China's Ban on Bitcoin Follows a Pattern Frequently Used by Beijing
crypto.writer.io
crypto.writer.io
China has exchange controls. You can't just exchange yuan for dollars or euros. there's a limit of about US$50,000 per year per person, and even that is sometimes restricted. No other major country has exchange controls like that.
A big use case for Bitcoin just went away.
Getting money out of China is 1) hard, and 2) often illegal.[1]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/from-cryp...
When i buy stock i'm hoping for two things. first that it increases in value but also that i get to collect some dividends because i own a tangible piece of a company.
When i buy ETH or XLM my only goal is to sell it on to someone else for more, i get nothing while i hold it and can't actually use it for anything. All i'm doing is searching for a bigger idiot to buy it off me.
What am i missing?
Edit: I get crypto is emotive and a lot of you guys are balls deep in the cult but it'd be nice to get some answers rather then my post just getting hidden.
ETH should be possible to stake soon-ish, other examples are ADA, ALGO and many more..
This is basically the same (details matter, ADA for example keeps the coins in the wallet all the time - AMP coins are transferred elsewhere) for all PoS (Proof of Stake) coins.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a PoW (Proof of Work) coin.
Edit since i can't reply downthread:
You're of course free to cash out your staking rewards however you want, but mind 2 things:
- taxes
- transfer fees
- the interest compounds..
I still end up with more of the same asset with no intrinsic value.
I assume they aren't paying me out in GBP or freedom bucks?
The main difference, to my understanding, is that rewards are kinda like getting paid directly by voting (in many cases, in a "republican" fashion via delegation), whereas with regular currencies, the mechanisms that correlate bond yield to economic activity are too complex and abstract for the average joe to grasp.
"Cryptocurrencies basically have no value and they don't produce anything. They don't reproduce, they can't mail you a check, they can't do anything, and what you hope is that somebody else comes along and pays you more money for them later on, but then that person's got the problem. In terms of value: zero.""
As for stocks, I buy and hold them, but yes I am explicitly looking for a the next sucker who is willing to pay more when I need to liquidate them.
[0]: they will have to tax something else, like a sales tax. I am fine with that, I just don't want them to be able to take what I own.
To most people, Bitcoin is synonymous with crime - ransomware, scams, drugs.
Because we don't operate in GW / TW units typically, so some size comparison is needed for mental visualisation. In the same way I'd say "about the size of a basketball" rather than "it's 250 cubic cm".
If Bitcoin being as useless as it is consumes 0.55% of global electricity isn’t alarming I don’t know what is.
You also need to quantify all the non-electricity energy use going into the Bitcoin equal system, including but not limited to hardware production, transportation, depreciation, etc. I’m not sure if those are negligible.
That's more than the whole world (per your own numbers, 110 / 0.0055 = 20,000). I am seeing more like 7,500 TWh for 2019.[0]
Also, 1.4 billion people live in China and they make a huge amount of the world's durable goods, so it makes sense that they will consume some power. Bitcoin does jack shit.
[0]https://www.climatescorecard.org/2021/01/electricity-consump...
Assets like this can do that. Where the demand is there just because everyone else is demanding it (oil had this a few years ago). But if that demand collapses so will the price.
I think the alg has a built in rate limiter too to pick up the slack. That limiter can go up or down too. Keeping new supply coming in at a particular rate.
Overall though bitcoin looks like a deflationary style monetary system. So speculation will be more common too.
Where is this adoption that everyone is talking about? Is there at least some credible chart that shows growing transaction volume?
If China banning bitcoin use and mining isn't an obvious indicator to you that Bitcoin is looking good, I don't know what would convince you :)
> Don’t be snarky.
You should have known this after being here for a decade.
Also, just a reminder that not all crypto is PoW. Nano, for example, claims to be extremely energy efficient.
You got me curious: 70% corresponds to 100 people. The article is here: https://news.yahoo.com/fidelity-digital-assets-plans-70-1850...
If you ignore the stomach-churning 80% drawdowns and instead look at the long-term average, there's a power law that explains the price quite well:
At best, you can hope for a logistic curve, where the growth will flatten off when everybody on the planet (at least, those with money) has collectively decided to accept it. That will level off the price.
At worst, when that happens, the people who depended on the exponential growth will cash out their earnings in search of new opportunities. If that happens, the entire thing will crash rapidly.
I can't tell you which it's going to be. I'd call it a coin toss. But that makes it hard for me to consider it a "long term value". It's a valid best case scenario, but we haven't seen that best case yet, only an influx of new buyers who are drawn more by the upward curve rather than the potential flattening.
https://safemoon24.com/index.php/bitcoin/bitcoin-btc-now-dec...
Meanwhile, there are 109 million credit card transactions a day in the US alone and who even knows how many wires or cash payments (or what happens when you go beyond the US).
Bitcoin mining in China was legal. Because it can convert the waste electricity to money.
Now, the main reason for the ban is that China don't have enough electricity to manufacture due to the robust demand in export.
When China export drops or waste electricity increase, Bitcoin Mining will become legal again. This is where you can make money.
I also hate those cancel culture people who are like 'it doesn't provide utility in my narrow minded view on how the world should be, so it should be banned'. If you don't like or understand something, breath and move on with your life. Keep it to yourself and let others live in peace.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole of removing stuff that's not 'necessary' to 'save the planet', ok, lets ban air conditioning. You don't NEED it. How about we stop the mass castration of animals and all the unnecessary spending on them and ban pets. Oh they have use and meaning to you? well not to me, ban them.
Also crypto has no utility and should be banned.
Who said bitcoin is currency? It doesn't even meeting definitional requirements for currency. Moreover, if bitcoin and its crypto advocates were just OK with letting it run side by side with fiat currencies that'd be one thing. But the perhaps not express still implicit goal of crypto is to replace fiat currency which necessarily puts it into conflict with the Gov. whether in the east or west. There's an anarchist theme there. So how can it really be surprising there's push back? Let's not forget spending fiat currency --- well, at least in the west (the good side) --- has no overlord limits other than criminal you think exist.
The key quote is here: https://ibb.co/Sm8LW0x
Asked and answered + 1.
This is China wanting to stop foreign influence, and also more importantly protect their own companies. China has video sharing and micro blogging and social networks. Is it really evil intent that China allowed these local companies to form instead of ceding to foreign monopolies?
Bitcoin while proponents talk about how its freedom and the revolution to tech that the blockchain will be, has produced nothing more than something to gamble on in the stock market.
So then why did China ban it?
what is a bit confusing to me is how they are crushing any company that gets successful. I invested in alibaba because I figured China realized having a strong and successful tech sector is critical to their goals of hegemony, but then they just crushed them and any other company that pops up. So when my friend said 'what about Didi', I was like stay away, china will hit them like the next wakamole, and they did within days.
I really don't know what their game is, but they are up to something.
With this said, I think the CCP's rationale for Alibaba is different from their rationale for crypto. One other commenter mentioned something that I think is quite valid: China has a capital exodus problem; there are a non-trivial number of people who got rich through corruption who want to hide money outside of the country and China has been aggressively clamping down on this via exchange controls and other measures. Brazil has a similar problem (though not to the extent of banning the purchase of foreign capital over a threshold) and it tries to keep track of it via taxation. Brazil started to treat outgoing crypto like it does foreign currency purchases, China just looks to be doing the same, but using China's policy framework.
How does that matter?
I am not speaking on Biden's actions or intentions, I am speaking on China's. I am also not speaking on what is 'right' or 'wrong'. just that is confusing given their stated goals.
Is it really confusing that a communist government doesn't like monopolistically-inclined companies? How so? Shouldn't that be a given, all other things considered?
Amazon strikes me as being about as close to weaponizing capitalism as it gets, and that isn't exactly a shining beacon of social perfection.
Ironically, Amazon sells a bunch of chinese stuff made by companies you've never heard of, whereas commerce of American brands in China is... yohoho and a bottle of rum.
I'd say it's far easier for China to ban global sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb giants like twitter whereas I'd say US' economic reliance on the chinese constellation of businesses is a tough nut to crack. I guess time will tell indeed.