We just need a law that bans cryptographic exchanges and transfers in the USA. They are not assets, they provide no real utility, they are just speculative devices that no longer function as originally intended; as a replacement for fiat currency. So, it simply needs to be outlawed and all the money repatriated into whatever currency it came from; most of it dollars.
First provide me with a universal, legal definition of asset, before we argue about whether or not something is an asset. Nevermind that I'm sure if I pried into the particulars of your life, I would find something cryptographic or digital that belongs to you, which you would be disappointed to live without, even if it's meaningless to most people. And as a lover of liberty, I would never wish to deprive you of the right to own it and transfer it to whomever you wish under whatever acceptable terms you both come to.
> I would find something cryptographic or digital that belongs to you, which you would be disappointed to live without
That "or digital" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. You are effectively claiming that crypto has to be allowed or digital photos with friends are right behind.
First, provide me with a universal definition of liberty. I would hate for you to infringe on other peoples and so would need you to clarify a valid and sound method for determining in all cases where yours begins and others ends. Then, apply it to the functions and limitations of a democratic system for determining those boundaries and from there we can begin to unravel the complexity of bad faith arguments and red herrings.
There’s gotta be a compelling government interest like health or safety, right? I don’t think “crypto is useless junk” will hold up to strict scrutiny.
This seems pretty out of touch. They're the first challenger to fiat currencies ever. Outlawing them will stifle any innovation that arises from their development.
>Outlawing them will stifle any innovation that arises from their development.
This seems pretty out of touch.
I own some crypto. Mostly BTC, some ETH and even a bit of XRP I've held onto. I can see the utility, maybe. But, what innovation is happening in this space? It's mostly scam after scam.
There are literally thousands of coins on CoinMarketCap. What are they all doing?
> They're the first challenger to fiat currencies ever.
Direct commodity and commodity-representational currencies were the first challengers to fiat currencies, and for about the first millenium after the first know fiat was introduced, generally won.
Cryptocurrency is not the “first challenger to fiat currency ever”.
Yes, the simple past (“for the first millenium after the 10th century introduction of fiat, commodity currency alternatives mostly won”) has different meaning than the past perfect (“commodity currencies have won the battle with fiat currencies”), and I choose which one I used for the exact meaning intended.
> Also, until the 70s, USD was backed by gold.
Yes, the US dollar until recently was most of the time a commodity (either direct in coins traded for their metalli1a13@c value, or representational in redeemable notes) currency, part of the millenium of triumph of commodity over fiat.
Previously, you tried to say that FB was going to, I don't know, Sue startups who use LLAMA or something, due to them not yet releasing a commerical license, with a permissive license?
Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
And then question 2 would be, what possible argument could someone say to you, to have convinced you that your previous argument was not justified, given that new evidence has proven that to be the case?
> Previously, you tried to say that FB was going to, I don't know, Sue startups who use LLAMA or something, due to them not yet releasing a commerical license, with a permissive license?
I’m not certain how to parse the last part of that sentence, but I'm fairly certain that I didn’t ever try to say that Facebook was going to sue LLaMa users, startups or otherwise.
I may have argued that the license terms created sufficient legal risk that most firms would be loathe to build on top of it, but that’s very much not the same thing.
> Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
As far as I know, they have announced plans to release an LLM (which may or may not be LLaMa) with a commercially-usable (maybe open source) license in the near future, but have not yet done so.
But since I don’t recall making the claim (and have very clear reasons why I would have been unlikely to have), I won't stand by it even without the new information you indicate (which seems premature, AFAICT.)
Outlawing Cryptographic exchanges and transfers are not outlawing distributed ledger technology nor networks with tokens not denominated or traded in US dollars.
The only notable innovation to come from cryptocurrencies is the rise of ransomware, a drain on the global economy that funds terrorists and dictatorships.
There was ransomware in the 90s. For small amounts, they often requested prepaid gift cards or for you to call premium phone numbers. For larger amounts, wire transfers to countries with weak law enforcement.
Cyberextortion rings still operate out of countries with weak law enforcement or tacit approval of their governments, so I don't know if disappearance of cryptocurrency would hurt them much.
Who is “we”? How would this “law” be compatible with the US constitution? How would this “law” be enforced? This must be the most naive take in this entire thread.
Most cryptocurrencies are designed to survive exactly this situation. An attenpted USA ban on crypto has been expected from the very beginning, since blockchains transfer power from the elites like you to everyone else.
how would you get the money back? Wouldn't that tank the price of everything? Not saying I'm categorically opposed to that but you'd essentially be confiscating the crypto since it'd be impossible to sell it for anything close to what you paid, right?
It would be a US law so they can get their money back in foreign currencies since its cryptographic and can be transferred to other exchanges internationally, and if they want dollars they can exchange it on the open market. Thankfully, that would increase the demand for dollars and continue to strengthen a currency weakened by a massive speculative market primed through international drug trafficking.
I see I read exchanges not as "marketplaces" but as "transfers of crypto in exchange for money" like you were going to have the government forcibly compel everyone in the US holding crypto to sell it for a flat USD value and thusly divest themselves. So your idea would be that they can keep holding crypto or they can sell it for otherd-than-USD-fiat in non-US exchanges. Makes sense.
