Hacker News Reader

Comment by cormacrelf | Hacker News Reader

If that’s what you want web3 for, I’m actually quite happy for you to record your treachery on a public ledger. There is a reason the government doesn’t want you to do it, and that’s that sanctions are one of the only reasonable deterrents to war that we have. I can’t believe you would advocate for interfering with that on a public forum, in 2021 when western democracies are already struggling to make economic sanctions hurt because the autocrats are all in cahoots. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/the-aut...

View on HN

You’re assuming I’m talking about selling things to North Korea, or arms dealing, or something; but in the multilateral case, I’m actually talking about enabling trade in situations where arbitration of otherwise-legal contracts is impractical due to enforcement of contracts requiring ongoing positive relations (e.g. for mutual extradition) which have lapsed, or requiring the crossing of a DMZ — leaving parties on either side in a legal “state of nature”, free to screw one-another over with no consequences.

There were no economic sanctions imposed between East and West Germany; but making a contract with someone on the other side of the wall was still impractical, due to lack of diplomatic relations. Smart contracts solve that problem.

Other angles on this: the regular financial system in the Western world doesn’t let anyone transfer fiat currency to countries like Nigeria “for your protection”, even if you’re literally trying to run payroll for the registered employees of your Nigerian subsidiary company. (In other words, a de-facto trade embargo, but not a legal one, and not one to do with a any war.)

The only good way to do that payroll at this point is to send them crypto.

I updated my comment to clarify. You did say enemy.

But your argument also justifies selling arms to North Korea. After all, it's a positive-sum transaction that increases global GDP?

The flaw is that a transaction isn't positive-sum just because you and your trade partner are both happy. Your transaction may well incur negative externalities that outweigh the total profit enjoyed by you and your partner. For example, the world is much worse off if you sell a button-that-destroys-America to North Korea, even though you and North Korea are both pleased at the arrangement.

I don't want to put activity out of the reach of governments. Governments are the organ by which we decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior. If our governments are behaving unreasonably, the solution is to fix them, not to pursue anarchy.

While I think the stated use case is bizarre and useless, I will note that economic sanctions are almost universally bad, used to hurt the populace of countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba and others without doing anything to hurt the ruling elites. That said, the problem with such sanctions and trade embargoes is usually the flow of goods, which Bitcoin does less than nothing to solve of course.

I agree, but as we speak Russia has amassed 150k+ troops on the Ukrainian border and Putin is waiting to see whether the West can apply enough sanctions to make the whole effort a net loss before he gives the green light on an invasion.

But why do I have to care about that? Due to the overreach of US policies even companies in countries which don't have sanctions against Russia have to worry about the efficiency and performance of payments going towards Russia. SEPA and ACH may be marginally performant but SWIFT is incredibly expensive, which is the only option you have for international transfers that doesn't depend on an American monopoly of power.

Do you just not care about anybody else in the world? We live in a society.

I am surprised at the political ideas on display in this thread. This isn’t even under the comment in which I described the influence of “techno-libertarian anarcho-capitalism” on the crypto community! If you are not part of a western democracy, of course you do not have to care, but if you are, then you should. (Moreover if you think war is bad, like that other commenter agreed before wondering how to erase the effect of sanction deterrents, you should also care.)

>Do you just not care about anybody else in the world

Sure I do, however I also get to choose who I care about, and it definitely doesn't include people who make policies which are extraterritorially enforced on me.

>If you are not part of a western democracy, of course you do not have to care

What do you do when a "Western" "democracy" enforces their laws on you and all remaining solutions point you to services that are beholden to a "Western" "democracy".

They’re not extraterritorially enforced unless you’re talking about a blockade, so unless you’re a Cuban or Puerto Rican, you can’t complain. Most sanctions are just one nation deciding it prefers to lose your business than to lose its security agreements with its allies. If you find yourself unable to make a cross border deal, it’s because your country was unable to negotiate it with another. I have no intrinsic right to do business with anyone in the world as I see fit. Neither do you. I’m just okay with that because there are bigger goals than my own.

> What do you do when a "Western" "democracy" enforces their laws on you and all remaining solutions point you to services that are beholden to a "Western" "democracy".

Correct the aberrant behavior that caused your nation to get kicked out of the global trade system, or move to a nation that hasn't gone rogue. That's what the sanctions are meant to encourage. Bypassing the sanctions with clever math is just going to get the clever math outlawed; exerting international pressure to keep countries in line is far more important than your coinbase account.

I'm not sure economic sanctions are the solution here. More likely, a positive deal and various security promises for Russia (e.g. no more NATO exercises for a mock invasion of Russia, or simply more commerce) will probably do a lot more to ease tensions. As long as NATO and Russia continue to behave as enemies, Russia will continue to see Ukraine as a necessary buffer at its borders, and seek to make it a vassal state, to the detriment of everyone...

Edit to add: avoid phrases like "the West", it's very "Us and Them", it's much better to be explicit: is this about NATO? The US and its closest allies? The EU?

> before he gives the green light on an invasion

And the reason why the USistan should entangle itself in that mess is ... what exactly?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...

  The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

  As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile

If the US convinced Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons with the promise they would help fend off an invasion, and then proceeds to not help fend off an invasion, what do you think happens the next time the US asks a country to give up their nukes?

Thanks for this, that is a fair point, and I was not aware that these events had taken place.

[EDIT]: Whatever happens to nukes that are "given up on". That's a lot of fissile material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com