Nobody is proposing banning blockchains. Cryptocurrency, however, is clearly more than just software in the way missile-targeting system is more than ones and zeroes.
The block reward is the incentive for miners/stakers to operate a decentralized network. It is not a separate concept. The actual value of each reward is emergent. It is the result of resources being used to operate the network, and how we value that network. If we don't value the network enough, the value of the block reward will drop below the resources required to maintain it. I don't see why any external party should dictate how we may value that block reward or network.
> the way missile-targeting system is more than ones and zeroes.
This is an irrelevant comparison attempting to moralize software by comparing it to a weapon.
The moment that reward becomes a currency, and is traded for U.S. dollars, it leaves the domain of just being software. Banning that is quite different from banning the software per se.
> an irrelevant comparison attempting to moralize software by comparing it to a weapon
Comparing Bitcoin to free software seems similarly disingenuous.
That would make Eve online, Second Life, and other games illegal since people trade their digital assets all the time
>Comparing Bitcoin to free software seems similarly disingenuous.
Bitcoin is free software. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Some guy in Nigeria I don't know starts swapping it for Zimbabwe dollars. Now I'm not writing software anymore?
Furthermore, giving someone US dollars for something doesn't make that thing a "currency."
> Comparing Bitcoin to free software seems similarly disingenuous.
Bitcoin is literally FOSS.
Wild people think mathematics, cryptography, OSS, and free markets should be banned. No one is forcing anyone to buy/sell/hold crypto. It is completely voluntary.
A) please point where in my post I even came close to suggesting bitcoin should be banned.
B) even if I had said bitcoin should be banned, did I suggest anywhere that distribution of the software be banned?
For example, let’s accept the extremely problematic premise that I somehow said bitcoin should be banned. What that could mean is that I think the US (and other governments) should regulate any marketplaces that are currency on and off ramps for customers. Stable coins claiming to be backed by US dollars can be banned outright (easy) or that you have to register and the US government establishes an audit process to verify the claimed reserves / the software you’re using to control the stable coins (eg Tether is a highly suspect stable coin that’s likely another huge fraud). The US controls a lot of the world’s banking (not all) but they can also say that those banks aren’t allowed to support such systems and it’s citizens aren’t allowed to engage with unregulated stable coins. Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s an example of something the US could do to regulate / ban the coins without touching the software. That also doesn’t touch distribution of FOSS but places a significantly regulatory burden on the networks themselves. Additionally, by placing sanctions on these coins, the US currency is so ingrained they could theoretically ban coins from most of the western world. Finally, if they wanted to (and there may be national security reasons to not do it), they could also deploy meaningful compute resources to do a nation level attack to further undermine such networks by raising the transaction costs too high or doing 51% attacks (there’s no evidence that these networks are immune to 51% attacks from a nation state like the US). I think you’re really underestimating the power the US could wield to take down the running network (production instance) vs needing to ban the source code (much harder and not worth anyone’s time since I imagine the government learned their lesson with the war in the 90s about cryptography + the free speech implications it has).
So, in summary. You put words in my mouth I never said and then used that to draw the most absurd and weakest possible position from there. That’s the reason for the downvotes. My suggestion is figure out what got in your way of reflecting and figuring out what was wrong with your post (eg maybe in the future before reread the post you’re replying to to make sure they actually said what you think they said and if it’s ambiguous asking questions rather than making an assumption).
Your second edit makes it clear you failed to do that because you kept claiming that any down voters were supporting a position no one claimed around banning distribution of the bitcoin source code (or even binaries) and demanding that they provide support for an absurd position that was only voiced by you in the first place.
I never replied to you.
> please point where in my post I even came close to suggesting bitcoin should be banned.
please point to where in my post I even came close to suggesting Bitcoin should NOT be banned? Re-read my comment.
I'm not reading any more of your totally un-hinged reply. Get help.
EDIT: I couldn't resist skimming the most absurd comment I've ever seen on HN, and saw this:
"..maybe in the future before reread the post you’re replying to to make sure they actually said what you think they said"
lol take some of your own medicine.
Downvotes and upvotes on HN should reflect the quality of the comment and not agreement/disagreement.
I don't believe that it is. Certainly not to the point where it would be worthy of depromoting. It was a worthy discussion point. It could have easily just been left alone. My edit was highlighting that it was the typical outcome.
> Downvotes and upvotes on HN should reflect the quality of the comment and not agreement/disagreement.
Keyword: "Should"
You must know that it's often not how it works out. I frequently see thoughtful or otherwise harmless comments downvoted. Yet, rude and vapid, anti-crypto comments remain or are boosted. Downvotes are especially common when it's a reply to an older account with lots of internet points. They rule these threads.
EDIT: I'm not able to reply again because I am disallowed from posting too many times within an unspecified time. Probably also a consequence of not having enough internet points. I've already lost 5 of my precious points so faR!
As the other comment points out, a founder of the site thinks differently than you.
I obviously disagree with you. As PG suggests, I should downvote you to make sure that nobody else has the chance to agree with you. But then HN doesn't allow me to disagree with you, so your comment will remain.
My downvoted comments will also be grayed out to warn others of HN disagreements like a colorful snake that warns against danger. Stay back!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34068318
> The advancements in AI are as incredible as they are overstated. AI is nowhere near making human coders obsolete.
Already grayed out. No replies. Bottom of all comments at the moment.
Abrassive? Rude? Unwarranted? Let me know what was wrong with that one. Or did multiple people disagree with you? Does it make you want to continue offering your comment on a topic? Seems like people can downvote for any reason they like. Well.. they can if HN bestows that honor on them.
This is how echo chambers form.
Surely you disagree with this comment as well, so feel free to take away more of my internet points.
I will, however, stop responding to you because your comments are not constructive.
If people upvote/downvote for agree/disagree the comments and stories become a tedious hivemind.
I also stand by my original comment, people are mostly downvoting him because he is engaging in very silly hyperbole.