[2022-01-27] Bill might give Yellen unilateral power to ban BTC and crypto

[Lucius]

@Lucius. However, Janet Yellen and the Biden administration might take it further and combine the 2 biggest campaigns, the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, with the war on the cryptospace because bitcoin and other cryptocoins are being used by drug cartels and terrorists. It will leave every cryptocoin user’s head shaking hehehe.

Are there terrorist organizations that pose a serious threat to the US today? I think I am well informed about it, and I cannot remember the last time I read the news related to terrorism. The drug trade is a different story altogether, but the fact is that drug dealers still prefer good old greenbacks, which you can set on fire when you're cold (Escobar reportedly burned $2 million to keep his family warm). The US government may try to put Bitcoin in the story, but Bitcoin has little or no effect in all of this.

This is why we should be open to ICO, IDO, IWO for democratic funding. Defi for trading without KYC. Anonymous altcoins for privacy and many other new developments that are being created. I know there will be scams, however, there are real projects that will make it very difficult for the government to take everything down because they are decentralized enough and there are many of them.

More decentralized services that target Bitcoin are certainly welcome, but I disagree that we should go in the direction of looking for some alternatives in the form of anonymous altcoins and things that have nothing to do with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is strong precisely because it does not have a central figure, a central bank, and operates on the POW system.

The biggest damage governments can do is ban CEX and declare Bitcoin illegal - which doesn't mean game over, but that we're just starting to play by the new rules - for some it might be positive, because Bitcoin would then become a cryptocurrency in the true sense, although with much less value than it has today.

[bbc.reporter]

@Lucius. However, Janet Yellen and the Biden administration might take it further and combine the 2 biggest campaigns, the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, with the war on the cryptospace because bitcoin and other cryptocoins are being used by drug cartels and terrorists. It will leave every cryptocoin user’s head shaking hehehe.

Are there terrorist organizations that pose a serious threat to the US today? I think I am well informed about it, and I cannot remember the last time I read the news related to terrorism. The drug trade is a different story altogether, but the fact is that drug dealers still prefer good old greenbacks, which you can set on fire when you're cold (Escobar reportedly burned $2 million to keep his family warm). The US government may try to put Bitcoin in the story, but Bitcoin has little or no effect in all of this.

We cannot be certain if bitcoin is being used for terrorist funding or if it is being used by drug cartels, however, the government can always create a fake storyline and make this the central message of their war against the cryptospace. Similar to the war against drugs, the politicians that support it do not care if it works or does not work. The war on drugs has been going on since the 1970s and it has never been successful in ending drug cartels and illegal drug use.

[o_e_l_e_o]

This is why we should be open to ICO, IDO, IWO for democratic funding. Defi for trading without KYC. Anonymous altcoins for privacy and many other new developments that are being created. I know there will be scams, however, there are real projects that will make it very difficult for the government to take everything down because they are decentralized enough and there are many of them.

The problem is the vast majority of these achieve nothing. Almost every single ICO from the ICO craze has failed to live up to expectations and simply resulted in the owners taking money from the newbies who bought these scam coins. DeFi is more centralized than bitcoin, running centralized coins on centralized chains via centralized services, and is an easier target than bitcoin for government regulations. Most anonymous altcoins are nothing of the sort. Far easier for the government to shut down some tiny altcoin with a handful of nodes which is only traded on one or two exchanges than it is for it to shut down bitcoin.

We cannot be certain if bitcoin is being used for terrorist funding or if it is being used by drug cartels

It isn't. You an read my thread from a few days ago here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5383745.0. The Chainalysis report from last year, and the Europol report from just a few weeks ago both reached the same conclusion, that terrorists, drug cartels, and criminals in general, all still prefer using fiat, and proportionally fiat is used far more than cryptocurrency in illegal activities.

[estenity]

Well, if Biden leave this decision with butthurt Janet Yellen, we will all suffer as a result of that. We know what happened when she was doing a speech and when the "Bitcoin Guy" held up a "Buy Bitcoin" sign behind her. She did not take kindly to that, so she will take some kind of revenge on Bitcoin for that embarrassment.

FED problems could slow the move..
https://occupythefed.substack.com/p/fed-scandal-bigger-than-watergate

[bbc.reporter]

This is why we should be open to ICO, IDO, IWO for democratic funding. Defi for trading without KYC. Anonymous altcoins for privacy and many other new developments that are being created. I know there will be scams, however, there are real projects that will make it very difficult for the government to take everything down because they are decentralized enough and there are many of them.

The problem is the vast majority of these achieve nothing. Almost every single ICO from the ICO craze has failed to live up to expectations and simply resulted in the owners taking money from the newbies who bought these scam coins. DeFi is more centralized than bitcoin, running centralized coins on centralized chains via centralized services, and is an easier target than bitcoin for government regulations. Most anonymous altcoins are nothing of the sort. Far easier for the government to shut down some tiny altcoin with a handful of nodes which is only traded on one or two exchanges than it is for it to shut down bitcoin.

We cannot be certain if bitcoin is being used for terrorist funding or if it is being used by drug cartels

It isn't. You an read my thread from a few days ago here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5383745.0. The Chainalysis report from last year, and the Europol report from just a few weeks ago both reached the same conclusion, that terrorists, drug cartels, and criminals in general, all still prefer using fiat, and proportionally fiat is used far more than cryptocurrency in illegal activities.

Arguable if ICO, IDO, IWO as a concept for a democratic type of funding might only be a craze. I am very much aware that 2015 - 2017 created many projects that have failed, however, there was a few that were successful also. Similar to the startup world, it is expected that more than 50% of them fail in the 5th year.

I am not telling everyone that there were no scams, there were many scams. However, we should also be open minded because the cryptospace is always developing and advancing. The world will have and use many blockchains, it will not only be bitcoin.

Also, what is worrying for me on Chainalysis’ assessment is what if the criminals are more competent in hiding through the cryptospace than what we thought.

[PrimeNumber7]

I would argue this bill has the potential to de-facto ban bitcoin.

That's nothing new, though. So does the last bill we discussed which could be used to make it illegal for nodes not to collect KYC and tax information for every transaction they process, which is clearly impossible. Thankfully, however, there are plenty of peer-to-peer trading options and plenty of countries which aren't the US and don't have such stupid laws. They could de-facto ban centralized exchanges from operating in the US with this law, but they can't stop you holding your own coins in your own wallet, trading peer to peer, or spending your money with any business or service (in this country or overseas) which accepts bitcoin directly.

Yes, it would be possible to trade bitcoin on a peer-to-peer basis, however, as I mentioned, it would be risky for a business to accept bitcoin directly if the business is located in the United States. While technically not an outright ban on bitcoin, it would be very close.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The world will have and use many blockchains, it will not only be bitcoin.

I'm sure it will, but the actual requirement for these blockchains to have their own coins or tokens which can be bought or sold is almost always zero. I remember having this argument with someone back in 2017 about some altcoin whose big vision was to put medical records on a blockchain. If any health system wanted to do that, you can guarantee they will use their own in-house developed blockchain which they have control over, and not some scam nonsense launched by a random individual who has pre-mined half the supply themselves.

The strongest opposition to government regulation of cryptocurrencies is everyone using bitcoin in a decentralized and peer to peer way, not throwing their money away on scam coins and rug pulls.

While technically not an outright ban on bitcoin, it would be very close.

Well, all the more reason to start calling your representatives and telling them to amend or vote against the provisions in this bill.

[Lucius]

Well, all the more reason to start calling your representatives and telling them to amend or vote against the provisions in this bill.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, but does the average American even know who to call and the possibility of doing something like that? I believe that the vast majority consider it a waste of time, and you confirm that this is the case when you say something like this :

It will absolutely pass because the people voting on it are bought and paid for by Wall Street and fiat banks. They either don't care about its effects on bitcoin, or are actively working against bitcoin.

Democracy in most countries of the world is just an illusion, except for Switzerland, which really implements the will of the people through referendums. Unfortunately, the US is far from a democracy and the people have the option to vote for less evil in elections so the continuity of politics continues no matter who is in power.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You keep saying the same thing over and over, but does the average American even know who to call and the possibility of doing something like that?

Go to https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Type in your ZIP code.
Be shown your representative with a link to their website.
Go to their website for email address, phone number, or other contact details.

I believe that the vast majority consider it a waste of time, and you confirm that this is the case when you say something like this

So better just to shrug our shoulders and let the government push to effectively control bitcoin, ban encryption, outlaw privacy, etc? Yes, the bill will pass, but if every person in the US who used bitcoin called their representative, then the relevant parts would get amended. The general apathy you express is the main reason the government keep getting away with this kind of awful legislation.

[tanitel]

Well, if Biden leave this decision with butthurt Janet Yellen, we will all suffer as a result of that. We know what happened when she was doing a speech and when the "Bitcoin Guy" held up a "Buy Bitcoin" sign behind her. She did not take kindly to that, so she will take some kind of revenge on Bitcoin for that embarrassment.

FED problems could slow the move..
https://occupythefed.substack.com/p/fed-scandal-bigger-than-watergate

more news of the same FED insider problem

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-refuses-release-60-pages-correspondence-pandemic-trades-scandal

[bbc.reporter]

The world will have and use many blockchains, it will not only be bitcoin.

I'm sure it will, but the actual requirement for these blockchains to have their own coins or tokens which can be bought or sold is almost always zero. I remember having this argument with someone back in 2017 about some altcoin whose big vision was to put medical records on a blockchain. If any health system wanted to do that, you can guarantee they will use their own in-house developed blockchain which they have control over, and not some scam nonsense launched by a random individual who has pre-mined half the supply themselves.

The strongest opposition to government regulation of cryptocurrencies is everyone using bitcoin in a decentralized and peer to peer way, not throwing their money away on scam coins and rug pulls.

I very much agree, o_e_l_e_o! I have also criticized many projects also for issuing tokens that were useless. However, I might have changed my mind on this only if the project is not a scam. This is because if a project does not issue its own token then another development team can fork the original project and put a token in it and issue this through ICO, IDO, IEO or IWO. The original project has to protect themselves by issuing a token.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The original project has to protect themselves by issuing a token.

They don't. The original project will be protected by having an actual real world use case with businesses and companies wanting to use it and build on top of it. If the only thing sustaining its existence is a bunch of noobs trading a useless token back and forth, then that project is inherently useless.

Still, back on topic: On a related note to this bill, the Canadian government have just invoked a law which allows banks and the government to unilaterally freeze the accounts of private citizens with no regulation or oversight. While I completely disagree with the protestors this will be used against, the government being able to financially cripple you if they don't like what you have to say is a dangerous precedent to set.

This wouldn't and can't happen when you hold your own private keys.

[bbc.reporter]

@o_e_l_e_o. It appears you are not considering human predisposition for wanting shiny things hehehe. The forked project will be stealing all the ideas of the original and will also incentivize their users by issuing a token and make them something similar to being shareholders of a company. What will the people choose, the original with no token or the fork with a token? If some people have not noticed this in all their years in the cryptospace then they might have not been very observant.

Do you reckon that there will be a community of people who will be interested in bank settlements if Ripple did not issue XRP?

In any case, on this topic. Putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un hehehe.

[o_e_l_e_o]

@o_e_l_e_o. It appears you are not considering human predisposition for wanting shiny things hehehe.

On the contrary - that's my entire point. If people choose a fork of a project only because "Oh look shiny!", then that project has no intrinsic value or use case and is merely being used to try to take money from other users, pump and dump, scam, etc.

The forked project will be stealing all the ideas of the original and will also incentivize their users by issuing a token and make them something similar to being shareholders of a company.

I would strongly disagree that buying some made up altcoin or token is somehow analogous to buying a company's shares.

What will the people choose, the original with no token or the fork with a token?

Sure. I agree that the fork with a token which people can use to try to take money from others will be more popular among such people. That doesn't mean it is a good or worthwhile project, doesn't mean it actually has a use case or indeed does anything at all. There are literally thousands of examples of this exact thing.

[bbc.reporter]

@o_e_l_e_o. Agreed, that was my argument also. This is why a development team of real projects in the cryptospace must also issue a token as protection for their project because if they do not issue a token, it will be forked and issued a token.

You are correct, it was a wrong assumption. However, my argument is on how tokens give incentives to the community of the project and support the project. Similar to my example on Ripple, I am quite certain there would be no community of people who would be interested in fast bank settlements if there was no XRP token. A similar argument can also be created in all projects in the cryptospace.

A project that issued a token does not always imply that it is a scam. Similar to what I have said, developers do not have a choice, they must issue a token or their project will be forked with a token issued with it. This would cause users to leave the original and go to the shiny things hehehehe.

[cr1776]

@o_e_l_e_o. It appears you are not considering human predisposition for wanting shiny things hehehe. The forked project will be stealing all the ideas of the original and will also incentivize their users by issuing a token and make them something similar to being shareholders of a company. What will the people choose, the original with no token or the fork with a token? If some people have not noticed this in all their years in the cryptospace then they might have not been very observant.

Do you reckon that there will be a community of people who will be interested in bank settlements if Ripple did not issue XRP?

In any case, on this topic. Putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un hehehe.

That is a great montage.  I didn't see this until after my reply in the other thread, but you hit the nail on the head.  They cut off people's money and ability to work and they control the population.  It is initially more subtle than tanks and guns, but it is quite effective.