Hacker News Reader

Comment by atomical | Hacker News Reader

The issue is that non-state actors were hiding money to avoid taxes. I wouldn't label prevention of theft as manipulation.

View on HN

Invalidation is manipulation. The goodness of the reasons does not matter. Some people prefer a currency that can not be invalidated (shrunk) or debased (grown)

Wouldn't creation be manipulation too? As in the creation of the genesis block with Bitcoin?

but everybody knows the approx. creation rate of bitcoins. Fiat money creation is not predictable to the same mathematical degree.

No one knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is, if he's alive, and whether he will use his bitcoin in the future. He could move the market if he chooses. At one point he was an oligarch, correct? He had money and political power as far as Bitcoin is concerned.

i dont believe the spending of Satoshi's (nor anybody else's coins) would cause any issue, since the market knows of the existence of these coins. It's that bitcoin is quite volatile due to its immaturity as a currency and commodity (it seems to act as both atm...)

Unless satoshi has somehow hidden a large chunk of coins that has never been released somehow (which, would be weird, since as soon as they release it, it would invalidate the current chain!)

If you are arguing that the initial creation is a manipulation, I think you are posting in bad faith, because manipulation is generally understood as altering something that already exists - as in "genetic manipulations"

> prevention of theft

Taxation is theft.

Except that, you know, it's not.

And I'm not sure that your comment adds anything to the discussion here, I would consider elaborating on why you think you should not have to pay taxes after being able to generate wealth using public infrastructure as a foundation.

Next time you use a public utility/service please turn yourself in for theft also.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com