Kodak is launching a Coin
https://www.kodak.com/kodakone/default.htm
Supposedly Telegram is launching an ICO, but there is no Website yet, and any website should be considered a scam for now, this one has a video and says to consider them rumors; not official
https://icodrops.com/telegram-ico-ton/This is the future of Currency, when Google has a Coin, then your neighbor will start a Coin for his T-Shirt shop, and your Mayor will want a Coin for your Town, and McDonalds will be giving you mining instructions instead of Monopoly pieces, and then we move into the Future.
All of you people making random Coins, like PotCoin or NextCoin or Hyper or any of these Pointless Coins that have no purpose. One day maybe a person with a purpose will use your Blockchains and Fork it or Clone it, but you are nothing but a Programmer. For example, Temple Coin.
The Future of Coins is not surrounded by Programmers, it is simply supplied by them.Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886)
Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n 558 U.S. _ (2010)
Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. _ (2014)
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A)."
