zlacker

>>mikeyo+(OP)
Shouldn't all true crypto believers hate this news?

It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".

>>fxtent+35
Obvious no-true-scotsman. Believing that the goal of crypto is to circumvent laws regarding possession and theft is at most a fringe belief. The fact that this is at the top of HN demonstrates how devoid of merit crypto discussion here is.

>>TTProg+mo
There isn’t a worthy discussion left to be had about crypto that isn’t discussing its role in fraud.

>>Waterl+GU
That's such a sad view, especially to hold in a generally curious place like HN. Another example is narcotics, yes we know that most narcotics usage is bad, but does that mean all usage of narcotics is bad? Obviously not, and we take those articles as they come, and discuss the angles each article has independently, in most cases at least. But somehow cryptocurrencies are so emotional for most people, that they hold such a black/white view of it.

We can, and should discuss subjects without "tainting" them with general, over-discussed points when we can, especially if we want to keep HN curious and not turn into a echo-chamber.

>>capabl+zX
We’ve spent years watching hundreds of obvious grifts and silly ideas. There has yet to be a single compelling, obvious use for this technology.

At some point we need to stop wasting oxygen on obvious garbage.

If this domain received 1/1000th as much attention and electricity I would be with you. But until then we could do with far less waste.

>>Waterl+OI1
Hedging against inflation due to manipulation by the government is a very compelling reason.

>>azth+EP1
That is one of the goofiest reasons I’ve heard when I look at the volatility of crypto.

Definitely not a compelling reason.

>>Waterl+CQ1
It might take time, but the fact that the government can't print free bitcoins as it does with fiat to pay off its usurious debt and devalue everyone's hard work is a compelling basis.

>>azth+c02
But won't you just hoard all of your earnings if it isn't inflated away by 2+% every year? I've been told spending would grind to a halt. Also without holding your wealth in cash in a bank, how would banks use your money as a reserve for lending out to their favored clients?

>>notch6+732
Not necessarily. Secondly, banks and money lending are immoral and predatory. Usury is prohibited in the three major religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), so we're better off without this dangerous practice. It goes hand in hand with fiat money by the way, the government is taking loans from the Fed, which is why it keeps needing to print more and more money to fuel it. The sooner we get rid of money lending as a business, the better.

On a side note, Islam requires a 2.5% Zakat from money hoarded in your account, to be donated to charity, so there's your solution against hoarding :) We don't need the government to fake print money to prevent people from hoarding. Better that money go into charity to truly have a more equitable society, as opposed to the fake and useless proposals we keep seeing and pitting parties against each other.

>>azth+nw3
The Zakat is an interesting concept, but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor. Presumably some system is needed to enforce Zakat, that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency.

Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized, I would wage enforcement of inflation is much easier than enforcement of Zakat.

>>notch6+mz3
> Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized

Zakat is centralized by the government.

> that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency.

How so? Could you elaborate?

> but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor

It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all know whose pockets it ends up going into :)

>>azth+wt4
>Zakat is centralized by the government.

I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat.

>Today, in most Muslim-majority countries, zakat contributions are voluntary, while in Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, zakat is mandated and collected by the state (as of 2015).[16][17]

[wikipedia ^]

>How so? Could you elaborate?

By compelling people to hold wealth denominated in currency, and then inflate that currency using central bank or treasury.

> It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all know whose pockets it ends up going into :)

No disagreement here. But government can also misappropriate Zakat. I am actually not in favor of most forms of planned inflation nor a compulsory Zakat precisely in part because I predict massive fraud on the minority of those holding the power to distribute it.