[haswell]

> Asbestos solved an actual problem, as did freon. Both also created larger problems and were eventually banned.

I'd argue there's a bit of false equivalence in this paragraph, but for sake of argument:

Leaded gasoline also solved an actual problem, and the industry innovated/evolved beyond that.

Facebook solved an actual problem, and created many more. I still recognize its value even if I refuse to use it myself.

I'm sure there are edge cases, but history is not generally on the side of those who have pre-emptively banned things before they come to fruition.

The problem I see with this current line of discussion is that most proponents of banning throw the baby out with the bathwater, and pretend this is all a single product called "crypto".

Banning "crypto" would be like banning insulation because of the issues with Asbestos.

[mvindahl]

In all fairness, I don’t think “crypto” should be banned as such. Partly because it’s a loose and descriptive term, unlike asbestos, which is well defined and tangible. So a blanket ban wouldn’t work.

And also because it’s not necessary; existing regulation will get us most of the way:

- if you are, in effect, selling a security, let this be regulated this like any other security

- if you are, in effect, running a bank, etc.

- if your coin X acts like an intermediary for transferring money to hostile jurisdiction Y, then regulate transfers to X like transfers to Y. Forbid these if necessary.

- if your manufacturing process is needlessly wasteful then forbid this manufacturing process (globally) under threat of forbidding your product

Etc