Comment by Taek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Taek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The text is "validating... through proof of work (mining)", which would seem to imply that it only protects miners. It does seem though like the author's of the text are missing a super important distinction, which is that proof of work mining is _not_ intended to be the main method through which blockchain transactions are validated. The participants in the network are all expected to validate the transactions themselves (independent of the miners).

A mistake like this really suggests that the proposed regulation is not well thought out, and that it should probably be revisited after further education and discussion.

Worth saying a million times: the massive uproar in the crypto industry this week is not because we don't want to be regulated. It's because these proposed regulations are:

+ massively over-reaching + proposed at the last minute + attached to a must-pass bill + given very little room for proper discourse

It's also worth stating that crypto is already regulated. If people are avoiding taxes that's already illegal.

This is an attempt to expand surviellance to make revenue collection easier for the state.

Excuse me if I'm not thrilled about the state having even more information about our lives. I pay my taxes to avoid being jailed, but they're never satisfied until they have complete control over society.

Right, that seems to be the consensus read.

I guess my point is that even PoW systems won't be entirely unaffected (albeit not quite to the extent that PoS systems are), since validators are crucial to the integrity of the blockchain.

To attempt to extend the electric car ban analogy: this feels like adding onerous/infeasible reporting requirements to pipeline operators (PoW validators) and power plants (PoS stakers), neither of whom know anything about the end customer refueling at the pump / charger station, but not the oil refineries (PoW miners).

And yes, the reporting requirements would also be in place for the electric utility (PoS validators), which still doesn't know anything about the charger station's customers.

For the moment believing that this proposed amendment isn't just some tactic related to getting (or not getting) infrastructure legislation done...

For many reasons this regulation would be unenforceable and/or impossible to comply with. How would a miner be able to fill out a 1099?

> A mistake like this really suggests that the proposed regulation is not well thought out, and that it should probably be revisited after further education and discussion.

What kind of sarcasm is most appropriate here? A coy shocked face or faux outrage?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com