Hacker News Reader

Comment by fny | Hacker News Reader

In 1933, Roosevelt banned holding gold and silver. In 1934, the Gold Reserve Act allowed the government to set a fixed price for gold and buy out all domestic gold holdings for cash. This remained in effect until 1961 when the laws were relaxed. Then in 1971, the US jumped off the gold standard. Prior to that point, gold was the global reserve currency.

BTC is far less widely owned and far less legitimate than gold was in the 1930s (it actually was the global reserve currency then). The political friction is low for heavy regulation or an outright ban across even developed markets.

My bet is that the green argument will be the first attempt to neuter BTC.

Disclaimer: BTC neutral. I own a small amount, and treat it like an option on a speculative asset.

View on HN

>My bet is that the green argument will be the first attempt to neuter BTC.

Seeing a lot of seemingly inorganic noise on this. At the same time in the US, we are running a power grid like a country that inherited it from its imperialist colonizers from the distant past with no inherent capability to improve or even sustain it. 650K miles of transmission lines are oversubscribed and there are less than a dozen regional substations that act as an aggregate single-point-of-failure for the entire country. Texas was the canary in the coal mine.

The fact that we're not having the genuine discussion around improving the efficiency, cleanliness, and resiliency of our infrastructure lays the true capabilities of my country and the intentions of those in power bare: we are a declining power managed by corrupt and power mad psychopaths. Bitcoin is the least of our worries - it's actually a symptom of loss of faith in the system.

I agree Bitcoin is the least of anyone's worries from an energy perspective. The politicians just need some excuse to take on cryptocurrency, and the green argument smells like the kind of thing they'd latch onto.

Yes, I understood and agree with your point. I'm adding that it's a distraction from a far more serious discussion and revealing in itself of deeper issues.

>The fact that we're not having the genuine discussion around improving the efficiency, cleanliness, and resiliency of our infrastructure lays the true capabilities of my country and the intentions of those in power bare: we are a declining power managed by corrupt and power mad psychopaths.

While I agree that we are managed by corrupt and power mad psychopaths, I'm not sure infrastructure spending (or lack thereof) should lay at their feet.

It is a symptom of our elections that infrastructure and other non-sexy spending takes a backseat to large, mega projects designed to funnel federal and state dollars to localities. Politicians do not set the rules, voters set the rules. And the rule is that stability and planning are less important than flash and PR.

And it's sad, and I'm convinced that this shortsightedness will cause people I know to die from something that could've been prevented (not coronavirus, like cancer or starvation or war).

I came here to say what you just said so I am glad someone did it more eloquently. I find it interesting how many things recently were rationalized/pushed using environmentalism. I suppose it is a step forward from think of the children.

what is important to remember is that people who ignored the law made a huge return on holding their gold, and people who followed the law lost out

bans are a very strong advertisement for piling into the asset being banned. especially when holders of the asset in question are quite difficult to identify

another related point is that busting regulations is a great way to create great wealth. Dhirubhai Ambani created his first capital by smuggling. the Rothschilds did too – by busting Napoleon's sanctions

make your own conclusions about ways to behave in response to economic regulations ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com