Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootsudo | Hacker News Reader

What about Fiat Money concerns to crime?

Banks launder Billions with a B and get fined Millions with an M. This is a well-known, widely accepted and widely ignored fact when arguing against Bitcoin. The same can be said about the inefficiencies and energy consumption of world financial systems.

If only someone would go to a jail with a J. Time is the one resource we all have in limited quantities and should be precious to you no matter how much money you have.

Ok, but ‘not much worse than fiat’ is hardly a ringing endorsement.

There's plenty of "better than fiat" features of Bitcoin but that wasn't what was being discussed. Ironically, money laundering is not actually a good argument since Bitcoin is literally one of the most traceable cryptocurrencies.

And yet you still need central authorities and real world trust networks, hierarchy, and stability for enforcement.

Elon Musk recently tweeted: "Bitcoin is nearly as bs as fiat money" - meaning there's plenty of room for the ideal option.

I agree. I never said Bitcoin is perfect and there are cryptocurrencies that cover various use-cases. I think it will prove to be unbeatable as a store of value though, even if the detractors continue to cling to the "it failed as a currency argument". I don't care what it was supposed to be, I only care what it turned out to be.

How does it maintain as a store of value if no new people buy into it? The money isn't being embedded into Bitcoin, it's being transferred to an earlier adopter or miner.

Laundering is behaviour done by bad actors - you're trying to claim Bitcoin will stop the actions of these bad actors? You realize the bad actors can just switch who they coerce with bribery, threats or violence from banks to aligning at the bottom of the MLM-Ponzi scheme and are now financially incentivized to get all of society adopting Bitcoin - through regulatory capture/bribing/coercing politicians etc?

I'd love for you to respond to this too, but gets ignored every time I ask/point it out: Bitcoin and similar prevent powerful mechanisms through policy like the Magnitsky Act allowing economic penalties of known bad actors, hopefully swaying their bad behaviour before physical/violent means are necessary.

Just because there are problems with integrity doesn't mean the answer is making/using an inflexible system.

you're trying to claim Bitcoin will stop the actions of these bad actors?

Where did I claim that?

It's implied. I hope you answer the rest of my points instead of seeming to avoid them with this comment/question.

I only see one point: Bitcoin and similar prevent powerful mechanisms through policy like the Magnitsky Act allowing economic penalties of known bad actors, hopefully swaying their bad behaviour before physical/violent means are necessary.

Punishing bad actors is not high on my list of reason why I support any currency, so I don't have a lot to say about it other than question if sanctions have really had the effect you're asserting they have. Also, sanctions typically take the form of imports and exports, rather than seizing currency, no? In any case, I'd need to do some research on that as it's not something anyone talks about or really considers to be a major factor in cryptocurrency adoption. Did you have another point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com