David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
Replies (83)
The SBR is a bullet through the heart of bitcoin. Very sad.
government gonna govern 😮💨
IMHO a better thing to fight for is path to full legal tender.
I agree with every bit of this. Immature product trying to rally a crowd.... go work on ETH or whatever if you want to build your personal brand. This should be rejected as is
"Be aware, freaks."
View quoted note →So are you super bearish on bitcoin? That’s how your posts usually make me feel. What are supposed to do? 😖
Got a link to the EO you can share? I'm not seeing it on federalregister. gov
It's so disheartening to read this drivel.
The government's drivel, not yours.
You are supposed to all KYC. Stop stacking KYC'd BTC
#DontRiskItBisqIt
Huh you are being totally dramatic.
Questions:
1- When money is chosen by the people, has there been a lifecycle process of adoption, first as a store of value, then a medium of exchange, then a unit of account?
2- Doesn’t every captured money skip the store of value step, and go to decree?
3- We have cashu mints and Lightning. What L2s do we not have that can subvert the state? I mean, cross border payments are already present. It seems increased privacy is the number 1 bitcoiner problem to solve, not nation states grasping at power via the money printer.
4- At some point somebody has to standup and say FUCK YOU. I am tired of theft being normalized.
They still see no value in Monero?
Accept, that Bitcoin is seen as digital gold, as something that is easily controlled and tracked and never will be actual money that challenges the status quo.
Once you are there, let go of your grief. There's still Monero and they will never make it a strategic reserve, create ETFs around.
In other words. It is money for the people and will be money for the people.
L0la L33tz
David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
View quoted note →
I don’t think that there will be a consensus on whatever will come from the SBR.
They can’t call it a “money” or a “currency” because it would immediately cause a bank run on the dollar. They’re currently trying to walk a narrow path where they acquire and legitimize Bitcoin without impacting the dollar and bond markets.
Even
@Saifedean Ammous talks about this in ‘Fiat Standard’ … Bitcoin isn’t great for small transactions needing instant settlement. It is great for the biggest transactions needing fast, absolute settlement. And other technologies will be added on top and around Bitcoin to capture the store of value elements of Bitcoin with trust trade-offs for its application as money.
I think their efforts to save bonds markets and - by extension - the dollar are futile but I understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. Nothing stops this train they’ve started.
A sobering note. Making a reserve before encoding freedoms of use smells fishy. It seems they are trying to play the government takes over gold move. 6102/mandibles next.
I didn’t get the incentive to seize part. Politicians prefer spending over saving. Is it about which government structure is getting the loot?
Great analysis about "Bitcoin policy" draft
View quoted note →i forget exactly who it was, maybe Hristo Botev, something along the lines that "they only make new laws for their own benefit" or, no matter how it sounds, or what the preamble says, the purpose of new laws is to further restrict citizens from their own property
🙏 I too am tired of influencers simping for government "strategic reserves". Don't they ever think about 2nd order effects? The utter cluelessness with which government defines Bitcoin is one of the early ones, followed by them trying to destroy it like they do literally everything they touch. They can't outright destroy Bitcoin fortunately, but they can sure mess with everything around it.
👀 signal:
L0la L33tz
David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
View quoted note →
"Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin"
They know exactly what they're doing. It's been obvious since the ETF approvals.
🤔
She's focused on risks to the freedom aspect of Bitcoin. If you want bullishnish listen to the swan Bitcoin or Preston pysh pod 😄
Absofuckinlutely!!! Another tool for them to try and co opt bitcoiners. Too many in the space are cheer leaders for billionaires telling us little people how to Bitcoin! Big red flags for me when a state as mucky as a plasterers radio, start backing something that is designed to be anti establishment.
Gold was P2P money for thousands of years and only became an “investment” over the last few decades. I personally don’t see the issue with this. What would you compare it to instead?
Hope it doesn’t affect Bitcoin scaling tech. I’m a bit optimistic that this will be viewed by devs similarly to something like a hypothetical government ban on privacy tech or even Bitcoin itself - devs will pursue doing what needs to be done anyway.
Thanks for bringing attention to this.
thanx, you ve got some good points there
Maybe write a counter proposal. What does good look like?
To be fair ES gave the people the right to use bitcoin as money and they don’t. They much prefer dollars because they need to know that the value isn’t going to drop so much that they can’t buy groceries. Countries that have access to USD use USD over everything else including bitcoin.
One could argue bitcoin needs to go through a store of value phase to get to a valuation where it’s stable enough to be used as a medium of exchange.
Thank you for your work
Appreciate your viewpoint, have also been a little uneasy about bitcoin reserve.
I think you might agree that more reasonable (in line with previous guidance) money transmission definitions would be the most helpful for bitcoin usage.
Should the gov not buy bitcoin though?
I hadn’t thought about it that way, thank you for sharing this
@Danny Knowles your next guest
Of course they can't, as acknowledging superior money would undermine their precious, blood-soaked dollar – the petroleum of the US Empire.
View quoted note → View quoted note →Maybe im naive but I don’t see anything alarming.
Very interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. Hard to find Bitcoiners who aren’t cheering for #NumberGoUp and a strategic reserve. Personally I find it odd how the narrative has shifted from years ago when Bitcoiners cheered for freedom currency that routs around the government and now they are happy the government is getting more involved in taking direct control over Bitcoin.
What is in a first look exciting, can create a huge conflict of interest where the incentive for the USA government would be to seize and keep bitcoin as their own... 🤔
L0la L33tz
David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
View quoted note →
That's what I been screamin'
What's so surprising?
They want to solve their debt problem - nobody in the givt is embracing Bitcoin because they want you to be free.
Bitcoin is for everyone. It is inevitable. Get on board or get left behind. The options are binary. This goes for governments also. They should absolutely buy for their own sake. They are an extortion racket, the friendliness of how they go about it is not to be expected to be to our favor, although this seems harmless, all concerns expressed here are outside the scope of this proposal. Welcome yet another anti-fragility test if the concerns materialize.
It seems a bitcoin bill of rights that upholds the core tenets of bitcoin would be simple enough. Kind of the way bitcoin’s principles are inherited by L2s, they would be inherited by the bill.
Using tax payer funds to buy anything in a market is a distortion of said market.
sameshit/diff.daze*/*
t y L0La L33tz/*
Call the wambulance! if an executive order can destroy Bitcoin it's already failed.
I'm all for open source freedom of speech and creation 🗽💻
This is a great comment.
The purpose of laws is to expand the government's power. Which amounts to the same thing though
Exactly!
The idea that they “failed” to speak to the people actually using bitcoin about how they should go about this strategic reserve assumes that these people in government are actually trying to help the American people. They are not and they never will.
The fork that burns the US strategic reserve coins will be interesting
This proposal seems ok other than the idea that major exchanges would be helping them secure their bitcoin.
I know you mean well but this BSR thing is overhyped and subject to catastrophizing at the same time. The USG is fiscally incontinent, and the idea that it will somehow accumulate any significant amount of bitcoin is laughable. Plus, the chances that the Deep State will allow Trump to sabotage the Fed and its wards on Wall Street is fantastical. They will continue making the printer go brrrrr until the whole thing explodes, and then insiders will loot the little bitcoin that may have confiscated. In the meantime, any attempt to influence the protocol has zero chance to do anything. The real threat from the state is what you have been focusing on all this time: attacks on privacy and absurd prosecutions of bitcoin builders and users.
When was Bitcoin anti establishment?
Do you not think BPI worked with Lummis and anyone that was coming on as a cosponsor on this? After all, the BITCOIN Act is her bill. I think it is naïve to think they handled this alone.
I haven't read the draft and don't particularly care to read too much between the lines. I'm trying to look at the big picture, which is this:
"The government will ban bitcoin" narrative has been quite strong for the whole existence of bitcoin, and it hasn't been completely made up.
While a complete ban would of course be unenforceable, even with the Biden administration there have been quite strong attacks on bitcoin and there are powerful forces that would like to see it go away.
Bitcoin would have survived any ban, but those people wouldn't have been afraid to throw bitcoiners in jail.
Now, instead of banning bitcoin, the government is ADOPTING bitcoin. Sure, it won't be done 100% perfectly from the get-go, but please take the win when it is offered.
Have more faith in the ability of bitcoin to fix things!
L0la L33tz
David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
View quoted note →
L0la L33tz
David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
View quoted note →
Censorship resistant
Agree on all.
(even if at the opposite of what you said Bitcoin is an incredible store of value asset. It's both a moe and a sov (living on it too FYI), as one goes hand with hand with the other obviously)
I want BTC to be used as currency as much as anyone but I think bitcoiners need to chill and accept that it won't be widely used in the west as such whilst it is still rapidly monetising against the dollar. Becoming the dominant store of value asset is a necessary first step before the majority will even consider using it as currency.
For those cheering for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve...
View quoted note →💯%
This is it. The moment they start using it as a reserve asset we have already won the long game. Just keep reminding people to self custody and buy from P2P no-KYC exchanges. And of course use and advocate for lightning wherever you can.
Ossification is good. Their BSR act doesn’t change anything in the code so irrelevant. Onwards.
Eas your vote worth it?
🤣
L0la L33tz
David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
View quoted note →
Tick Tock. Next Block. I live 100% in Bitcoin all the time. On a complete Bitcoin Standard and this Strategic Reserve doesn't bother me at all. in fact, ossification risk doesent bother me because i dont believe its ever going to be a frozen spec. I run many full nodes and contrimute my voice to the network. If anything, The Reserve will make my life easier because of increased purchases power. Lightning Network is amazing at payments so the base layer doesn't need to be. Stop with the scaleing FUD. Its old and boring. Go contribute to Bcash. CTV and OP_CAT are cool but if the network isnt ready for them then it wont go through. So rum some nodes and start marketing them to the bitcoin community instead of worrying about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is us. We are Bitcoin and we can take care of ourselves and our intrests. Bitcoin (we the people) are a threat to nation states no matter what they do. They might as well all get on the new standard and allow its incentives to bring us into alignment.
Interesting. Who is proposing an alternative? Anyway a pleb could help push changes?
Many long-term hodlers are just happy to see their patience is finally paying off. I understand your concern, but, honestly, I would never be too worried about an entity like a government attempting to take full control over the network, though. Gaining so much control over it will just disincentivize anyone from using bitcoin, and if they somehow do there's always the "nuclear" option for the network🤯.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Ty
GM & PV
⚡⚡⚡⚡❤️❤️❤️
The definition is evolving over time, and needs to be revisited periodically based on how behaviors and thinking change
Only definition I go by is what it says on the whitepaper. It's a cash system and should be nothing else.
This post completed changed my idea on BPI. I was planning on donating to them every month next year. Now I'm not so sure
Alright, good thinking here. Well written article. At least somebody is asking the right questions. Much more insightful than bitcoin number go up. Hodl hodl hodl. Bitcoin is going to save everybody! 😉
