Crypto and HR 3684 - urgent attention needed from all!

[fskimospy]

Very large economic harm? Do you have numbers that provide some reference to other harmful activities? Or just some number relative to how large our economy is so I can gauge just how harmful it is?

Well here’s a good example in case you already forgot:

Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not sure if anyone has attempted a full accounting of the economic damage, but it is certainly enormous.

I agree. We should start funding a better education system so people are collectively smarter and thus less prone to be hacked. Additionally maybe companies should start hiring better IT instead of half-assing their security. What you want to do just promotes/rewards continued laziness and stupidity.

Maybe we should ban email too since most ransoms start from that while we are at it. Or hyperlinks in general. No hyperlinks = no possible way to get ransom software installed on a computer - problem solved!

This is a deeply silly argument and you know it.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

It's only a little more silly than the suggestion to ban them suggesting that criminals will stop installing crypto lockers on systems within the US because it isn't legal for victims to pay with Bitcoin. It's like as you believe criminals have ethics and morals in regards to the law. What happens when attackers "call the bluff" and the company can't pay out (a potentially much less expensive option) because it's not legal? Does the burden of full loss then fall on the government? And how many victims end up with no way out before attackers stop? Do they ever stop?

Not to mention how easily something like the Colonial attack could have been prevented:

The VPN account, which has since been deactivated, didn’t use multifactor authentication, a basic cybersecurity tool, allowing the hackers to breach Colonial’s network using just a compromised username and password.

So simple multifactor or 2FA could have prevented that attack. For how important they are, they should have had multiple layers of security even beyond 2FA. This pretty much goes for all attacks: some basic failure or just laziness to adhere to good cybersecurity principles - but ban Bitcoin instead.

 

[fskimospy]

It's only a little more silly than the suggestion to ban them suggesting that criminals will stop installing crypto lockers on systems within the US because it isn't legal for victims to pay with Bitcoin. It's like as you believe criminals have ethics and morals in regards to the law. What happens when attackers "call the bluff" and the company can't pay out (a potentially much less expensive option) because it's not legal? Does the burden of full loss then fall on the government? And how many victims end up with no way out before attackers stop? Do they ever stop?

Huh? How is it a bluff? Are you saying when the US financially sanctions someone it’s a bluff? I’m pretty sure you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Regardless, your argument is that hackers would continue to attack US businesses and make demands they know could not be met? Why would they do that instead of just attacking other targets that would pay them in their preferred way? Are you saying these criminals are irrational? If so you are incredibly naive.

You wouldn’t stop state sponsored hacks with this but you would put a big dent in common criminal attacks and this is common sense.

Not to mention how easily something like the Colonial attack could have been prevented:

So simple multifactor or 2FA could have prevented that attack. For how important they are, they should have had multiple layers of security even beyond 2FA. This pretty much goes for all attacks: some basic failure or just laziness to adhere to good cybersecurity principles - but ban Bitcoin instead.

Exactly - the idea that everyone’s going to engage in best cyber security practices is a fantasy, but banning trade in crypto removes much of the motivation to engage in these attacks.

 

[Greenman]

You keep telling me you understand it, yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum were the necessity to... bootstrap is maybe the closest word here, and facilitate growth of the networks as people developed trust in the native tokens in not too different of a manner that you trust your dollar. Beyond this most people go wrong (such as yourself), because any comparison to the dollar ends here. And it's not your fault: almost all speculators spew stupid crap like crypto is going to replace fiat. But think of this: their reasons for supporting crypto are about as shallow as your reasons (that you've given thus far) for opposing it.

The most you've done is read some headlines here and there, maybe Google "what is a blockchain" but you never really sat down to think about why Bitcoin is there. Because as I said: Bitcoin was nearly worthless at one point. Both in terms of the value of the token AND security and safety of the network. And then as the security and thus safety of the network grew... so did the utility case of Bitcoin. It started to become safe to hold magic internet tokens on your personal computer. It started to become safe to instantly transfer the "value" of the magic internet tokens to anyone anywhere else in the world without any intermediary. Who would thought any of this had value? Oh wait right... but don't use Bitcoin, use the dollar instead with this technology. Oh wait again, go back and read the 3 or 4 different responses I've already given on why the dollar couldn't be used.

The bolded part is the critical point. Vast sums of money can be moved anywhere without a trace. Who needs to move vast sums of money without an audit trail or any scrutiny? I also find your description accurate, "magic internet tokens" is exactly what they are. They have value because people think they have value. They think that value will grow as more and more people want a piece of the pie.
What bitcoin actually does is takes much of the risk out of cyber crime.

Clearly your invested in bitcoin, but the reasons you've laid out in it's defense are so esoteric as to be meaningless. For most people bitcoin is just another get rich quick scheme. That's where it's value comes from, the dream of tiny investment and vast returns. Magic internet tokens indeed.

 

[cytg111]

They have value because people think they have value.

To be fair that is true of any currency.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Ok, to summarize the giant loop were are in, because that's about all I can do at that this point:

1. Magic internet tokens were necessary for blockchain technology to take off as people needed any rewards mechanism. Dollars were not possible so something new had to be invented. This could have easily failed, but it didn't.
2. The value of the magic internet token is related to the security and utility of the network. Some of you confuse this with ponzi, because a ponzi scheme has no underlying fundamental value. These networks have fundamental value in being the most super-secure tamper-proof networks on the planet that require magic internet currency to use because of #1. And just for the average user - I've explained in prior posts they enable the most secure form of wealth (on top of being liquid) that exists.
3. A consequence of cryptocurrency is that they help facilitate criminal activity.
4. Criminal activity is costly, so it depends on whether or not you believe the following whether or not the positives of cryptocurrency outweigh this negative, as well how if Colonial deserves significant blame for their poor own cybersecurity.
5. (This diverges a little bit here but is related) If cryptocurrency has exposed the good qualities of blockchain tech - then remove cryptocurrency and keep the blockchain tech with some fiat rewards system. But unfortunately at this point it is not possible to do that. You'd have to go back to the beginning and it was never possible to do that in the first place.
6. We end up going back to #3 because that's the only true counter argument against cryptocurrencies where the resolution to flat out banning them is a personal belief based on whether or not:

• A. You believe Colonial deserves any significant portion of the blame for what happened (negligence)
• B. You believe future ransoms are preventable with good cybersecurity (it's almost like cryptocurrency is forcing the internet to become more secure).
• C. You believe good cybersecurity is a necessary cost.

 

[thilanliyan]

Is every widget on every assembly line being tracked? WTF The power thing is unreal to me. Hell, my brain is overheating. Yea, bitcoin bad. No a caveman can't do it.

PoW networks like bitcoin and ethereum do use a lot of energy. Some networks like ethereum are moving to (or have moved to) proof of stake (PoS) which is much more energy efficient (eg. you can run it on a low power laptop, or even a raspberry Pi).

 

[thilanliyan]

What I know right now is that cryptocurrency used in criminal activity is causing very large economic harm to the country and I think that’s bad. We have the ability to end that and we should.

Do you have numbers for that?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have numbers for that?

Look no further than the link I already posted.

 

[thilanliyan]

Look no further than the link I already posted.

$4.4 mil paid out, of which $2.3 mil was recovered. That's hardly "very large economic harm to the country".

Do you have numbers to show crypto is causing very large economic harm to the country?

 

[fskimospy]

$4.4 mil paid out, of which $2.3 mil was recovered. That's hardly "very large economic harm to the country".

Do you have numbers to show crypto is causing very large economic harm to the country?

You might want to think on that a little more. The damage was certainly in the billions. Probably tens or hundreds of billions.

 

[thilanliyan]

You might want to think on that a little more. The damage was certainly in the billions. Probably tens or hundreds of billions.

Okay, fair enough.

I'm looking for a some numbers of an overall impact of crypto on the economy of the US or some other country. I'd just like to see the quantitative impact of criminals using crypto, and how that compares to criminals using regular fiat currency. I'm genuinely curious to learn about that.

I'm not for banning crypto outright, but am all for rules/regulation to make it harder for criminals to use it. This particular bill from what I've read doesn't really address that.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, fair enough.

I'm looking for a some numbers of an overall impact of crypto on the economy of the US or some other country. I'd just like to see the quantitative impact of criminals using crypto, and how that compares to criminals using regular fiat currency. I'm genuinely curious to learn about that.

That would probably be extremely difficult to quantify, and I also don’t think a comparison to fiat currency is appropriate due to the fact that crypto is used so infrequently for actual economic transactions.

I'm not for banning crypto outright, but am all for rules/regulation to make it harder for criminals to use it. This particular bill from what I've read doesn't really address that.

I personally see no value in it. I think that blockchain technology may someday be useful but I don’t see why if that’s the case we need to fund it with a scam.

 

[MrSquished]

Nothing is stopping you from selling your Ethereum right now for $3000/ETH to go buy some food. The point I'm making is that on a personal level those Ethereum tokens have more fundamental value than your stocks. Because you have the option to use them for some feature of the Ethereum network. Maybe you have no use for them today, but you may tomorrow. Or you can just go sell them on Coinbase and buy some food with the cash you get from the sale.

It's already been established that crypto is no good as a currency as it fluctuates in value so wildly. Only the pretty well off can weather that kind of volatility. So sure, you could sell it if you need to buy food, but it's not stable enough for an average person to invest in if they need to rely on the value being stable and not going down too much

 

[sao123]

Ok, to summarize the giant loop were are in, because that's about all I can do at that this point:

1. Magic internet tokens were necessary for blockchain technology to take off as people needed any rewards mechanism. Dollars were not possible so something new had to be invented. This could have easily failed, but it didn't.
2. The value of the magic internet token is related to the security and utility of the network. Some of you confuse this with ponzi, because a ponzi scheme has no underlying fundamental value. These networks have fundamental value in being the most super-secure tamper-proof networks on the planet that require magic internet currency to use because of #1. And just for the average user - I've explained in prior posts they enable the most secure form of wealth (on top of being liquid) that exists.
3. A consequence of cryptocurrency is that they help facilitate criminal activity.
4. Criminal activity is costly, so it depends on whether or not you believe the following whether or not the positives of cryptocurrency outweigh this negative, as well how if Colonial deserves significant blame for their poor own cybersecurity.
5. (This diverges a little bit here but is related) If cryptocurrency has exposed the good qualities of blockchain tech - then remove cryptocurrency and keep the blockchain tech with some fiat rewards system. But unfortunately at this point it is not possible to do that. You'd have to go back to the beginning and it was never possible to do that in the first place.
6. We end up going back to #3 because that's the only true counter argument against cryptocurrencies where the resolution to flat out banning them is a personal belief based on whether or not:

• A. You believe Colonial deserves any significant portion of the blame for what happened (negligence)
• B. You believe future ransoms are preventable with good cybersecurity (it's almost like cryptocurrency is forcing the internet to become more secure).
• C. You believe good cybersecurity is a necessary cost.

You seem to forgot the argument that currency and governing bodies are deliberately intertwined.
The creation of a new currency not authorized or backed by an official government, is an illegal attack on all existing governing entities. Establishing a new official currency is effectively declaring the intent to create a new illegal sovereign independent state.
All cryptocurrencies should be confiscated and shut down, and all such persons in possession of this illegal currency should be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for treason against the government of their current citizenry.

 

[IronWing]

You seem to forgot the argument that currency and governing bodies are deliberately intertwined.
The creation of a new currency not authorized or backed by an official government, is an illegal attack on all existing governing entities. Establishing a new official currency is effectively declaring the intent to create a new illegal sovereign independent state.
All cryptocurrencies should be confiscated and shut down, and all such persons in possession of this illegal currency should be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for treason against the government of their current citizenry.

I wonder if there might be something less dramatic that might be done? Maybe require the reporting of transactions in order to reduce the usefulness of crypto to tax-cheats and other criminals? Also, impose an energy use surcharge on miners for wasting natural resources.

 

[Roger Wilco]

You seem to forgot the argument that currency and governing bodies are deliberately intertwined.
The creation of a new currency not authorized or backed by an official government, is an illegal attack on all existing governing entities. Establishing a new official currency is effectively declaring the intent to create a new illegal sovereign independent state.
All cryptocurrencies should be confiscated and shut down, and all such persons in possession of this illegal currency should be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for treason against the government of their current citizenry.

So you are recommending that we persecute and murder over 100,000,000 people? I mean, fair enough?

 

[sao123]

I wonder if there might be something less dramatic that might be done? Maybe require the reporting of transactions in order to reduce the usefulness of crypto to tax-cheats and other criminals? Also, impose an energy use surcharge on miners for wasting natural resources.

Why? You seem to be too focused on the criminal acts which can be accomplished using crypto. That is incorrect. The existence of Crypto itself is criminal.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

You seem to forgot the argument that currency and governing bodies are deliberately intertwined.
The creation of a new currency not authorized or backed by an official government, is an illegal attack on all existing governing entities. Establishing a new official currency is effectively declaring the intent to create a new illegal sovereign independent state.
All cryptocurrencies should be confiscated and shut down, and all such persons in possession of this illegal currency should be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for treason against the government of their current citizenry.

Well it's a good thing cryptocurrency is considered property and not currency within the United States.

And by the way: you are wrong.

Article 1 section 10 Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And Article 1 section 8 Clause 5 simply gives power to the Congress to coin money. But it does not say only Congress has the power. It just grants Congress the power to do it. In fact Section 10 follows up saying States can do it too under specific conditions.

But nowhere in the constitution is it forbidden for the people to create new currency. Not that crypto vs (or replacing) fiat is a relevant discussion anyway.

 

[Meghan54]

Well it's a good thing cryptocurrency is considered property and not currency within the United States.

And by the way: you are wrong.

Article 1 section 10 Clause 1:


And Article 1 section 8 Clause 5 simply gives power to the Congress to coin money. But it does not say only Congress has the power. It just grants Congress the power to do it. In fact Section 10 follows up saying States can do it too under specific conditions.

But nowhere in the constitution is it forbidden for the people to create new currency. Not that crypto vs (or replacing) fiat is a relevant discussion anyway.

Where? I just don’t see anything saying states can mint money under any circumstance in Art 1, Sec 10.

 

[Greenman]

Ok, to summarize the giant loop were are in, because that's about all I can do at that this point:

1. Magic internet tokens were necessary for blockchain technology to take off as people needed any rewards mechanism. Dollars were not possible so something new had to be invented. This could have easily failed, but it didn't.
2. The value of the magic internet token is related to the security and utility of the network. Some of you confuse this with ponzi, because a ponzi scheme has no underlying fundamental value. These networks have fundamental value in being the most super-secure tamper-proof networks on the planet that require magic internet currency to use because of #1. And just for the average user - I've explained in prior posts they enable the most secure form of wealth (on top of being liquid) that exists.
3. A consequence of cryptocurrency is that they help facilitate criminal activity.
4. Criminal activity is costly, so it depends on whether or not you believe the following whether or not the positives of cryptocurrency outweigh this negative, as well how if Colonial deserves significant blame for their poor own cybersecurity.
5. (This diverges a little bit here but is related) If cryptocurrency has exposed the good qualities of blockchain tech - then remove cryptocurrency and keep the blockchain tech with some fiat rewards system. But unfortunately at this point it is not possible to do that. You'd have to go back to the beginning and it was never possible to do that in the first place.
6. We end up going back to #3 because that's the only true counter argument against cryptocurrencies where the resolution to flat out banning them is a personal belief based on whether or not:

• A. You believe Colonial deserves any significant portion of the blame for what happened (negligence)
• B. You believe future ransoms are preventable with good cybersecurity (it's almost like cryptocurrency is forcing the internet to become more secure).
• C. You believe good cybersecurity is a necessary cost.

I don't understand why crypto was necessary for networks to take off. Why couldn't I simply pay that cost with greenbacks?
Is there something specific that this blockchain network will do for the average consumer? Will it lower the cost of anything? Will it give him access to markets that were otherwise unavailable (other than criminal activity)?

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Where? I just don’t see anything saying states can mint money under any circumstance in Art 1, Sec 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I originally mis-read this part that States are allowed mint gold and silver into coin.

Regardless there's nothing in the constitution that seems to explicitly forbid people from making a currency. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 grants Congress the undisputable power to do it. One could make the assumption that it was meant for Congress to have the sole power to do it - but that's an assumption. But even if so, cryptocurrency is still treated as property in the USA and thus doesn't violate anything within our constitution.

 

[IronWing]

I originally mis-read this part that States are allowed mint gold and silver into coin.

Regardless there's nothing in the constitution that seems to explicitly forbid people from making a currency. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 grants Congress the undisputable power to do it. One could make the assumption that it was meant for Congress to have the sole power to do it - but that's an assumption. But even if so, cryptocurrency is still treated as property in the USA and thus doesn't violate anything within our constitution.

You are correct, anyone can create a paper (or digital) currency. Minting coinage is reserved. Until banking reform in the early 20th century, it was quite common for banks to print their own paper currency. The results were about the same as we see with crypto - wild fluctuations in value and runs on the banks. There is nothing particularly novel about crypto in that respect. For institutional banking, we learned that the model doesn't work.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Environmental Impacts of Cryptocurrency

You have probably heard of Bitcoin or Ethereum; you may have even heard stories of people getting rich quickly from these and other types of cryptocurrency. However, you may not have thought of the possible environmental impacts of these digital currencies. This is due to the vast amount of...

www.sierraclub.org

In fact, Bitcoin’s annual energy consumption is comparable to some entire countries, such as Argentina and Ukraine. Bitcoin produces 36.95 megatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually (comparable to New Zealand) and it is estimated that in 30 years Bitcoin could alone increase global temperatures 2 degrees Celsius.

So lets move to proof of stake and outlaw POW.

 

[KMFJD]

Inside the shady world of influencers promoting cryptocurrency

From FaZe Clan to Tana Mongeau, why are so many influencers shilling altcoins?

mashable.com

what's with all the shitcoins, people actually 'invest' in this ? Sleazy influencers getting their fans to buy this shit....smh