Hacker News Reader

Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0 | Hacker News Reader

I think the issue is your concern does not really answer the question I posed. We can follow the use 'use' argument as soon as we deal with the 'who has the authority to tell people what to do with energy/money/equipment'. Is it me? Is it you? Is it society? Is it government? As soon as we get through that conundrum, we can discuss how crypto is basically evil and used for nefarious purposes only and cars are more like knives ( I disagree, but we can get to it once we know who can actually make the call on the behalf of humanity as a whole that a given technology is banned ).

View on HN

I don't understand why anyone thinks this argument is some kind of checkmate. This is the equivalent of screaming you're a sovereign citizen when the police ask for your name.

Governments have this general monopoly on the use of force, which is why they tell you you can't do things like sell heroin. If you disobey them, they will send men with firearms and make you stop.

Governments can obtain their consent in a bunch of different models and lots of people argue about which ones are better.

A "world wide ban on crypto" probably is not going to happen but more and more countries are banning it. I suspect many more will continue.

You still did not give me an answer by the way and I have to question as to whether you are arguing in good faith.

Still, I will address your comment in good faith.

It is not a checkmate. I am simply just trying to see what world model you have in your head. We clearly disagree, but it does not mean we can't openly discuss those disagreements. It is mostly the beauty of HN. If you present a logical argument, I might simply say, it makes sense. Right now I am confused.

Are you officially arguing government is the one to say as to whether technology is banned? If so, which government speaks for humanity as a whole?

<<This is the equivalent of screaming you're a sovereign citizen when the police ask for your name.

Is it? Can you elaborate a little bit? The analogy seems a little off.

<<Governments have this general monopoly on the use of force, which is why they tell you you can't do things like sell heroin.

Yes. Government monopoly on power has been a well established theory. We are not breaking new ground here. Is crypto heroin in this scenario?

<<If you disobey them, they will send men with firearms and make you stop.

Yes. See above. How does that help your argument?

<<Governments can obtain their consent in a bunch of different models and lots of people argue about which ones are better.

Yes. See above. How does that help your argument?

<<A "world wide ban on crypto" probably is not going to happen but more and more countries are banning it. I suspect many more will continue.

Maybe yes. Maybe not. It is not, however, an argument for or against crypto banning, whether it should be banned or not. It is not an argument at all. At best, it is just a speculation.

I'm going to interpret your current question as "Who has the authority to ban crypto?"

The answer is the government.

Governments are restricted to their borders but they do like to cooperate, and so EU may pass a general crypto ban and the EU may even ask the nations it trades with or that want to join to do similar.

But there is no real question that a government may ban something in it's borders.

"Ah, but I can get away with crime sometimes! Thus the government ban doesn't matter!" is the usual response. And sure, some small crime goes unpunished, but in general people don't want to overtly engage in criminal behavior. No business would touch crypto, which harms it's value and use.

Should we ban crypto?

Well, we can explore why countries have. The answer is a mixture of "it makes tax evasion stupidly easy" and "it uses too much power". With parts of the world paying INSANE prices for fuel right now, a lot more governments will latch onto that second line of reasoning. In general, governments detest tax evasion and things which aide it.

We do in fact generally like tax revenue. We like roads and schools and such, and most people are opposed to tax cheats. Nobody particularly cares for high electricity prices or polluters either.

"Well, what about those crypto operations which pay their taxes and are funded by renewables?" Sure, perhaps those are allowed to exist, but that comes with two problems. 1. It dramatically shrinks the mining pool, making sybil attacks easier. 2. It reduces processors which means less businesses will accept crypto.

Crypto already has a strong association with open air drug markets, and for good reason. As legitimate usage declines, the desire to ban a tool used primarily for crime will increase as it should.

Crypto is already being banned and it probably should be banned. If not banned then regulated, but regulation would harm it significantly.

<< Well, we can explore why countries have. The answer is a mixture of "it makes tax evasion stupidly easy" and "it uses too much power". With parts of the world paying INSANE prices for fuel right now, a lot more governments will latch onto that second line of reasoning. In general, governments detest tax evasion and things which aide it.

I take issue with the statement "it makes tax evasion stupidly easy". The moment you touch any US-based exchange, your information is up for grabs by a variety of agencies from IRS to various LEOs. It may make doing the deed easy, but it does not really change much. It has been years now since blockchain made it into mainstream. There are companies specializing in selling blockchain insights. Unless we are not talking US. But US has an entire cottage industry devoted to making sure that the wealthy pay as little as possible. I am not sure banning crypto would help here. Killing lawyers and accountants could ( I jest.. it is just a reference to Henry VI ), but that is about it.

<<"it uses too much power"

I find this argument amusing. I am paying for it. If you don't like my use, either raise the price or, well, leave me alone. But therein lies a problem, energy prices are not an equilibrium point and people do not want to give up THEIR toys, but an appropriate scapegoat will let them keep their toys and feel righteous indignation. It is a win/win.

<<The answer is the government.

And this is where it gets fun as correctly noticed. Even without considering the distributed nature of the technology itself ( because there are way to circumvent that as internet splintering has shown ), government these days may, if not will, disagree for a variety of reasons including but not limited to "they are for A, therefore I am for not A", making it a protracted game of whack-a-mole ala piracy, war on drugs and multiple other endeavours governments proved to be so good at. To sum up, you may reasonably argue they have the authority, but do you reasonably think, they will actually pull it off?

> I am paying for it. If you don't like my use, either raise the price or, well, leave me alone.

Residential miners are using subsidized electricity. We do that so Grandma can afford to be warm and run her dryer.

If we forced miners to use commercial electricity plans then they would in fact pay a whole mess more.

I find this argument odd. Is the electricity used by the business somehow different than the one used by grandma? Are these currents used by the business somehow more special? No. If anything, based on my dad's experience as a shop owner, businesses pay much higher rates than individuals. They are not subsidizing grandma. They are subsidizing bureaucrat lives. That is all the there is to it.

Still, let us say that I accept your argument, some miners actually bought various electricity producing entities. Now what? Are you going to argue they can't use the electricity they generate or are you going to argue that we can then force them out of business some other way. Either undermines some tenets of US society, but I am curious now.

It may make doing the deed easy, but it does not really change much I'd argue the opposite, bitcoin is terrible for tax evasion and only fools think they're getting away with it. Besides every legit exchange doing KYC, law enforcement buys off the shelf chain analysis software to track people on their radar.

> "Who has the authority to ban crypto?" > The answer is the government.

The gov't is supposed to represent the people's will. So are you saying that it is the will of the people to ban crypto? Aka, is crypto something that is causing harm to society, like heroin addiction etc?

Let's go back to the prohibition era - why did the gov't decide to ban alcohol? And why did they re-instate it back afterwards?

I argue that gov't is not an "authority" - they merely execute the ban. The authority lies with the average views of society. Bans on slavery, for example, is only possible because most people slowly came around to disliking it (mostly people who don't benefit from it - while those who do vehemently fought against the banning).

Was it the "will of the people" to ban all drugs? Because that's not how I remember it. Specifically one good example is how MDMA got banned, tons of psychiatrists and psychologists went to court to speak out against the ban and the judge agreed with them. Did the DEA give a shit? Absolutely not. Banned.

Not to mention, the US forced the anti drug ideology on the rest of the planet through economic coercion

I'd say public opinion is absolutely swaying in the direction of a ban, especially as the facts become clearer.

who is the authority? We, at least in democratic countries if enough people decide we should ban crypto we just draft the laws and end it, easy. We did this with many other things, don't know why this would be different

It is not a bad argument, but 'we' seem to be disagreeing a lot lately. I am not assuming you are from US, but I am going to use US as an example. The polarization is at a point where just about every major issues is split 50/50. And this does not even begin to touch as to whether US political class actually represents the needs/demands/whatever you want to call it of its electorate.

So yeah, you are not wrong about the general framework, but do you think drafting such a law right now would be..hmm.. palatable to the general populace. After all, consent of the governed is a thing.

And as for crypto specifically.. well.. the time to squash it has long passed. There is people with real money in it now. The best you can hope for is regulation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com