Bitcoin Forum

Breaking News: The Supreme Court of the United States has just decided in a 6-3 opinion that all public blockchains must have administrative functions under centralized control.
Whats effect of that on BTC? or ETH?
Whats your thought?

Source: Check 14th Amendment us privacy. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/crypto/crypto-regulation-faces-even-steeper-climb-supreme-court-epa-decision-rcna36059

Can you provide a source for that?

I have just googled it and I can't find anything.

I had to google it in another way, here it is:

Crypto regulation faces even steeper climb after Supreme Court EPA decision (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/crypto/crypto-regulation-faces-even-steeper-climb-supreme-court-epa-decision-rcna36059)

Is this legit?  If so, can we have a source for the information?

I will keep sustaining my own opinion from yesterday.  This seems like a strategic attack targeting decentralization and what Blockchain is supposed to be.  Way too much FUD on a global scale at the same time.  If we have 'Administration' for Blockchains, then the entire reason Blockchain exists vanishes immediately.

I take this as a personal attack, one against my own freedoms.  To me.  We either have free chains or we continue to be chained up under our own Government's rules.  Bitcoin is here to offer freedom, not further control.  And whatever they decide, even with an 'Administrative' department, US does not rule the world's actions yet and they can not enforce control over something that requires voting on a global scale.  They seem to forget that Bitcoin is community driven, not Government driven.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Check 14th Amendment us privacy.

soo many definitions of "public" meaning different things.. gotta love it when forum posters dont define them all or show source to ascertain which ones they mean.

but lets take a stab at it..

public blockchains are usually ones designed for the public to access as oppose to private blockchains that are invite only (members club style).

so the whole "privacy thing" stops at the gates of who is involved and how they are included and who is overseeing things.

a lil joke in the middle of my waffle.
you can have a private member club at a sports venue.. but when you get in the communal shower after playing sports.  your "private member" is seen publicly.. so privacy is also not so straight forward right..

anyway back to the point
however most governments are not concerned about open&decentralised blockchains like bitcoin. but instead the ICO's that want to be publicly listed on institutional markets. must manage their ICO responsibly by being regulated and accountable and auditable and liable

TL;DR: this is a nothingburger
"breaking news" my ass. No wonder it didn't make the news on the crypto news sites. If anything Supreme Court and SEC cound get into a dick measuring contest (with a clear winner from the get go lol) soon

The Supreme Court decision is about limiting an agency from creating/imposing rules and regulations that are beyond their congressional mandate. It doesn't say anything about centralized control on public blockchains. What am I missing?

Dont be a dick.
They cant find satoshi and aak satoshi to do that BUT they can force all us Centralized exchange to control all transactions and deposit and withdrawal.

You've still yet to provide a source for any of your clickbait nonsense.  Maybe it's you who needs to stop being a dick.

The 14th Amendment has been around since 1868, so if that's your idea of "breaking news", you must be some sort of moron.

Doesn't look like this has anything to do with Bitcoin/crypto unless it's a recent development before the EPA Supreme judgment of USA.
Besides, the Supreme Court judgment seems to weaken the power of Federal agencies rather than strengthening them. This, in another word means the Supreme Court is trying to weaken centralization of power of the agencies and spreading it to states which is some sort of decentralization.

By the way, the article on the site you posted has nothing at all to do with what your headline is trying to potrary, it instead potrarying the opposite.

Breaking News: The Bitcoin network disapproves this decision and continues to work unaffectedly.

You deride someone when he doesn't define the meaning of a word, but not you, when you're constantly doing it. What does "private blockchain" means anyway? It's the first time I've seen someone differentiating "blockchains" to public and private. If it isn't accessible by everyone, it's not borderless and, therefore, not censorship resistant; hereby not blockchain.

You are the only dick here.
You are more stupid than what I expected, Go see update version of 14th Amendment, not that from 1868.
If you cant find that still, F you moth, you won't be disappointed

So, what are we supposed to do with the “breaking news”?

That we stop using Bitcoin because some Supreme Court wants all public blockchains to have administrative functions under centralized control?
Assuming nothing goes to plan, what will they do? Sue Bitcoin? Stop Bitcoin? Arrest and jail Satoshi?