Are we still doing all caps?

I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR FUCKING YEARS

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/from-cyberspace-to-outer-space-will-fiat-imperialism-push-mining-off-planet

#bitcoin #GrowNostr

U.S. Federal Rule proposed against digital asset users, comments close 10/30 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/29/2023-17565/gross-proceeds-and-basis-reporting-by-brokers-and-determination-of-amount-realized-and-basis-for

Another U.S. federal rule proposed, (even more significant than the above), attacks mixing, lightning, more, comments close 1/22/2024: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001

Please comment on both (as I'm sure these will both be rammed through to be finalized, but, any comments you make in these can be used in later court cases challenging the rules to oppose and possibly overturn them). In the meantime as I've mentioned before, innovators should consider (if they haven't already) prioritizing their activity elsewhere (other than the USA - in other countries and / or in space similar to what Blockstream has done).

see also nostr:nevent1qqs2drwj3x07h5tpxn2tt8j9jqg93dujt30axy6f5e6tznjx6l9ssmgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdu6l8hrm

I mean yes, the only difference I have with what you just posted is the BILLIONS WERE MORE THAN THAT

Is there a recommended post or page you have about FLDigi where I could best learn more (incl recommended gear and your thoughts on how to link w/ bitcoin / nostr)? What are protocols for use?

Assume the following situation (or similar situation in which numerous people are affected):

- State level (not just attacks from a couple states, like CA or NY, but major state level attacks from different countries) on different users of Bitcoin / Nostr, including developers (Assume for the sake of argument this happens outside of an apocalypse when the state still has resources and means to harass individuals)

- U.S. crime creation (criminalization of use of lightning, coinjoin, etc.) by regulation or law

- More or less this occurs while multiple countries engage in escalation of conflict which results in the complete disabling of infrastructure (most satellites downed, others rendered mostly useless due to orbital debris fields, land based electrical networks in most cases are unavailable, most communication is gone for at least a time with the exception of some radio and television stations)

- The known network of users you are able to communicate with and discover is reduced to a small quantity (10 - 15) in different parts of the region near you (or globe depending on your communication capacity), but your ability to transact with them is limited by the finite amount of time and energy you can devote to it to ensure your own safety in the process

How would you restore and expand the network to put it on a path to growth?

ICYMI:

1. California's Gov. Newsom signed AB 39 (California's bitlicense) into law. If you think this won't impact you, you are wrong. This is a profoundly negative development for those who had hoped that the State of California might ultimately take a turn, learn, and become more welcoming to innovators, bitcoin developers and just thoughtful human beings in general. It was not to be. California is a shit heap with no redeeming quality, and its legislators will soon drive out those who have tried to make it a better place.

2. Odysee posted a thoroughly depressing post, but worth a read about the impact of the U.S. SEC on certain business models. It's titled "The End of Lbry Inc" and describes not only what will happen to Lbry, Inc., but what will happen to Odysee and the content of Odysee users. https://odysee.com/@lbry:3f/theendoflbryinc:d

3. There is a proposed U.S. federal rule that targets a huge swath of, well, basically everything. This includes not only coinjoins as they are classically understood but anything which could be understood by the U.S. government to be "mixing." You'll need to read this to understand why this regulatory proposal is so dangerous but like many developments of regulatory overreach, this proposed rule being rammed through is clearly targeting every bitcoin user and would certainly impact those utilizing 2nd layer (lightning) technology. I recommend you take the time to comment on it. Comments close on 1/22/2024, and even if the comments are largely disregarded the comments in the record can later be used by plaintiffs (those challenging any finalized rule) in a bid to overturn the federal rule in court once it becomes final. https://www.regulations.gov/document/FINCEN-2023-0016-0001

The message that is being given by these clearly anti-innovation regulators is that they don't want bitcoin development or any innovation or even use of bitcoin to exist in the United States, even as growth of use occurs with bitcoin, value of the dollar continues to decrease and value of the bitcoin relative to the dollar continues to increase. But this is not so much the point, we know that when activities we want to perform become prohibitive or at least highly restricted in one place, we can shift gears and do them elsewhere where we are welcomed. That said, we should speak out against what the state of California, New York and U.S. federal government are doing.

#bitcoin #lightning #GrowNostr #awareness

"No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies. I see that you are in love. Can you tell me what you'd give to hold on to that connection?"

https://github.com/ABISprotocol

Not decentralized at all. I'd argue the true decentralized exchange was developed prior to the development of today's Bisq and was in fact the original version of OpenBazaar (there was an element within it which allowed for true decentralized exchange). There are many so-called "decentralized" exchanges today, but arguably the only ones that can be considered decentralized are those that don't require anyone to register or sign up in order to use it, and are based on bitcoin (bitcoin native applications and/or systems).

None of the so-called "decentralized" exchanges here are in fact decentralized, for example: https://github.com/distribuyed/index

Here's an interesting issue in github (for Bitcoin), which was long ago closed.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10494

Relating to decentralized exchange development.

The following is not my personal view but is added for context. The organization known as CATO believes that "Congress should amend the Securities Exchange Act at 15 U.S.C. Section 78c and the Commodity Exchange Act at 7 U.S.C. Section 1a to include the following:

Decentralized crypto [commodity/ security] exchanges mean any market places or facilities for purchasing, selling, or trading crypto [commodity/ security] tokens, where such market places or facilities:(A) Are materially and substantially composed of permissionless, self‐ executing smart contracts written in publicly auditable, open‐ source code;(B) Do not rely on custodial intermediaries;(C) Allow for the continuous public retrieval of their transaction histories;(D) Do not have outstanding, or possess on behalf of the market places or facilities, administrative privileges or tokens conferring protocol governance rights, such that any person or unified group maintains discretionary, decisive, and practical control over any final decision to substantially change the functionality of the market places or facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ministerially implementing changes resulting from a non‐ discretionary governance process shall not be construed, without more, as evidence of such control; and(E) Do not make to end users any implicit or explicit promises of performance, extrinsic to computer code, without which such decentralized crypto [commodity/ security] exchanges would not operate or produce their promised benefits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, representations over a front‐ end graphical user interface that do not materially differ from a reasonable articulation of the functionality of the exchange’s underlying software shall not be construed, without more, as such promises of performance." Source: https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/regulatory-clarity-crypto-marketplaces-part-i-decentralized-exchanges#defining-decentralized-exchanges

A reflection on California's AB 857 (2016) - a law passed to suppress the act of people being able to freely build unregistered arms in their home - and California's more recent AB 39 (2023), a law which aspires to force registration of nearly every digital currency user. (The following is an overview of some of the court cases which have touched on the issues that problematic and common to both laws, as both legislate 'prior restraint.') My apology in advance for this long note.

The first notable case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on a prior restraint issue was Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). In that case the Court held prior restraint to be unconstitutional, except in extremely limited circumstances such as national security issues. In that case, with respect to the Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, also known as The Public Nuisance Law, the United States Supreme Court ruled, ""The statute in question cannot be justified by reason of the fact that the publisher is permitted to show, before injunction issues, that the matter published is true and is published with good motives and for justifiable ends. ... it would be but a step to a complete system of censorship. ... The preliminary freedom, by virtue of the very reason for its existence, does not depend, as this court has said, on proof of truth. (Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462)". (...) "(T)he protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases."

These prior restraint issues later made their way into the world of computer code. One of Electronic Frontier Foundation's first major legal victories was Bernstein v. Department of Justice, paving the way for international e-commerce.

The court eventually ruled that the export control laws on encryption violated Bernstein's First Amendment rights by prohibiting his constitutionally protected speech, leading to regulatory changes that made it easier to publish encryption software online without the approval of the US government. Along the way, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in the Northern District of California issued the crucial first ruling that found that "code is speech" and so is protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

"This court can find no meaningful difference between computer language, particularly high-level languages as defined above, and German or French....Like music and mathematical equations, computer language is just that, language, and it communicates information either to a computer or to those who can read it..."

-Judge Patel, April 15, 1996

Similarly, when people share code with the ultimate intention of conveying technical information that will enable two parties to communicate about a possible "build," or share ideas about the "build" in the context of home built weapons development, whether they are editing CAD files, utilizing a 3-D printer, or merely finishing metal parts by drilling them out to completion with a drill press and other tools while referencing the code and technical information, this is speech and it is protected expression. The case of Defense Distributed vs. U.S. Department of State, addressed some of these issues. By around the middle of 2018, after several years in the Defense Distributed case, and a negotiated settlement, Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed were free to upload designs of working firearms to the internet; those files are legal to own and share, and the resulting weapons are legal to own. Defense Distributed and DEFCAD have continue to distribute those files.

In like manner, if someone who is a builder and owner of one of these pieces, decides voluntarily that he or she wishes to engrave a mark (or potentially a serial number) on the finished lower receiver that he or she has built, or on other pieces, that is speech and it is protected expression, and it would be illegal to prevent this form of speech by engaging in the type of prior restraint that AB 857 (2016) (current California law) mandates.

The demands proposed by AB 857 that we apply to the Department of Justice for a unique serial number "or other mark of identification" have no basis in reality and as mentioned are a form of prior restraint that unconstitutionally would keep us as builders and owners from expressing ourselves as we see fit.

The demands proposed by the State of California that people apply for a permit and register with the State to use bitcoin or other systems under what is now law (AB 39 (2023) [California's bitlicense], set to take effect July 2025), are no different. These ideas are unconstitutional and meritless.

Finally, I think it is an important note that the soldiers in WWII did not fight the Nazis so that fascist schemes could later be upheld which would mimic Nazi behavior. A brief review of history is in order to remind us of why we should avoid gun registration schemes - or bitlicense schemes such as those adopted by California and New York.

In 1932, Alfred Flatow registered his handguns, as decreed by the harsh gun control laws of the Weimar Republic drawn up amid the chaos of aftermath of WWI.

The first assault on the Republic came not from the right but from the communist left. German Communists attempted to overthrow the government by armed struggle. The government mobilized the Freikorps, which murdered the Communist leaders.

Hoping to stem further attacks on the state, the Weimar Republic imposed draconian gun control laws that made it punishable by death to carry a gun.

The Weimar Ministry of the Interior made gun registration mandatory. Although the Weimar Ministry of the Interior worked to assure registrants that their information would remain safe, this proved to be an empty promise. When Nazis took over in 1933, the information was culled for registrants who were deemed "enemies of the state," a euphemism for Jews, communists, and other political opponents.

Gestapo legal adviser Werner Best proposed to execute Jews who were found in possession of firearms.

In 1938, in preparation for Kristallnacht (November 9-10, 1938), the Gestapo used Weimar gun registration records to disarm Jews and focused on Jewish gun owners for deportation to concentration camps. Alfred Flatow fled Germany for the Netherlands, but when Nazis invaded the Netherlands, in May 1940, Flatow was on the Gestapo's list.

Flatow was arrested and sent to Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, where he died from starvation on December 28, 1942. His cousin Gustav died in the same camp three years later.

If you believe it is impossible for these kinds of things to happen here in the USA, you are wrong. It has happened before - 1942-1946 with Japanese-American internment, for example - and it could easily happen again, given today's political conversations and attempts in D.C. to to put gun owners on so-called "terrorist watchlists." Indeed, with express provisions in California law stipulating that 100,000 dollars would be a penalty for the State's interpretation that you didn't meet what they felt was compliance with the law, this is a clear sign that anyone who has any innovative or logical business use of bitcoin or cryptocurrency will soon be on a California watchlist.

In 2017, the California Legislature attempted to use a law and the state's own staff to censor speech of a blogger who posted the publicly available names and addresses of legislators who routinely attacked the rights of Californians. The Legislature's anti-speech law and its attempt to infringe upon basic First Amendment rights were stricken down by the California Eastern District Court, which ruled on Feb. 27, 2017 in Publius v. Boyer-Vine that “content-based laws — those that target speech based on its communicative content — are presumptively unconstitutional.” That court decision was not appealed and the nature of the decision was to provide a remedy for problems caused by prior restraint actions of the State which violate the 1st Amendment exercise.

There is no question that California's AB 39 (2023) is a content-based law that targets not only bitcoin but other digital assets which are used not only for transactional purposes but as a means of expression – as a form of speech. That the transactional purpose and the speech happen at the same time does not extinguish the 1 st Amendment protection that is enjoyed by network participants. California's attempt to target an entire economy and entire networks of individuals via its efforts to pass AB 39 (which is now law) is in fact a violation of the judgment of the California Eastern District Court which made quite clear that “content-based laws-- those that target speech based on its communicative content – are presumptively unconstitutional.” And thus, AB 39 is presumptively unconstitutional.

In the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, seen at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-96_5i36.pdf it is noted that this Supreme Court decision is not just about wine, but that commercial actions cannot be turned into prohibited acts by a state. Quote follows from the decision: "More recently, we observed that our dormant Commerce Clause cases reflect a “‘central concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention: the conviction that in order to succeed, the new Union would have to avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation.’” Granholm, 544 U. S., at 472 (quoting Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 325–326 (1979)). In light of this history and our established case law, we reiterate that the Commerce Clause by its own force restricts state protectionism." ..."And Granholm never said that its reading of history or its Commerce Clause analysis was limited to discrimination against products or producers. On the contrary, the Court stated that the Clause prohibits state discrimination against all “‘out-of-state economic interests,’” Granholm, 544 U. S., at 472 (emphasis added), and noted that the direct-shipment laws in question “contradict[ed]” dormant Commerce Clause principles because they “deprive[d] citizens of their right to have access to the markets of other States on equal terms.” Id., at 473 (emphasis added)."

Given this long record I have cited of both California court decisions against prior restraint, California court decisions in favor of code as speech, and US Supreme Court decisions which bar states from creating blanket prohibitions of commerce, there is no logic whatsoever to anything like either California's AB 857 (2016) or California's AB 39 (2023) [the California bitlicense, now law]. While both would have to be challenged in court, we cannot hold our breath waiting for this to happen. We can resist these ill-founded ideas only so long as it is economically sustainable, but I propose also that people safely continue their innovative work from elsewhere - in a place they will not be prosecuted for doing so.

cc: @ODELL nostr:nprofile1qqsxu35yyt0mwjjh8pcz4zprhxegz69t4wr9t74vk6zne58wzh0waycprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujummjv9hxwetsd9kxctnyv4mqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt4w35ku7thv9kxcet59e3k7mg0d4eel nostr:nprofile1qqsv0mdxvznteqns2v8g9d98wy4vm63wx8wq54hcmj244sqfalvhepspr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt4w35ku7thv9kxcet59e3k7mgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcnxh30r

Not just in the UK, see also California and the USA fedgov. nostr:nevent1qqs88eznk2udej5x7ppntf4xz5zgdlqe48zk42xrk4jhm567yu8flugpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduda2zap

cc: nostr:nprofile1qqs9cjlnu4yxs0tpldetuh6gct0lpn63jqdemkvward30rh72ghryhcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qyf8wumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetsv9njuetnjkhw25 nostr:nprofile1qqs2mmwu4mgfgc4jj8ca64xmkkqxrxr3p6ct2g8upmtmqc53gl8wycspzdmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerjwdeju6t0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehq6rj9e3k7mgprfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezummjv9hxwetsd9kxctnyv4mq82xw7p nostr:nprofile1qqsdlumwtmnqqdqnhzn2yc2azuftg57z380wq47fp62pds7tme2n7gsppamhxue69uhkztnwdaejumr0dsq3vamnwvaz7tmpw3kxzuewdehhxarj9ekxzmnyqy2hwumn8ghj7cn9wehjumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6329dwd nostr:nprofile1qqspyjer7tm824qz4fupfvv9engsvmalp70zkljkx6pu0q7mqfz4j3cpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzxrhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7umhdpjhyefwvdhk6qghwaehxw309a3kztn0wfskuem9wp5kcmpwv3jhvymu770 nostr:nprofile1qqsqdzwltpr635ehdzfd52tz947qlhq77x2c7j7yguwep9n258k2nuspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsq3gamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wdau8gu3wv3jhvjvuf3r nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumtfd3hh2tnvdakqz9nhwden5te0wfehxmrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wsq35amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarjd93ksetn9ehhyecrw5drx @Ivan nostr:nprofile1qqsp3lxp8x2s48xw8lh9ae8573hnu0cwxwp80hxghntf9v7wp62qsnsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2qgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkchwpqmx nostr:nprofile1qqsfev65tsmfgrv69mux65x4c7504wgrzrxgnrzrgj70cnyz9l68hjspzfmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82cspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdurk7l3n nostr:nprofile1qqsfnz2sqsflkatdssmeztxr90s8xrd7r07xkhfwaa6eu9zkcguljpgprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyv8wumn8ghj7mrfva58gmnfdenhyetvv9ujucm0d5q3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdsun48p4 nostr:nprofile1qqsv0mdxvznteqns2v8g9d98wy4vm63wx8wq54hcmj244sqfalvhepspr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt4w35ku7thv9kxcet59e3k7mgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcnxh30r nostr:nprofile1qqs2auxkkgfgylem580xrztp8ek5sf83s86k0vfq2feuz6y4lkhskgcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyv8wumn8ghj7mrfva58gmnfdenhyetvv9ujucm0d5q35amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarjvaexzurg9ehx2aqlhh4pr Some countries / jurisdictions are actively choosing to be left behind.

This resonates with me, it hearkens back to the spirit of what I felt bitcoin was supposed to be about, at the time when I first found out about it.

nostr:nevent1qqst69kztfj4ft67eekd3lxqlhf7xt3phzeemxffx05ymgr5dvh3p5gprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujummjv9hxwetsd9kxctnyv4mq8fwqup

More on this.... This is one of those "notes of dismay" I wish that either CEOs of exchanges, lead developers, etc. would see, but many of them aren't on / don't currently use Nostr. If they don't that's their choice, but I think it would be helpful if they did.

nostr:nevent1qqs88eznk2udej5x7ppntf4xz5zgdlqe48zk42xrk4jhm567yu8flugpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduda2zap

Interesting. I haven't used twitter in.... forever, and only recently logged back on after maybe a year or more, to ask a few exchange CEOs or exchange advisors what their / their company's stance would be on AB 39 (the California bitlicense). Would be nice if they were here (actually, some of them are but they are not that active here). Example being nostr:nprofile1qqsxu9f574hun6fhup3r0j96fdtx909vcns68natnstd3yushmz0egcpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7qghwaehxw309ahx7um5wghxvmt59emkj73wvf5h5gq6mdy who has an account here but who I think hasn't checked around Nostr in a while.

I don't plan on logging back into twitter again. Might check it in another year or something but I don't spend time there anymore.

"Peacemaker" by Jim Baruffi

https://allpoetry.com/poem/12745612-peacemaker-by-jim-baruffi

war is a game for the dumb, the only way to win is not to play

But in today's world, everyone is compelled to be at least indirectly implicit, one must not be delusional. It takes a bit of work to opt out of it.

I'm profoundly dismayed that California has, with a stroke of a pen from Newsom, after the Legislature acted against the will of Californians, to, by Governor Newsom's despicable act, signed AB 39 (California's bitlicense bill, conceptually a copy of the ideas put into place in New York which resulted in the NY bitlicense) into law.

In 2022, California's bitlicense bill was reborn once again in a bill called AB 2269 introduced by Grayson (basically the same bill that we have seen signed into law on Friday the 13th, 2023 as AB 39), but AB 2269 was vetoed by the Governor, so it did not become law last year. Regardless of changes that have been made to the bill, AB 39 (which this year, sadly did become law) suffers from the same flawed thinking as did AB 2269 in 2022, and prior Bitlicense proposals which included AB 1489 in 2019-2020, AB 1123 in 2017-2018, and AB 1326 in 2015-2016 (all of which were prior versions of California's proposed bitlicense bills that we defeated).

California simply is not a place for bitcoin proponents to continue to exist or innovate. The law takes effect in July 1, 2025, so it does give people time to prepare to leave the state, or country.

But California is not the only bitcoin unfriendly jurisdiction here. As we all know, the United States has become worse and worse for those who are innovators and who are bitcoin friendly. Most recently, the IRS has proposed a rule, which would expand the definitions of “digital assets” and “broker" to include almost everyone. This federal proposal would pull in people and projects who would not otherwise fall within the scope of these tax reporting obligations. These new brokers (essentially, almost everyone) would be required to collect personal information of users – including their name, address and tax identification number – and then furnish them with a form 1099 to help calculate the gains and losses for the digital asset sales that the brokers helped “facilitate.” This rule is simply designed to discourage digital innovators and participants in bitcoin (and other systems as well, though bitcoin is the obvious target). The comment period on the proposal ends October 30, 2023.

The overview of the proposed rule mentions the term "specified security" 17 times. It is written so as to interpret digital assets and private keys not as your property but instead, to create a rule which interprets them as the property of the state via a contorted definition of "specified securities."

The Treasury and the IRS are assuming certain assets are in fact "specified securities." They also are calling certain assets out as both "specified securities" and "digital assets," adding new reporting requirements for some and delaying new reporting for others.

Reading through this proposal you will find sections that indicate that the treatment of their dual wielding of specified securities and digital assets is intended to be applied primarily against "brokers" once they finalize this rule. But who the will be a broker (who will the rule apply to)? EVERYONE.You are a broker! He's a broker! She's a broker! We're all brokers! /s (Not in my universe - all I have to do is stop operating in this loathsome jurisdiction, and believe me there is more than one way to do that.)The proposed rule would read:"the definition of broker for purposes of section 6045 includes digital asset trading platforms, digital asset payment processors, certain digital asset hosted wallet providers, and persons who regularly offer to redeem digital assets that were created or issued by that person. In addition, these proposed regulations would require real estate reporting persons to report on real estate purchasers who use digital assets to acquire real estate in a reportable real estate transaction and extend the information that must be reported under § 1.6045–4 with respect to sellers of real estate to include the fair market value of digital assets received by sellers in exchange for real estate. Additionally, in the case of a transaction involving the exchange of digital assets for goods (other than digital assets) or services, these proposed regulations treat the provision of the goods or services as reportable under section 6050W and the disposition of the digital assets as reportable under proposed § 1.6045–1 and not under section 6050W...."This vastly oversimplifies what they are doing in their reckless disregard for U.S. persons and our property. The actual proposed rule contains a lot more detail, and is far more complex and loathsome than my pitiful summary suggests.

Overview: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/treasury-and-irs-issue-proposed-regulations-on-reporting-by-brokers-for-sales-or-exchanges-of-digital-assets-new-steps-designed-to-end-confusion-help-taxpayers-aid-high-income-compliance-workPage to submit comment by Oct 30, 2023 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/29/2023-17565/gross-proceeds-and-basis-reporting-by-brokers-and-determination-of-amount-realized-and-basis-for

These attacks by both California and the federal government on innovators and bitcoin participants are truly pitiful and will simply cause real advancement and meaningful progress to happen elsewhere in the world, or even in low earth orbit. Keep on building, friends, even if it is difficult to do. There simply may be a few less places to easily do it in, but others will be far more welcoming.#bitcoin #lightning #GrowNostr

Hello peeps, plebs, humans, and whoever else is reading,

I had this idea that I might could invite people over to Monterey / Big Sur area for a Collaboranza. As it so happens I live in Monterey, California and I frequent Big Sur. What would be the purpose of this? To generate some new ideas based on our experiences and to get to know each other a bit. This is a note to kick off the discussion thread, if you are interested. You can also private message if you prefer. Dates would have sometime in 2024 (probably Feb or March, maybe?) due to that I am taking off for El Salvador from Dec 20-27 of 2023. #bitcoin #lightning #GrowNostr #ideas #collaborative #thoughtprocess #collaboranza

Thanks, I will send a message there with the experience, I think there is a UX/UI hiccup.

I was able to get the Alby browser extension going after a little nudging. Thanks for the tip, I'll be exploring it.