Bitcoin Forum

If you are living under the jurisdiction of the United States of America and a registered voter under the the state of Massachusetts, do not vote for this grandma!

They are doing something similar to the cryptospace as they did to controlling guns. They are taking them away from the hands of the people and what might occur is it will be the criminals who will predominantly have access to them.

https://i.ibb.co/30vnd1x/4-EE8-D999-D19-C-4171-A2-B8-EEAB5-CADD269.jpg

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s re-election campaign is set to focus heavily on the crypto industry.

Her disdain for the crypto industry isn’t new — the Massachusetts senator has been fighting to curb the spread of cryptocurrencies in the U.S. for several years.

Her efforts culminated in December 2022 with the introduction of the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2022. At the time, the bill was widely criticized both by republicans and fellow democrats, with the broader crypto and tech industries warning about the dangerous implications it could have.

In February, Warren vowed to reintroduce the bill this year, which would require all decentralized entities to comply with rigorous AML requirements.

Read in full https://cryptoslate.com/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-building-an-anti-crypto-army-in-new-campaign/

funny part is

bitcoin started life under a MIT licence
the M of MIT is her states name

MIT is a hub of technical innovation, a literal institution of technology and she wants to strangle it.,, hmm not really a good look when it comes to re-election

If it's decentralized, who's the one going to comply with ..anything?

The most concerning thing that could come from this campaign is someone looking at it and thinking, "Yes, this makes me want to vote for Elizabeth Warren". As a non-politically involved/non-government individual, who in their right mind is thinking that an "anti-crypto army" is something that would be directly beneficial to them and their community? I can only see people who have been scammed in some way that involved cryptocurrency seeing this as a good thing. Elizabeth Warren probably got duped herself, that would explain why she is so anti-crypto :P

Analysis aside. The campaign image is a great meme.

I think a lot of her supporters are miserable people who hate everyone and everything. An anti-crypto army to go after those evil crypto bros seems like it fits right in line with what her supporters want to see. More hate, more blaming people for their success, more punishment of those who try to break free of the financial chains the system has placed on us all. It’s right on brand.

If I were to guess what kind of person would look at this and want to vote for her, then I suppose those which live by the mantra 'misery loves company' fit her target audience perfectly.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general have no effect on the lives of those which do not use them, and even if they see in bitcoin a tool to obtain freedoms they neither want or need, they still do not want for anyone else to have them, so people like her can get a lot of votes despite that a proposal like this will bring no benefits at all to the ones supporting her.

I really do not know why people of 73 years are running a government that are in control of so many important things. She should be retired and looking after her grand children now, but now she is building an army against Bitcoin.  ::)

It is like the old people are rising up against change and fighting to their last breath to hold onto the past. Take Warren Buffet he is in his 90s, but he still wants to hold on to his old fiat legacy.... because they helped to build that corrupt system.  ::)

This is really sad. While my disdain of politicians is usually reserved for the extremist corrupt immoral fascist tyrannical republican party, Elizabeth Warren is right up there with them as a politician that I really don't like and she clearly picks fights she doesn't understand.

I don't get why she is sooooo anti-crypto. I mean I know she thinks Bitcoin is bad because it uses a lot of energy and she isn't educated up on why Bitcoin mining is actually really good for the environment and the world. And I know there's plenty of scams in crypto. But like, she just hates all of crypto including Bitcoin and has zero interest in learning about it. I guess its just cuz she doesn't know anything about it and just reads the bad headlines about scams and stuff like FTX and doesn't care enough to really learn about the whole industry and just assumes its all scams and FTXes. It'd be like wanting to build an anti-internet army in the 90s. It's sad politicians like her are so uneducated on Bitcoin/Crypto that they 'want to toss the baby out with the bath water' as the saying goes. She seems to be someone who goes after anything that APPEARS to be bad based on media interpretations, and doesn't bother to learn beyond that.


After such a pronouncement as "building an anti-crypto army" I would really like to see her actually debate industry experts so her views on the industry could get demolished in the public eye.  There's no strong voices standing up for the industry in a very public way so crap like this is just allowed to go unchallenged. It is VERY popular to malign Bitcoin and the industry as a whole, and generally the only response is people on Twitter condemning such attacks. We really need more public people actually educating the public and politicians on the benefits.

This grandma should have retired and stayed at home taking care of her children and grandchildren, she shouldn't be dealing with government issues let alone dealing with issues related to cryptocurrencies. She is too busy taking care of things that are not her business and forgets her obligations as a grandmother, I really feel sorry for her offspring.

You are right Franky and I don't think the senator has a good campaign strategy, anti-Bitcoin campaigns being the centre vocal point of her election bid will turn the electorate's interest away from her since no one wants autocratic leaders who will not want the freedom of the citizens must especially freedom in finances.

Elizabeth has a slim chance of winning the election and as a matter of fact, her entire political career may be affected negatively because of her hate for Bitcoin since a large portion of the society already embracing bitcoin.

The young voters will see Elizabeth as old fashion politician who does not have the wherewithal to mitigate through the process of adopting bitcoin and other digital assets into the traditional financial system as a lawmaker.

AFAIK, Elizabeth Warren is a part of the radical left wing of the Democratic party(just like Bernie Sanders). So basically she's something like a communist. No wonder that the radical left politicians want total government control and brutal regulations over all industries. This is hidden totalitarianism. Unfortunately, Warren will most likely win another mandate as a senator, but we shouldn't be worried that much. Anti-crypto politicians have been elected in the past years in both the Congress and the Senate, but this didn't stop mass BTC/crypto adoption in the USA. The US government might impose stricter regulations over the crypto industry, which is a double edged sword, but we definitely need the industry to get rid of scammers like Sam Bankman-Fried.

There will be problem with crypto projects that claimed to be decentralized but the developers are well known, this is why I have been saying to some friend of mine that true decentralized projects should always have anonymous team and developers, I don't know why many developers failed ti follow the example of Satoshi Nakamoto, he knew that possibility of what could happen later in future, this is why he decided to never reveal who he is.

Well, this is not something new, as the history of Massachusetts represents its hostility against BTC and its decentralization. Why? That I do not know but back in 2017 Massachusetts showed its hostility to BTC (https://news.bitcoin.com/massachusetts-joins-list-of-us-states-hostile-to-bitcoin/) but the number of BTC users was still increasing in that state. Like you can check the stats are telling truth, There are more than 800 registered BTC ATMs  (https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2022/11/17/mass-crypto-ready-bitcoin.html#:~:text=Massachusetts%20has%20more%20than%20800%20Bitcoin%20ATMs%20and%20231%20companies%20in%20the%20blockchain%20business%2C%20making%20the%20Bay%20State%20the%20fifth%2Dmost%20in%20the%20U.S.%20primed%20for%20cryptocurrency%20adoption%2C%20according%20to%20new%20research.)in the Bay State and there are more than 200 blockchain companies in that state which make it the 5th state in the most adoption of BTC list.

But the question is why this senator is against BTC and it's decentralization. i think when they declare war against BTC in 2017 (which i mentioned above) they said in that warning to users that As after this, FTX was the most famous token in Bay state (https://www.finder.com/how-to-buy-cryptocurrency-massachusetts#:~:text=Massachusetts%20also%20has%20656%20registered,Token%2C%20as%20reported%20by%20FinanceBuzz.) but as Fall of FTX came this seems to look more true. But as we know BTC is BTC and others are alts if you will give space to other technologies and then ask BTC and its decentralization to halt then that's not fair.

Maybe, there could be other problems too in stopping BTC like, "Election is coming" she needs voters and using those who are against BTC/crypto or at least encouraging those too who lost in FTX. As back in 2022, she failed to implement that act but now she is again in the field. let's see what good comes from this back she made some ambiguity statements (https://cointelegraph.com/news/elizabeth-warren-is-pushing-the-senate-to-ban-your-crypto-wallet#:~:text=the%20method%20of%20choice%20for%20international%20drug%20traffickers%E2%80%9D%20and%20terrorists) which proofs her wrong.

Well, what if she wins this time, just a curious question. then i think these companies have to leave doing business in the USA but that will affect the economy of the USA, as a great amount of tax is being gathered on crypto and the latest tax on NFTs will get them more money as many celebrities own millions of NFTs. But overall, i do not think so, it's going to happen.

Doesn't this Senator want to make their activities and income more transparent? It would be nice to see what's her source of money, who pays her, how much and when, where does she spend this money, etc, let's make everything public and 100% transparent for everyone. Oh, she won't like it, definitely not, and she will say that it's private and sensitive information, so is mine too, Mrs!
These people are either retard or don't want to understand the real problem, there are people who don't want to be their puppet, their source of information for marketing and when there is an exponential growth on demand of privacy, there will always be a supply. Restrictions are a band-aid on scar.

Or if it's decentralized, HOW will they force such a network to comply with anything? They either don't understand, or they're simply too stupid to understand. But we can't blame the older generation/boomers if they can't accept the fact when a new technological breakthrough is taking place. It was the same during the time when the automobile was invented, or the printing press, and many other inventions/discoveries.

Instead of a campaign that usually includes support for all elements, whether crypto lover or not, she should know how politics works well. But instead, she is drumming up war, so if he decides to go for an anti-crypto campaign it will only kill widespread public support. It doesn't matter what she says to draw people into the circle. Don't expect a campaign like this to be accepted, especially among young people who support him, she has planted hatred.

Thank you very much for this very comment of yours. I was almost confused when I saw this post and the essence of the anti crypto campaign was not clear to me.
I was asking who'll support this kind of campaign and how would it profit the people of the state? I know United States as a state that loves Liberty which means people have the right to do whatever they wish to do at the confines of the law.

Mare looking at their campaign, you will understand that all the crypto enthusiasts will not support the said campaign and even people that arebnot into crypto my not be interested in the campaign. But as I have read that she was personally scammed in crypto. I now understood the reason for the campaign and maybe some people that were scammed using crypto and bitcoin as the payment gateway would also support the idea.

That is one of the disadvantages we have in cryptocurrency. Whenever a crime is concluded using cryptocurrency as a payment method it is assumed that the payment method was actually the scam.

Honestly, I really don't care who will and who won't vote for her, because she is totally irrelevant and it's a real shame that we give such people any exposure on this forum. If Bitcoin could survive without China, I'm sure it can survive without Massachusetts and a few other federal states.

---

Is the possession or purchase of firearms prohibited in the Massachusetts? As far as I managed to find online, it is allowed for everyone over the age of 15 who has a license -> https://www.mass.gov/info-details/gun-ownership-in-massachusetts

Furthermore, do you think it's normal that kids can own firearms without any problems and then go around killing people? I think that something is very, very poorly regulated in a country that has at least one mass murder every day...

There is nothing to bother about, Elizabeth Warren and Janet Yellen strove few years back to issue the crypto bill yet it seemed irrelevant and it wasn't passed. Now she wants to use cryptocurrency as an electoral tool to lure people into her campaign of banning crypto to promote her. I don't see any negative effect this would have on cryptocurrency rather it'll yield positive result. No bad publicity, people who didn't know about crypto would know it through her, and definitely they'll research about it. Such, publicity could convert some people into cryptocurrency. However, Elizabeth Warren may not execute her plans if she gets there or she may not win the election.

Let's hope she doesn't get voted in that election so there won't be a bill that's too strict about hindering the development of crypto in America. And let her continue to talk about the bad of crypto because maybe she doesn't understand crypto at all and what is the purpose of crypto for citizens. She should have realized that she was too old to join the ranks of Senators and left it to a younger candidate with a good vision and mission for the future of America. But human greed has made many people want to achieve more.

Seems like bad news on the front, but Bitcoin, Ethereum don't have anything to worry about. It's just the Coinbases and FTXs that do -- isn't that a good thing for most people who still leave their coins on services and use apps to "buy" Bitcoin?

Did Bitcoin suffer after the world's most populous country banned it? Did a single Chinese person suffer in their use of Bitcoin since 2013? Not from my experience! Sure, they can't easily use Binance, can't use Coinbase, but it's only helped spur P2P use there.

When in doubt, follow the money (https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/elizabeth-warren/contributors?id=N00033492).  It's probably "lobbying".  Someone (or several someones) with ties to traditional finance will likely be applying pressure for the senator to adopt this stance.

That's right and I tend to agree with this, whether it will win or not Warren's campaign will be successful in achieving its goals is yet to be seen.  So I don't care either because IMO, the crypto industry has grown rapidly in recent years and has a large following of supporters who see it as a legitimate form of investment and a way to promote financial freedom, not only in the States and it has been proven while China banning Bitcoin.

Who will be charged on a decentralized network?
It might Elizbeth thought, with this election campaign she will get many supporters and possibly be re-elected but in fact, only those people who didn't understand the Bitcoin network works.

Whether she's building an anti army for Bitcoin or not, we don't care about that because there is no way she would do that and it will affect the flow of Bitcoin or the cryptocurrency. Let her organize her anti Bitcoin army and let's see how it will go. We don't need to bother ourselves about the market again because there is nothing again that can affect the Bitcoin market. If there will be any possible organization or army that can crash the cryptocurrency market then that would have happened before now maybe many years ago when Bitcoin price was still below a thousand dollars.

Ah well are we forgetting that she can’t control public ledger by all herself? Do not be afraid since we are talking about virtual currencies which has the purpose of solving bypass procedure of fiat or traditional system. It’s simple, the whole blockchain was invented so that no single person or an entity would be able to control it rather the power is distributed through every person who joins the network. This means whether this lady create anti crypto squad or not, there is simply no possible way to control it anyways. That’s really funny though.

Obviously those who are convinced by her concept will vote for her.  Remember, America is not saturated by crypto enthusiast let alone only a small percentage of people have the same ideals like us at this moment.


Everything in the economy has a domino effect.  People are affected indirectly on whatever happened to the financial institution.  So we cannot 100% say that cryptocurrency have no effect on the lives of people that do not use them.  One sample is, if crypto dominates and banks shut down, people who are subscribed to those banks are greatly affected even though they do not use cryptocurrency.

Elizabeth Warren is a washed politician with no leg to stand on, so she chooses to die on the hill of crypto regulation. She did run for President in 2020 -- her run accumulated in the evaporation in millions of dollars of campaign funds as she would drop out with hardly any votes.

She isn't popular any where outside of her jurisdiction, and I'd wager that her own constituency does not find her that favorable with her incumbency pushing her over the finish line every election cycle. Unless someone's prepared to primary her and has a lot of money on hand, she'll win reelection.


Warren isn't an overt socialist but she's close to it. She wants the federal government involved in all aspects of economic and currency regulation so it shouldn't come as a surprise that she thinks it's a great idea to force crypto companies to adhere to all sorts of governmental red tape. All her wackiness and she still gets reelected over and over again by her voters.

I notice 'Alphabet' (Google) are one of her larger benefactors.  A company who just so happen to have a payment platform, Google Pay.  Perhaps they see Bitcoin as competition and are financially motivated to fund those who oppose it?

According to this article, it is rumored and speculated that Senator Elizabeth Warren conspired with a trader Marc Cohodes to profit from the meltdown of Silvergate bank and Signature bank. This is certainly corruption and illegal if this is true. However, this will work for her anticrypto army campaign because she can blame the meltdown of those banks on the cryptospace hehehe.

https://i.ibb.co/Bf3z2VJ/AC4-E4-E7-B-3-C93-4810-8-F40-A1-DE8-B4-FB9-E8.jpg

Politics can make for strange bedfellows, and, according to a popular rumor in crypto circles, one of the stranger alliances involves progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a short-seller named Marc Cohodes who cashed in on the collapse of Silvergate and Signature banks. Cohodes is very active in Washington, D.C., where he shopped a research memo about the banks to numerous lawmakers and to agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

It’s a great story—if it’s true. And the evidence for that is not conclusive. When I called Cohodes, he did not deny that he had been in touch with Warren’s office but said he “talks to all sorts of people” and didn’t provide any specifics. He described himself as “just one guy” who has a track record of exposing fraudulent companies, and, in a later email, called the two banks “Publicly traded Crime Scenes.” Cohodes insists he has no opinion on crypto but only in calling attention to what he says was the banks’ complicity in money laundering. He did confirm he made money from holding short positions in both Signature and Silvergate when the banks collapsed.

Based on this, it’s hard to conclude that Warren and Cohodes are in cahoots—or even that they know each other. But if you want additional circumstantial evidence, you can perhaps find it in this New York Times article in which Cohodes is one of a tiny fraction of Wall Street types supporting Warren’s 2020 presidential run. And you can look at the fact that it’s a former Warren staffer who is behind a controversial class action lawsuit against a DeFi company—suggesting Warren’s team is happy to adopt a wide variety of tactics in its crusade against crypto.

Note also that a Politico headline this week said the senator is “building an anti-crypto army.” It’s not beyond the pale to imagine this army could include a short-seller.

Read in full https://content.fortune.com/newsletter/fortune-crypto/

not sure why people are mentioning SVB and signature failures in the same topics as crypto..

those banks failed due to mis-managing treasury bonds..
maybe warren should be trying to start a war on treasury bonds markets instead..

2008 was caused by mortgage derivatives
2022 was caused by treasury bonds

both are about debt being sold to other institutions at a mark down.
both are considered discounted debt notes

which can go bad if funds are needed to be pulled back. which happened in both cases

neither financial crises were due to crypto nor crypto users

Right. That was not really what I was saying. Global economic pressure and stock market correlation sort of proves more and more that Bitcoin markets (and by proxy, crypto) can, in fact, be impacted.

All I was saying is the headline is not necessarily bad news for crypto users in general. I always say, what doesn't kill Bitcoin only makes it stronger...

Don't worry it's highly unlikely that a Dem wins the 2024 election after unpopular stuff that Joe Biden did. ;)

But she should really enlist Greenpeace for help. I'm sure they would jump at the opportunity to destroy crypto too - wait, what's that you say? Their financial backer doesn't want them to break XRP? Well nevermind then, they will pass the opportunity  ;D

It's Unfortunate for the state of Massachusetts, but not for the bitcoin ecosystem, fortunately. That's the best part of decentralization. Even if some massive anti-crypto campaign is funded by this old lady, crypto ecosystem won't get affected. Some certain groups of people living in that state might not have direct access to cryptos if anything goes wrong. But largely, no impact will be seen!

It's true that politicians need to learn new things and it's a big responsibility of today's youth, not to elect such people who are old and ignorant of new techs. In my country, we are facing this issue for a long time. It needs to change for good!

It is just news showing why the people of Massachusetts should not vote for a corrupt, hypocritical person back in the senate. She does not use her position to function for the interest of the people. She uses her position to move for herself and in the interest of the rulers and the leaders of America.

It also appears that there are people in the forum who underestimate these latest coordinated attacks vs. the cryptospace. This might not be something similar that was done before. The regulators are much more serious this time.

Imagine having someone like her running the state which was known for a lot of technological breakthroughs and disruptive tech work. It would be a shame if she wins in the election knowing full well what her in the office would look like. Her bill was technically trying to convey who is behind what in the cryptospace, and was only adorned with legal words that seem pro-people when in fact it wasn't. I wouldn't trust her to represent me in the Senate if I were from Massachusetts, knowing that her programs were focused solely on quashing one movement that didn't do much damage to my state nor its people.

Perhaps if she comes up with a rather convincing reason as to why her bill isn't only to prosecute but also to help flourish, then I might reconsider my choices if I were from Massachusetts, but it seems that it's a non-negotiable to her and she just wants to push her agenda so bad.

Good luck fighting the crypto industry that is evolving very fast and adoption is just getting better and better.

I think it's nothing. They can't win over bitcoin and it's already widely used for them to ban it. And they also should respect the fact that crypto investors are an interest group that will surely vote against her and other opponents can use it to drag them on their side.

So I think in the end she will be forced to change this policy.

What I don't understand is why this senator is trying to kill cryptocurrency as if it is an enemy. Crypto is part of the advancement of financial technology. It is an innovation. It is not something criminal. It does not violate the people's rights to their lives or to their properties. In fact, it is developed with the goal of making life better for everyone.

It doesn't seem wise to seek reelection showing so much hatred against a technological innovation as if she's fighting against drugs or other criminalities. Depending on how high the level of crypto awareness among the voters of Massachusetts, this is like a political suicide.

With this as her campaign manifesto, I do not think she would go anywhere not to think of winning the elections. How could she be that insensitive when it comes to choice of words and agenda to campaign with. She is wanting to represent an IT hub in the senates and yet she is against one of the greatest IT innovation aka Bitcoin in a zone where technologist exist. How does she want to campaign then, who does she wants to vote for her. This is a suicide mission you know because anybody who votes for her is more or less removing food from their table and cone to talk of it, she is of age and should be retired by now facing her home and taking good care of her family.

This makes me start asking myself this question. Aren't they the older ones not tired of public offices? At such age they should have retired from active politics paving way for the youths to take over leadership but greed and hunger for power would not allow them.

Probably, that could be her first reason why she is digging seriously into this "anti-crypto army", trying to convince everyone that this will solve all incidents of scamming as she entirely believe that crypto is anti-humanity. Well, that is her and we can't control her negative thinking towards crypto. However, it's also undeniable that fiat is also involved in different types of scamming, but how come she didn't think of building a campaign on anti-fiat? Imagine if she will win in the election, I cannot expect for a better future of the country. There is no transparency as her decision is clearly a bias. 

Definetly a wrong move for her. Crypto gives the right to people to own digital property and her anti crypto campaign is like an anti-values for the Americans. A person with a mind like her in the senate will do good since she have already helped a lot of people noting that shes has done a good job from her previohs terms. But it has always been a part of her campaign to fight against crypto. Ive done my research and I think there are still many people who believe in her platforms that's why issues like these should be talked about so no one will be a victim of fake news. She can spend the money to other better projects than in the anti crypto army.

And I thought Alphabet soup people had bought into the 7 transactions-per-second BS and consequentially did not think it would become a formidable payment platform to challenge them (although that is also on the cards for us).

Honestly it could also be nothing more than Alphabet being ran by a bunch of woke leftists who don't want to support the other gallery of Dems.

She’s obsessed with bitcoin & being negative about it. I don’t understand her problem, she must paid my banks to try to make it as difficult as possible for bitcoin to gain increased adoption.

I hope she gets voted out of office next time. There should be an age limit on people working in these positions. Nobody over 70 should be in a job that affects the future of the whole nation. She doesn’t even know anything about bitcoin, she’s not qualified to discuss it.

It's tricky when you can safely assume vested interests are at play, but there's no way to confirm what those vested interests might be.  Could be any number of things, but the GooglePay thing just seemed too big a coincidence.  I'm probably way off, though, heh.

She will use all types of slogans and storylines to manipulate the people who do not know anything about the cryptospace and there are certainly more people outside the cryptospace than inside of it.

Another reason why the government wants a crackdown on the cryptospace is it might be hard to tax because cryptocoins are easy to move and hide hehe.



A new study from the Swedish tech company Divly has found that less than 1% of crypto investors paid taxes on their crypto in 2022. Specifically, the study has shown that only 0.53% of crypto investors paid taxes on those digital assets last year.

The Global Cryptocurrency Taxation Report of 2022 measures the taxation trends for the digital asset industry in various countries. Moreover, it showcases the minimal percentage of cryptocurrency investors that declared their assets to respective tax authorities last year.

Source https://watcher.guru/news/study-finds-less-than-1-of-global-investors-paid-taxes-on-crypto-in-2022

I guess she has her own history with bitcoin but unfortunately, it was a worst experience for her which made her too obsessed about it, and want the whole cryptocurrency just totally out of the market. So the whole thing is obviously a selfish desire, she will only use her power to get rid of bitcoin and the whole decentralized crypto coins. She should not be running for her position as it would mean ruining the future of the county if ever she’ll win.

Well good luck to her and her army, she has just given voters a reason not to vote for her, everyone knows how Bitcoin is changing the lives of many people and she wants to replace that with CBDC? The truth is she lacks an understanding of Bitcoin and it's the purpose, someone needs to sit her down and feel her why Bitcoin existed, or maybe I am wrong, maybe she just hate Bitcoin because she is also part of the government? That must be the reason, she is smart and behaving dumb as if she doesn't understand the purpose of Bitcoin, that purpose is what brings the hate.

The tax is paid on the profit, which means that those who bought Bitcoin and did not sell it have no reason to pay tax, unless there is some country where you have to pay tax just because you own Bitcoin? In addition, everyone who buys Bitcoin through CEX has done KYC and uses their bank accounts for deposits and withdrawals, and then it is up to the state institutions that monitor such things to catch all those who avoid paying taxes.

It is stupid to say that Bitcoin is used by those who want to avoid paying taxes, because in reality nothing can be hidden from the authorities today.

I hope Warren won't be re-elected. The USA already has pretty harsh regulations regarding cryptos and crypto businesses like exchanges are having a hard time to adapt and remain in the USA even without Warren. I'm happy her bill received bipartisan criticism.
She is allegedly in support of holding crypto companies to the same AML standards as other companies are held to, but I suppose in practice that's not true, as the AML regulations already apply across the board and don't need to target the crypto industry specifically.

Exactly, there should be a serious voting revolution on the election day to send her home so that she will understand the strength of the pro bitcoin users and the strength of the youth who are the lovers of bitcoin. There are some statements as a public figure you don't have to make because the public is always looking and watching at you whether you are for them or not. And from what she has said, it indicates that she is not with people whom she claims to represent in the chamber. So the people have to vote her out since she is not for their interest and for the ruling class and herself interest. The army she will be building against bitcoin might even against her. So she should be careful of what she says.

The article also mentioned that the data was from the year 2022. This might also imply that less than 1% of people has made profit for 2022 hehehehe. That might be a more possible occurrence than 99% of people holding their coins after buying.

In any case, if you say nothing can be hidden from the authorities today, what does it imply on mixers?

This implies that even mixers are not something that ensures the level of anonymity that some imagine when using them. It's not just that someone has already proven that it is somehow possible to break such services, which you can see here -> Breaking Mixing Services (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117328.0). It is also about the fact that users do not use the same services in the way it is suggested to them, which leads to the fact that transaction A can be connected with transaction B using very simple methods.

Besides, mixing coins and selling the same for fiat are two different things - because if any usual method like bank accounts is used, every user must be ready to explain the origin of that money.

   -  I am sure that there is no reliable vote for all the crypto enthusiasts there in the US, in fact this proposal of his is not good, instead of helping it seems that he wants to suffer and does not want to help the crypto community that is in reality also helps their country's economy.

Let's see where he will be picked in his run when the election 2024 comes next year, this is the thing he did wrong against his plan against cryptocurrency.

Some may worry about Senator Warren's attempts to regulate the crypto industry, but we should remember that rules can give the industry a sense of stability and legitimacy. By following anti-money laundering regulations, decentralized entities can show their dedication to preventing financial crimes and safeguarding users.

Additionally, these regulations could pave the way for new collaborative possibilities between the government and the crypto industry. By collaborating, we can construct a framework that encourages innovation and expansion while safeguarding citizens from financial crimes.

The evolution and adaptation of the crypto industry in response to changing regulations are exhilarating. As entrepreneurs and businesses continue to innovate, we can anticipate seeing fresh and exciting uses for cryptocurrencies.

It would be very much an ideal set of conditionsif the government regulates the cryptospace to protect the people while also giving us the freedom to invest and use all these different coins and services. However, we should always be skeptical. The government and their agencies have always used regulations to maintain the dominance of the rulers. The cryptospace is giving everyone a chance to rise up against the rulers. They do not want this. They want you where you ar. Poor and trapped.

Oh boy looks like she doesn't want to give up. I was so glad last year the bill against crypto both in America and in Europe found no majority. Why can't politicians accept defeat and move on? When already Democrats and Republicans agree together on something there must be really something wrong. I hope that due to the crypto hype over the last two years that there is now a strong majority for people who favor cryptos and don't want to see their use being limited. To a certain extent regulation is important, but over regulating a whole sector will limit it's growth in the future and reduce the incentive for technological advances. Let's make sure that everybody knows the politicians that are against cryptos.

I think the issue is simply with those who build cryptocurrencies that aren't based on Bitcoin standard. Bitcoin already has inbuilt features that's capable of taking care of most/all current or potential problems that worry people like her. And the nice thing about this it  that it will handle the issues without violating the fundamental rights  of people or creating problems for society. The future is bright for Bitcoin... Some say it's unstoppable, and I think they are correct. Anyone who understands why will think so too. Any attempt to stop it is almost equal to being lawless, as it will require breaking just societal laws or acting like a traitor.

That’s also possible as we all know that some only run so they can have the power to take control its people, and it might be that this senator is being used as a forefront just to hide the negativity of fiat and sabotage bitcoin. Or maybe this senator has its unforgettable and unfortunate experience with bitcoin that she also want to drag the people away from it.

The one thing I liked about her was when she held Michael Bloomberg's feet to the fire during the last presidential debate.  She 1-2-3 knock out punched that scumbag and it was amazing..but most of my praise stops there.  I don't care what this old hag who surely doesn't have the first clue what the blockchain is and how bitcoin works.  I, as a United States citizen am really not all that worried about what shes proposing here.  Also, nothing says she's going to win soo...

This is why if you are from America living in the state of Massachusetts, please do not vote for her. She will not stop her anti crypto army campaign when she wins and sits in office. Similar to much of the politicians around the world, she is only a puppet controlled by the real rulers of the country. Much of them are located in Wall Street. It is really head shaking that some people force themselves to argue for their side heehhe.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Her position is not uncommon among politicians in general. In this forum we have people from all over the world and I am sure that the average politician has very similar ideas to Warren, unless you live in El Salvador. The only politicians who might favor a space for Bitcoin as Satoshi dreamed of would be libertarian politicians of which there are almost none. Few in the US and even fewer in the rest of the world.

Add to that the number of members of this forum who defend democrat or socialist policies, which consist of more power and control by the state, while using Bitcoin with maximum privacy, which is paradoxical to say the least. If that happens in this forum, how can we not have politicians who basically want to KYC all Bitcoin transactions and have them as perfectly identified as bank transactions?

I hope such kind of politicians just retire and go back to their homes to have fun with their grandkids. People still can't deal with future technologies. Bitcoin is irreversible development in financial world. I mean people cannot kill Bitcoin from now on. Banning is not possible anymore especially in democratic countries. Old politicians should just agree that Bitcoin is part of financial markets from now on at least seek better ways to make Bitcoin trade more secure/regulated so people wouldn't suffer.

It appears the real news behind the bank runs of Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank will be exposed in due time. This article mentions that the crypto exposure for these banks are not very large and what really caused the bank runs is only the fear that these banks might have a large exposure on crypto.

I reckon that more real news on the cryptospace will begin to be published as more data about what really occured will be gathered. This will certainly be very head scratching for grandma Warren's anticrypto army campaign because it will certainly blow up on her own face.

https://i.ibb.co/f4c7nFB/36-D39-F8-C-4-A3-B-486-E-8024-C2770-B93-D093.png

A report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has outlined the role of cryptocurrency in the failures of banks Silvergate, Silicon Valley, and Signature, stating that while the banks’ exposure to crypto was minimal, the perception of risk “may have driven non-crypto firms/individuals to make significant withdrawals.”

Analyst Paul Tierno from CRS, a nonpartisan agency that serves to inform Congress, concluded in their report that “volatility in crypto markets may expose banks to liquidity risks that could ultimately lead to fatal losses,” but contrary to beliefs, the banks’ exposure to crypto “was somewhat limited.” Dwindling deposits from crypto firms led banks to sell securities at a loss, which exacerbated liquidity issues and solvency.

Source https://protos.com/congressional-report-says-crypto-didnt-cause-bank-runs-fear-of-exposure-did/

# CHAPTER FOURTEEN

# The Future of Crypto

The future of crypto is bright and exciting, but it is far from over. There are a number of things to look forward to in the near future. First and foremost, we are in uncharted territory. 
 
Second, we have a lot riding on the growth of the crypto industry. The world is moving in a direction that is not seen in the past. 
 
Third, and most importantly, we can't wait any longer. 
 
Fourth, we need to start thinking about what will happen to our money and how we will pay for it. This is a topic that will take a while to get settled and I will be writing a book that will be out in the next few months. 
 
Fifth, we need to be clear about who we are and what we stand for. 
 
Sixth, we need to make a plan of attack and attack it from the ground up. 
 
Seventeen and beyond, we will face an uphill battle to get out of this mess.

Seems to have gone quiet on this. Maybe she decided to build an anti inflation theft army. Seriously though you can’t trust any of these people including Warren. She’s in the pocket of bankers & the elite. So many of these Congressmen/women are multimillionaires despite being on 100k salaries. They are paid to do what the elite tell them to do. I doubt she cares about bitcoin but she is paid to appear so.

News update.

If there are people in this forum who do not believe that there are corporate interests that are conspiring with politicians to ban bitcoin, this speech proves that it is not only a conspiracy theory. The congressmen and senators you vote into office do not work for you. They work for the real rulers. Also, very much similar to what has been said before, they want more and they want very little for you.



BREAKING: Co-sponsor of Elizabeth Warren’s “#Bitcoin Ban Bill” admits the bankers helped Warren write the bill.

Source https://twitter.com/Dennis_Porter_/status/1737177407134543914

I agree and I saw that there are some anti efforts from governments, congress-men/ women and senators to try having better control on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency market. They will try to have as biggest impacts and control on it as possible.

However I knew one interesting fact about Elizabeth Warren.

Don’t panic: Only 11 of Elizabeth Warren’s 330 bills have ever passed (https://cointelegraph.com/news/three-percent-of-elizabeth-warren-bills-ever-enacted-into-law-data)

Data is from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412542#current_status[]=1

She has very bad record with her proposals.

LOL ok, if they don't want future crypto profits they can just give them to me.  ;D

Although I can't say I'm surprised.

Unfortunately, she is not alone with this kind of disdain for the crypto industry within the ranks of the Democrats...it is just ironic that most of the politicians who got benefitted with SBF-FTX fiasco are Democrats. Yes, we need the right regulations and the senate should be working with SEC to come up with acceptable but strict framework on which players should work with but there is never a valid excuse to kill the whole thing. Just like any other industry, there will be scams and frauds and those are the things the government must deal while at the same time collecting taxes from them. However, am sure Elizabeth Warren will not succeed in making crypto dead.

On many issues Warren is almost as out of touch with society as the republicans are. She's on the extreme left end of Democrats and seems to dislike anything 'tech'. Being anti-crypto just makes her seem even more silly. There's only a handful of politicians in congress as anti-crypto as she is, so this isn't a real worry. There is no army to build.

its not about not wanting bitcoin
its about something previously invented is not by default illegal.. what they end up needing to do is ban it. to then have contol to then offer permits of use under their rule

the real game is not to ban and leave alone. its to ban, set rules and then licence utility.. under their control
how do you think US banks got so powerful. they ban certain currencies access to US industry, then they invent licences(trade deals) which come with terms and conditions. then they control it.. which they can then sanction those countries under the trade deals

if you look at how the NY bitlicence came into being you will learn they banned it in NY and overnight offered permits under their conditions of operation

alcohol had the same thing done 100 years ago.. prohibited it, then created laws/regulations
yep you can now be arrested for drinking fluid and then driving. which was not illegal pre 1920~
yep you can now be arrested for drinking fluid under a certain age. which was not illegal pre 1920~
(it did take them years between ban -> licence)