Hacker News Reader

Comment by 300bps | Hacker News Reader

As regulators squeeze harder and harder, it will drive Coinbase under.

This seems more like wishful thinking than objective analysis.

It's a necessary next step for Bitcoin to prove that it can actually deliver on the promise of censorship-resistant money.

I've observed three pro-cryptocurrency arguments:

1. It is a store of value (ex: inflation hedge)

2. It is a replacement for x% of monetary transaction (ex: Web 3.0)

3. It is a way to exchange value outside of government intervention

You seem to be in Camp #3. With government controlling money for all of recorded history, why do you think cryptocurrency will be different? There's some compelling evidence that government will continue to exercise control over all currency including cryptocurrency. Just one example:

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/investigation-fra...

View on HN

The government has had practically zero control over cash transactions, historically speaking. The only real power governments have over their money supplies are the power to create and destroy money with impunity, that is all.

The government has had practically zero control over cash transactions, historically speaking.

Government has had extremely tight control over cash transactions.

1. Try to give someone $100,000,000 in cash. It literally weighs over a ton. The government stopped printing bills > $100 in 1946 explicitly to control cash transactions. With inflation, the largest bills we have to work with are worth about $30 in 1946 dollars.

2. Look up AML and BSA legislation, "Know Your Customer" regulations, Form 8300, Structuring Deposits. Did you know that a bank has to report you to the government if you deposit more than $10,000 in cash? And that if you deposit $6,000 on a Wednesday and $4,000 on a Thursday with perfectly legal money in an attempt to avoid the reporting that you have broken the law? (https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013#:~:text=Structu....)

3. Try to open up a bank account and tell them you'll be depositing lots of cash. They'll refuse to open an account for you.

And admittedly this is today's U.S. government. But governments haven't just taken a "oh well" approach to cash ever in all of history.

And while not disputing any of that, as far as I know, every single transaction I've ever made with cash has not been logged in my name and is not cheaply trackable. That's a good thing because it avoids heavy concentration of power.

> 1. Try to give someone $100,000,000 in cash. It literally weighs over a ton.

Is this a common problem? I don't normally transact $100M on a normal basis, and the few times I've transacted anything more than even $5k or so usually involved some form with the government involving a title transfer or something along those lines. So then the argument of needing to do it privately is a bit of a moot point anyways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com