruitless. Only governments without level-headed leaders will try.

Global regulation remains a risk for cryptocoins. If the only remaining utility is the black/grey market, cryptocoins become much less valuable and will end up losing a lot of interest.

> don't make any sense unless they're decentralized

Things that make sense decentralised to service freedom have a track record of becoming centralised to service convenience. Source: The Master Switch by Tim Wu.

Cryptocurrencies don't make any sense unless they're decentralized and not controlled by governments

You can seat the people representing 90 % of hashing power on a stage: https://twitter.com/lopp/status/673398201307664384

That's decentralization now?!

There's a meme that hashing power is equal to control, but the truth is that having a hashrate majority gives you a pretty limited set of powers, and if you abuse them you will see people flee to other cryptocurrencies or systems.

> I think most of finance has accepted that cryto currencies are the future

I genuinely hope you don't believe this. Some, not most, are toying with them like a cat batts around a ball.

> most of finance has accepted that cryto currencies are the future

[citation needed]

>I think most of finance has accepted that cryto currencies are the future, it just won't be bitcoin or Etherium but rather a currency for each country/region just like fiat currencies we currently have.

We don't know what the future will bring. But each country with its own cryptocurrency doesn't look like an equilibrium to me. I don't think that advance economies will ever fully outlaw bitcoin, so if it, in fact, becomes a store of value, developing economies will eventually adopt it, even if it's behind their government's back.

Could you please explain why will the advance economies never fully outlaw it? As far as I can understand, till bitcoin is a niche miniscule part of the economy, they might not care. But if it starts to become mainstream, I don't see how being developed or undeveloped would make a difference? All governments want to have control over the currency...

Due to the fact that most advance economies are also advance democracies. I agree with your point, that government's will certainly try to regulate it but I don't think they will outlaw it. They may regulate it enough, so it never becomes a medium of exchange, and therefore it doesn't turn into a threat to sovereign currencies.

But I don't think they will fully outlaw it, since there is no reason to restrict the options that citizens have to invest in. If people can invest in wood or orange juice futures, there is no reason, not to allow them to invest in cryptocurrencies.

Governments don't outlaw all speculation (which is what cryptocurrencies currently are), or for that matter actual investments for the most part. They regulate them to ensure that mostly people aren't being robbed blind, and they want their cut (i.e. taxes).

So long as you aren't hoping to use them as a tax fraud scheme I don't see why you would expect the government to want to shut it down. If you do hope to use it as a tax fraud or the like, you're likely in for an unpleasant time once the slow-but-steady process starts to focus on that.

With decentralized and automatic currency exchanges, a large number of cryptocurrencies that you can easily exchange is no problem at all. The more the better :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com