Avatar
Yaël
a367f9eb1cb3a241a7f3646f31cd6d597bbbbf8eaeb5cd2e707d09b00633efea
deputy director @ consumer choice center fellow @ bitcoin policy institute québécois-american innocent abroad in Wien

great program by #[0] going through US securities law and how many token projects could be damned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuG8OWcZbxI

likely burnt out my local mempool instance by refreshing and watching the blocks

3.06 sat/vB transaction finally went through!

After 3 weeks hangin' in mempool

Why Bitcoin will win - Fix The Money 15 w/ #[0]

https://youtu.be/u7wwq6ImZvM

Happy birthday Satoshi

on the money, Mr. Gigi

And thanks for pointing out the declining experience when using VPNs. I think it’s set up to penalize those even more now

Don’t get me wrong.

I think CCP = bad news bears.

But politicians are cashing in on anti-CCP hysteria to restrict individual rights.

The McCarthyism is getting a bit wild. There are legitimate threats and tools to deal with them. But making people less free doesn’t seem like a winner.

After 15 days waiting, should I be feeling lucky today?

https://void.cat/d/4zjo5VjuKsicG6C3n8464g.webp

hey William,

the bill targets "covered transactions" or "holding" controlled/directed from one of the "rogue" nations, though.

The bill broadly grants the Executive branch more power for digital policing, which is worrying. But Treasury already has this power (divestiture/sanctions)

I wouldn't leap to saying Bitcoin would be threatened just yet (especially since there are pro-bitcoin/crypto Senators sponsoring this), but I think the broad powers it grants to the exec branch are reason enough to probably fight it

https://void.cat/d/45ebptTPvvpsour6aYFjHR.webp

At least in state-based commercial law, you don't want Bitcoin classified as "money". That enables more financial surveillance and restrictions:

"Not being defined as money means that Bitcoin transactions are not recognized as money transmission, which would otherwise require various licenses, permissions, and legal registrations. Overall, that keeps the Bitcoin protocol outside the regulatory scope of restrictive rules that apply to legal tender like the US dollar.

It also means that in bankruptcy proceedings which normally split assets like cash or money held in a bank account, the allocation of Bitcoin would depend on who ultimately has “property rights” over the coins. In the case of a bankrupt firm such as FTX or Voyager, those rights would belong to the customer who purchased the Bitcoin, and could not be considered as company property."

https://www.btcpolicy.org/articles/in-attempt-to-stop-cbdcs-states-are-rejecting-ostensibly-pro-bitcoin-legislation

I’m long 2 things: Bitcoin and the Inverse Jim Cramer ETF

You can be bullish on *both* Nostr and Podcasting 2.0

Zaps 🤝 Value-for-Value