Imagine having the most wonderful Bitcoin wallet ever written but it is impossible to get Bitcoin without KYC. That would mean you have the most beautiful financial surveillance system, and something that is ant-Bitcoin.
In order for services to serve properly all of Ethical Bitcoin Principles must be fulfilled simultaneously. It is not a buffet of characteristics you can choose from, you either do it all or not at all.
A world where all money is under surveillance is a suboptimal world, and a choice.
Everyone involved in providing Bitcoin services must make a choice, freedom or enslavement, privacy or surveillance. These choices are not hard to make, and if everyone works together to make the right choices, then Bitcoin users will get the Bitcoin Ecosystem they deserve.
The biggest threat to Bitcoin now is the osmotic barrier between those with Bitcoin and those without, and the unwitting and ignorant gatekeepers who keep spreading superstitious lies about Bitcoin and what is required to serve it.
These people perpetuate lies about what Bitcoin is, what the law says, what laws may apply to Bitcoin, and whether there are even laws or not, and many people simply go along with their gibberish and irrational calls to apply anything, literally any law, so that you can pretend to be "Compliant".
If Bitcoiners cave in to the thinking of the lowest common denominator, the anti-American and the loser, then the proliferation of Ethical Bitcoin onramps, the prerequisite to Hyperbitcoinization, will not come to pass and bear fruit.
Bitcoiners must "hold the line", tell the truth, not cave in to the weak minded, the cowardly and the ignorant and apply the law as it is written. This is not asking for much, certainly for any American, and hopefully GEPOTUS will make this easier for the weaker amongst you to do without soiling their trousers.
If GEPOTUS is advised by the best Bitcoiners AND Ron Paul, then it is a sure thing that Bitcoin will be moved under the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and then the floodgates will be opened.
Fiat will flow into Bitcoin in amounts that Bitcoiners could not have even dreamed of previous to GEPOTUS, and once this happens, there will be no going back as the exits to the US Dollar close by virtue of it ceasing to exist.
America will become the number one country not only for the amount of Bitcoin in citizens hands' but for its expertise in the mediation of Bitcoin. When this happens, no country on earth will be able to catch up with it, and the financial centre preeminence of America will not be lost, but strengthened because one man, GEPOTUS decided that the law should be followed and American know how applied unbridled.
In the light of this future scenario, isn't it better to get ahead of the game and start laying down the thinking and tools to push Hyperbitcoinization?
I think so. Others, not so much it seems.
The allure of Virtue Signalling is very strong in many people. Their number one impulse is to look good in front of other people; they don't actually care about anything in particular, and will latch themselves to anything like Barnacles on a whale, irritating it, and slowing it down by de-streamlining its surface.
Their goals are set by other people, and are not original. They take "feedback" from Bitcoin's bitter enemies and then package it as being part of "the revolution".
It's fraud. It's fakery. There are no two ways about it.
Despite all of this, very very very big things are coming. Things so big, your jaw will hit the floor. And I'm not just saying that. I am not exaggerating.
The path to Hyperbitcoinization is every road, in all directions, all at once. This is possible if the people with their hands on the levers are the made of the right stuff.
The Trump campaign has shown everyone that a coalition of people who are normally on different sides of arguments can work together to overcome great evils.
This can happen in Bitcoin too. But in order for it to happen, people must disabuse themselves of the wrong things they've been let to believe, and cross the chasm to that place where Bitcoin is everywhere, everyplace, all the time, without restriction, arbitrary rules and anti human strictures.
I have absolutely no problem imagining this.
What about you?
Medium
Bitcoin Adoption and Conway’s “Game of Life”
Bitcoin will eventually absorb all fiat currency in the world as Blockchain and other clients are installed globally. The jurisdictions…
Legal Opinion Against Regulation of Bitcoin Transactions
1. Bitcoin as Pure Speech Protected by the First Amendment
Bitcoin, at its core, is code—a sequence of alphanumeric text that users transmit over a network. Under Bernstein v. DOJ and subsequent interpretations of code as speech, Bitcoin is a form of expression. Transactions are merely messages that confirm ownership within a public ledger, making them expressive acts. Like an encrypted message, each Bitcoin transaction conveys information rather than performing a traditional financial function (such as transferring a physical asset). Because Bitcoin transactions inherently communicate information about ownership on a public ledger, they constitute protected speech.
2. Legal and Historical Precedent on Code as Speech
In Bernstein and Bernstein II, the Ninth Circuit held that code is a form of speech entitled to full First Amendment protections. Bitcoin’s reliance on cryptographic processes and public key signatures mirrors the types of expressive content protected in these cases. Just as PGP software was ultimately protected as a form of free expression, Bitcoin should similarly be recognized as protected speech. Any attempt to regulate Bitcoin on the grounds of financial control directly contradicts established legal protections for software that facilitates expression.
3. Bitcoin’s Distinction from Financial Instruments or Commodities
Bitcoin does not fit the legal definitions of currency, commodity, or security because it is decentralized, lacks intrinsic value, and functions outside of traditional financial systems. Unlike conventional currencies, Bitcoin’s primary purpose is to store and communicate a ledger of transactions, not to represent a universally accepted unit of account or medium of exchange. Courts have also ruled that Bitcoin is not a currency in cases like SEC v. Shavers. This precedent reinforces Bitcoin’s unique legal status, positioning it closer to a publication tool than a financial asset.
4. Bitcoin Transactions as Protected Publications on a Public Ledger
Every Bitcoin transaction becomes part of a publicly accessible ledger, akin to publishing content on the internet. Like other forms of publishing, Bitcoin transactions are immutable and visible to anyone with access to the network, and thus are fundamentally acts of public communication. Regulations targeting these transactions would, therefore, infringe upon First Amendment rights, limiting individuals’ ability to publish entries to this ledger. Allowing regulation of Bitcoin’s public ledger would set a precedent allowing the government to restrict any publication using digital tools.
5. Regulating Bitcoin as a Slippery Slope for Digital Expression
Regulating Bitcoin based on its use in exchanges would create a broad precedent enabling government control over all manner of digital expression that resembles a transaction. For instance, social media platforms could be subject to regulation if they included features that resembled economic exchange, such as micropayments. This overreach would undermine First Amendment protections, opening the door for government oversight of any expression that can be monetized or tracked as a digital ledger entry.
6. Inability to Differentiate between Transactional and Expressive Functions of Bitcoin
Regulation would necessitate drawing arbitrary distinctions between Bitcoin as code and Bitcoin as a financial tool, an impractical and legally unsound approach. Bitcoin’s entire value proposition is tied to its function as both a record of ownership and an immutable, decentralized ledger. Separating these two aspects would undermine its design and purpose, essentially nullifying the expressive and publishing elements that courts have previously protected.
7. First Amendment as an Absolute Protection for Bitcoin’s Expressive Nature
As an expressive medium, Bitcoin qualifies for full First Amendment protection from government regulation. The First Amendment explicitly prohibits prior restraint and content-based restrictions on publishing. Given Bitcoin’s status as text and a form of digital publication, any effort to control or license its use directly contravenes the Constitution. If the state is permitted to regulate Bitcoin, it sets a dangerous precedent for censoring other forms of expressive software and digital content, infringing upon core constitutional rights.
Conclusion
Bitcoin’s expressive nature as code and as a tool for publishing transactions to a public ledger is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Regulatory efforts would not only infringe on individual rights to communicate ownership and verify transactions through a public ledger, but they would also set a damaging precedent for the regulation of digital expression and software. Therefore, any regulation of Bitcoin as a financial tool should be viewed as unconstitutional, and attempts to enforce such regulation would face significant, well-founded legal challenges under the First Amendment.
To further reinforce the opposition to regulating Bitcoin, a human rights-based argument underscores Bitcoin’s role in enabling financial autonomy, freedom of association, and protection against economic surveillance. This perspective emphasizes that regulation would not only infringe upon constitutional protections but also violate international human rights principles, which recognize financial privacy and freedom of economic expression as essential to personal liberty and autonomy.
Human Rights-Based Legal Opinion Against Regulation of Bitcoin
1. Financial Autonomy as a Fundamental Human Right
The right to financial autonomy and self-determination is an implicit aspect of human rights, rooted in the principles of personal freedom and dignity enshrined in international human rights frameworks, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 12 of the UDHR explicitly prohibits arbitrary interference with privacy, which includes financial privacy. Bitcoin’s decentralized structure enables individuals to hold and transact without relying on centralized entities that can restrict, surveil, or exploit their financial activities. Regulating Bitcoin would undermine individuals’ right to control their own economic activities, making them subject to intrusive oversight that infringes upon their autonomy and privacy.
2. Bitcoin as a Tool for Economic Freedom in Oppressive Environments
Bitcoin provides a crucial financial tool for individuals in countries with authoritarian governments or unstable economies, where citizens often face restricted access to banking and are subject to currency manipulation, censorship, or asset seizure. By offering a decentralized, censorship-resistant means of storing and transferring value, Bitcoin supports individuals’ right to freedom from economic oppression. Regulating or restricting Bitcoin access in the U.S. would limit an important financial refuge for people living under repressive regimes, effectively diminishing their right to economic freedom and the security Bitcoin can provide as an independent, transnational asset.
3. Right to Privacy and Economic Security under International Law
Financial privacy is an essential component of individual privacy, closely tied to personal security and autonomy. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Article 8 guarantees respect for private and family life, which includes the protection of personal data, encompassing financial data. Bitcoin’s pseudonymous structure safeguards user privacy by allowing individuals to transact without disclosing sensitive information, which helps protect against identity theft, fraud, and economic surveillance. Regulations that would require tracking or monitoring Bitcoin transactions conflict with these privacy rights, as they would mandate disclosures and records that risk undermining individuals’ right to secure, private transactions.
4. Freedom of Association and Economic Expression
The right to free association, articulated in Article 20 of the UDHR, includes the right to form and participate in voluntary economic associations, such as decentralized networks like Bitcoin. Bitcoin facilitates peer-to-peer economic association without centralized oversight, supporting the free association of users worldwide in a borderless economic system. Any attempt to regulate Bitcoin, particularly by imposing licensing or monitoring requirements, would hinder individuals’ ability to freely associate and conduct economic transactions on their terms, contravening their right to economic expression and association.
5. Precedent for Human Rights-Centric Financial Protections
International law has consistently protected individual rights to economic resources, particularly where governments might infringe on these rights under the guise of regulation. For instance, the right to property and economic resources is protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which calls for safeguarding individuals’ ability to access, control, and benefit from their resources. Regulation of Bitcoin, especially if it involves confiscatory or restrictive measures, would effectively deny individuals these rights by imposing undue interference on their economic choices.
6. Human Rights Implications of Surveillance in Financial Transactions
Regulation that subjects Bitcoin transactions to strict Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements effectively imposes a surveillance system over individuals’ economic actions. This infringes on the right to privacy and creates an environment of constant surveillance, where individuals are monitored in their financial activities, chilling their freedom to transact. Such regulation would disproportionately impact marginalized communities and those seeking financial privacy for legitimate reasons, conflicting with the principles of equality and non-discrimination upheld in human rights law.
Conclusion
Human rights law provides robust protections for individual autonomy, financial privacy, and freedom from undue interference. Regulating Bitcoin as a financial instrument would infringe upon these rights by compromising users’ financial privacy, limiting their economic autonomy, and restricting their freedom of association and expression within decentralized networks. Given Bitcoin’s unique role in empowering financial independence and protecting privacy, regulation would contradict both U.S. constitutional rights and internationally recognized human rights principles. Consequently, any regulatory efforts targeting Bitcoin should be recognized as impermissible under human rights law and as fundamentally at odds with the principles of freedom and autonomy.
The idea that machines are required to conduct elections is incorrect, and is not accepted in all civilized nations.
Paper ballots and invigilation are all that is required to run a fair and fully auditable election, and the introduction of computers to the methods and execution of elections is nothing more than tech / futurist cultism.
Fully invigilated and hand counted paper ballot run elections are what is required. The only reasonable addition to this is, perhaps, a system like Ron Rivest's "ThreeBallot" System that does not require computer tabulation, remains paper based and also introduces a level of verifiability.
1/ Its implementation is familiarly looking and simple for voters to understand, compared to other encryption systems (arguably, the most important advantage of all).
2/ The ballots can be counted directly, without decryption. This is because they have the property that the sum of the marks is the sum of the votes for the candidate, even though any individual ballot section cannot reveal the candidate preference of the voter.
3/ There is no key that requires protection or secrecy in order to maintain security (the "Achilles' heel" of many proposed systems).
4/ While it requires a machine to validate the ballots before depositing them, afterwards the ballot record is entirely on paper and requires no additional security process beyond that afforded traditional ballots.
5/ Each voter's vote is secret, preventing vote-selling and coercion.
6/ Each voter can verify that his vote was not discarded and was correctly used and not altered in the computation of the election result. (And if not, the voter is in a position to prove that the vote counters cheated.)
7/ Everybody can verify that the election result was computed correctly.
8/ The method is designed for use with paper ballots and requires primarily low-tech devices, but is compatible with more advanced technologies.
The motivating animus of trying to arbitrarily mechanize processes comes from the psychological need of some people to hand everything in their lives over to machines, since they are incapable of handling real life themselves.
Machine are tools, not ends in themselves, and subjecting everything to them is not rational nor is it a proper application of technology.
Bitcoin was required because the money cannot be invigilated. Voting however, is not like that. It can be successfully audited by hand, and is done this way world-wide.
Invigilated voting systems do not require trust; in fact this is the only aspect in which it is similar to Bitcoin: "Don't Trust, Verify". Machines are not trusted and cannot be trusted to count votes, and neither are the human vote counters in an invigilated system; every vote is seen and verified by multiple people who are adversaries. It works. No one is trusted.
To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. To a Bitcoiner, every problem looks like...what exactly?
The purpose of conducting a verifiably fair election is not the implementation and application of technology; the election itself is the purpose.
