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 (33)
The SBR is a bullet through the heart of bitcoin. Very sad.
government gonna govern 😮💨
You are supposed to all KYC. Stop stacking KYC'd BTC
#DontRiskItBisqIt
Huh you are being totally dramatic.
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 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.
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?
@Danny Knowles your next guest
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.
sameshit/diff.daze*/*
t y L0La L33tz/*
This is a great comment.
The purpose of laws is to expand the government's power. Which amounts to the same thing though
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.
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.
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)
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.
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🤯.
⚡⚡⚡⚡❤️❤️❤️
