> At its root, it's a hatred of the "get rich quick" aspects of crypto. It evokes the same contempt that old-wealth (people with butlers) have for new-wealth (people with Lamborghinis): that they're childish, didn't earn their privileges, and need to be reined in. It's class signalling.

My hatred of get-rich-quick schemes has nothing to do with class signaling. I hate such schemes because they're almost universally scams designed to siphon money from poor people to someone who already has money. I hate them because I see friends and family spending their entire lives throwing away everything chasing get-rich-quick.

So, yes, that crypto has become a focal point for get-rich-quick is a huge red flag to me, but it's unfair of you to summarily dismiss that concern as snobbish.

I agree that get rich quick schemes are sad, but on the other hand, when I turn off my adblock, 99% of ads I get on YouTube are for copytrading with traditional stocks on eToro. Financially illiterate people get given a rope to hang themselves with crypto, but it doesn't take away from the benefits of crypto, which I think has a (small) place in any portfolio, and could potentially be a lifesaver in any cashless+NIRP society. I wouldn't try to pilot a plane without training, and wouldn't buy any crypto without knowing deeply about it. I don't see it as a red flag of the technology that people do stupid things, just a sign of human laziness (surely, getting the proper knowledge before piloting a plane, trading stocks, or buying crypto is common sense).

There are many people who want governments to "step in" and protect people from themselves, but governments will likely have ulterior motives (KYC, AML, financial control) when they do so.

KYC & AML are useful things that protect customers and prevent people doing things with money that we as a society have deemed unlawful (e.g. tax evasion, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, etc.).

Is giving up the ability to detect those things good?

I wouldn’t use a bank that didn’t care to identify who was withdrawing my money…

> it's speculative, and it enables scams.

The media sure likes to point to these things, but I personally have more specific criticisms:

- It provides store of value but limited medium of exchange. Until there is widespread adoption of BTC (i.e. people get paid in their salaries with BTC) then you're missing an important half of the definition of a currency

- Wash sales (see NFTs) and price manipulation is rampant.

> Those who are OK with that much power being concentrated in one person, can continue avoiding crypto.

If this statement is true "A minuscule .01% of Bitcoin holders control nearly a third of the supply"[0] then how is this any different? Isn't that worse then the current setup? To me crypto is simply a shift in power from a small number of people to another shift of small people (bureaucrat to technocrats). As the saying goes "new boss, same as the old boss".

> But no amount of public outcry can ban, shut down or criminalize crypto, same as you can't ban IMAP or AES.

Sure, but if you can't use BTC as a medium of exchange then it'll just be that - a speculative asset. So what other utility does it have? KYC (in the US) basically restricts BTC from ever becoming a medium of exchange.

[0] - https://fortune.com/2021/12/20/001-percent-bitcoin-holders-c...

I'm pro cryptocurrency (the idea) and anti cryptocurrency (the practice).

> Thankfully crypto isn't a democracy. Money market funds, banks, stock exchanges, and every other financial institution can be frozen instantaneously by the U.S. President to "prevent another financial collapse". Those who are OK with that much power being concentrated in one person, can continue avoiding crypto. But no amount of public outcry can ban, shut down or criminalize crypto, same as you can't ban IMAP or AES.

I find this a funny argument. First of all, there's basically no understanding of civics in it. That's not how it works. The President can't just call up banks and tell them not to give people their own money, or shut down every stock market in the world.

Now you have a point if you're talking about control resting with a small number of people: Those in the highest echelons of finance and government. But on the other hand, this is also a problem with crypto as it is: Because it relies on things most people don't understand (the math and computer science), the people who do understand it have the power. It seems to me this argument is just 'No, we don't want that small group of people in charge; put OUR small group in charge instead.'

If so, be honest and make an argument as to why we should trust you more.

I've worked in politics and done tech and I don't trust either further than I could throw them, and I'm a tiny lady cripple.

Also, you can absolutely ban IMAP or AES, it just requires more effort.

> That's not how it works. The President can't just call up banks and tell them not to give people their own money, or shut down every stock market in the world.

Isn’t this what Biden is doing this week with Russian nationals tied to the invasion of Ukraine? I agree with you it’s more complicated than just a phone call, but for the opposing parties they don’t need to think about those details. Those people and companies who will be heavily economically sanctioned—-they’ll be eyeing crypto as a way to sidestep these sanctions.

(And to be clear, I do not agree with Russia is in this situations, but I’m looking at it from a supply/demand perspective. Events such as this are clear demand signals to me.)

Yes, but he only can do that to American companies/companies that do business here. He can't tell, say, the Swiss to keep the Russians' money.

There's a difference between "Money market funds, banks, stock exchanges, and every other financial institution can be frozen instantaneously by the U.S. President to 'prevent another financial collapse'" as thread OP mentioned and what you're talking about. I was addressing only systematic action for the sake of averting economic problems, not financial uses of national security power.

For INDIVIDUALS, you're absolutely correct.

Which is why I'm a large proponent of local currencies.

(Trust me, I understand. I'm a very confused Ukranian-American who would like to go back to not being relevant.)

Ok thanks for repeating those details of the GP comment. I have to agree with you that some facts in there are fundamentally wrong. The U.S. government can do things to restrict uses of USD but they aren’t _that_ arbitrary.

> But no amount of public outcry can ban, shut down or criminalize crypto, same as you can't ban IMAP or AES.

This is a terrible example as the US government really did ban DES for a while - at least for "export", which includes publishing on the internet.

People who say "the government can't ban X" are really badly underestimating how far governments are willing to go if you really do start disrupting the state.

Yes, governments can try, but there will always be ways to fight it; including using sneakernet to exchange hardware wallets, instead of traceable on-blockchain transactions. Crypto is as impossible to ban as the internet at this point.

You end up in a "war on drugs" scenario. You could argue whether it is "possible" or "impossible" to ban drugs, given their continued availability, but they certainly have been criminalized.

Yeah and how effective was that ban? Not very, and if it were tried today it would be totally impotent.

California - ground zero for "new wealth" .. no, people do not buy Lamborghini's here.. that is for Miami, Eastern Europeans in Moscow or London, Chinese at Yahoo years ago, or maybe teenage'like guys around New York or Chicago. Here, people like the readers on this site, amass seven figures, and cannot buy a decent house because it is not for sale, and it is too expensive for someone with seven figures of savings. Second, old wealth, zero people have butlers. It does not exist here. But they do have large houses, extensive financial investments including Warren Buffet's stock. A good percentage of wealthy people here do not have children, and therefore grand-children, and among those that do (Catholics etc) the wealthy older people talk non-stop about how to keep the grandchildren out of the money, away from the house, and constant concern for being in a law-suit against a close relative that wants to do any of that.

Unfortunately, reality is complicated and stereotypes die every day. In California I believe we are seeing in real time, a lock up of the system of value (money) where the assets are so large, and so immoveable, compared to what people "earn" by working in a job, that there are strange bucklings visible on the street. With Coinbase founders living within three miles of this place here, I agree, there is no stopping this in reality. Big thieves hate little thieves, and it is no secret that the Federal Reserve itself is making a cryptocurrency, with centralized transaction tracking - it was announced here!

sorry - I forgot, Lambos in Los Angeles, definitely. Angelinos have always been like that, it is part of the scene. So I am talking "not LA California" perhaps.. my bad!

The government can criminalize crypto. Investigation wouldn't be easy, but the FBI and other equivalents (depending on your country) are very good at investigating hard to solve crimes, and if given the budget can track you down in various ways. (tax fraud is often a big one - even if they can't prove you are in crypto they can prove you didn't pay tax on something)