Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw239849234 | Hacker News Reader

5. People for whom fiat money is impractical for one or more reasons

This category is way larger than people in well-banked Western circles realise. Bitcoin (crypto) is one of the easiest ways for people affected by capital controls or sanctions (on the financial institutions they use, or the country they were unlucky enough to be born in) to freely move their (legally earned, and taxed) money across borders.

Since one of the countries with strict capital controls is China, and one of the countries affected by sanctions is Russia, the scale of this usage of crypto is huge.

View on HN

The idea that some cryptocoin is used by some large but unseen group of people is often talked about but nobody presents the data that show that this group really exists. Is there some real data that shows that this large group actually exists or is it all speculation?

The vast majority of the cash changers in Istanbul have tether and BTC logos.

There’s a similar situation in Lebanon with BTC’s near ubiquity in remittances.

Just because it doesn’t impact your life doesn’t mean this use isn’t self evident elsewhere.

And a large number of cigarette shops and bodegas in the US have lottery tickets. Is there a clear reason why we assume it's for remittances and not for gambling? I know in South Asia for example most of it is indeed for degenerate gambling/"get rich overnight" schemes.

This ought to be a verifiable claim, thanks to Street View. I looked around the airport[0] and in[1] various[2] streets[3]. The images are from last year, but they don’t show cash changers with either tether or BTC logos. I did end up finding one[4] after searching through seven, although it is dedicated to cryptocurrencies (it was next to a cash exchange, it isn't one), and its website states this[5]:

> Is exchanging cryptocurrency legal in Turkey? Yes, it is legal to buy, sell or trade your crypto money as long as crypto money is not used to pay goods or services.

They also mention they only pay out in USD. That makes it sound like the only possible use is for a Russian to convert Rubles to BTC in their home country, exchange BTC with USD there, then go next door to exchange their USD with Lira. That is so heavily tied to sanctions that it can explain why actual cash exchanges don’t support cryptocurrencies.

[0]: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9774298,28.820529,2a,75y,324...

[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0080274,28.9761991,3a,15y,34...

[2]: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0166738,28.9509347,3a,88.5y,...

[3]: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0150099,28.9752954,3a,25.8y,...

[4]: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0086973,28.9713568,3a,60y,64...

[5]: https://nakitcoins.com/en

It’s how I used it. To donate to an Ukrainian streamer many years ago who couldn’t use PayPal and to transfer money easily to my then girlfriend in South Africa (though that got replaced by xe.com later). It was just far easier and cheaper than the alternatives.

Since the Bitcoin supply is capped, the price itself is data about it being used. At present, it will cost you $28,000 to obtain 1 Bitcoin from those of us who value it.

So these people want to avoid law, by avoiding paying taxes or fees of their capital. Which is precisely #2 from the parent poster - "Users who have BC because they need it for illegal gains".

I'm not assigning a moral value to this. I'm just commenting that law avoidance is law avoidance, even if you really really want or need to do it.

Tokens are useless in comparison to monay for almost any activity, except for law avoidance. For this task they are amazing.

Is sanctions-evasion a good thing?

Russia is currently fighting a war of aggression, applying controls on the flow of money in or out of there is one way in which the war machine can be starved.

I'm no expert, but restricting the flow of goods seems both necessary and sufficient. The war machine doesn't run on money.

A state can always find a way to hide the transactions, on the other hand.

> The war machine doesn't run on money.

I think it might, particularly where the war machine has a partner willing to sell it arms.

The partner can sell arms on a loan. There's a million of possible arrangements.

Sure, but that’s going to be less likely if the buyer’s economy is slowly grinding to a halt.

A state can always find a way to hide the transactions, on the other hand

I think the risk of sanctions, means that while there are work arounds, the cost of those work arounds, and the restrictions on who will do business with you, dramatically increase the costs of certain goods.

So sure, the cash moves, but now you pay more. A lot more. Death by 1000 cuts, and all that...

Whether sanctions evasion is good depends principally on which side of the sanction line you fall.

"Aggression" is an objective measure. There is no subjectivity who starts a war and wo is in another country's territory. Those are observable facts.

And obviously Russia did not believe Ukraine to be a threat - or they would have not done this haphazard invasion with too little preparation and too few soldiers, so there is no excuse.

The world isn't as black and white as you paint it.

[citation needed]

> 5. People for whom fiat money is impractical for one or more reasons

Did the bitcoiners forget about paper bills?

Both China and Russia have restrictions on taking paper money out of the country, which are much easier to enforce since there's a physical aspect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com