Is Bitcoin really censorship-resistent if they can't reach Canadian truckers

[franky1]

government cant stop a bitcoin transaction thats already sent. but if they know the identity of the current fund key holders. then governments can stop the key holders from making a transaction.. its called handcuffs.

I suppose hatshepsut93 was referring about the government stopping a Bitcoin transaction the same way they can stop a bank transaction.  

but government doesnt "stop" a transaction..

government sends a court order request to a bank service telling the bank service not to make a transaction or get penalised if they do.

there is no "red button" thats connected directly to a SWIFT(international wire), RTGS(fedwire('wire transfer')), .. its always a case where 'government' get the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction. just with regulation. it only takes the equivalent of a formal email rather than a swat team

[PrivacyG]

but government doesnt "stop" a transaction..

government sends a court order request to a bank service telling the bank service not to make a transaction or get penalised if they do.

there is no "red button" thats connected directly to a SWIFT(international wire), RTGS(fedwire('wire transfer')), .. its always a case where 'government' get the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction. just with regulation. it only takes the equivalent of a formal email rather than a swat team

Getting the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction is still stopping the transaction, is it not exactly what this is called?  If I am getting you not to exit the house, I am stopping you from exiting it.  It is their power to stop transactions.  No, I was definitely not talking about a 'red button' either.  The idea still is that they can not stop a Bitcoin transaction from happening while banks can always close your account, freeze your funds et cetera..

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[franky1]

but government doesnt "stop" a transaction..

government sends a court order request to a bank service telling the bank service not to make a transaction or get penalised if they do.

there is no "red button" thats connected directly to a SWIFT(international wire), RTGS(fedwire('wire transfer')), .. its always a case where 'government' get the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction. just with regulation. it only takes the equivalent of a formal email rather than a swat team

Getting the authorising fund holder to not make a transaction is still stopping the transaction, is it not exactly what this is called?  If I am getting you not to exit the house, I am stopping you from exiting it.  It is their power to stop transactions.  No, I was definitely not talking about a 'red button' either.  The idea still is that they can not stop a Bitcoin transaction from happening while banks can always close your account, freeze your funds et cetera..

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

point is the government has no red button on the fiat network. it has an email to the fund custodian with a court order because regulations make it easier then needing a swat team to knock on doors of a fund custodian.. but in both cases(btc/fiat) the government can get the fund custodian to never make a transaction by coming into contact with the fund holder.

government do not need a network red stop button, they always have got the fund holders to not transact under fear of punishment

too many people think the pentagon/sec has a fiat network red button.. they dont.
bitcoins main safeguard is not the protocol the main safeguard is the pseudonymity of people not revealing what address they have keys for

again be cautious of funds you hold, bitcoin can stop hackers from brute forcing the network. but it doesnt stop someone brute forcing your homes front door


comparing bitcoins lack of a network red button vs fiat court order threatening a fund custodian.. is 2 different methods..
if you want to compare same methods
a) fiat red button, vs bitcoin red button... government has no red button for both..
b) fiat coerce fund holder with court threat, vs btc coerce fund holder with court threat.. the government can do both.

but you are only more safe in bitcoin if you stay anonymous(not be lazy / lax about your personal info.)
as seen by the fear of the convoy organisers who had to absolve themselves of responsibility as they realised they are too publicly known.
as seen by the bitfinex thieving couple that got caught last week
as seen by many examples of people that think bitcoin is so safe they can be lazy about personal privacy and security as they wrongly think bitcoin is untouchable in all circumstances.

its not, so still be careful

in a 4 of 4 multisig. the funds can be stopped. just arrest one of the key holders. he cant sign. meaning the funds cant move. interrogate him until he discloses the other 3

its the same government tactic just wrapped in a swat vest instead of a SEC vest

whether its fiat or bitcoin. the network is not the flaw. its the key holders at the corners.

[dothebeats]

Canadian truckers can still get their bitcoins and exchange them to fiat outside of Canada if they want, or some group supporting their cause can buy those coins OTC and their problems are essentially gone. The government can only send orders to banks to not allow any fund (fiat) transfers to known accounts of the truckers, but even then the banks and exchanges can still wish to choose whether they cater to these requests or not. The government is playing as the bullies here in this case, and no matter what, those coins and funds will still reach the truckers if those holding the funds wishes to direct the funds to them.

[Keremgor]

Problem They taint the Bitcoins with chainanalysis tools,if they can track bitfinex hack,that means they can make it..Thats the truth
 

Solution is marriage

use Grin>Bitcoin>Fiat. They cant taint the Bitcoin this way.

What if the Bitcoin I receive from Grin > Bitcoin are tainted as you say?  The 'tainting' strategy works similar to a Ponzi scheme: it works until it does not.  You can not taint addresses because it ultimately leads to all addresses having a tainted history.  The Bitcoin you hold may have been part of a drug deal before.  We probably all own a coin with tainted history.  If you want a Cryptocurrency that is truly fungible, it is Monero.  But you have to pay in Monero directly, if you do not want to spend possibly dirty coins.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Monero already HF to ring size 16. you need to run 10's of terabytes nodes to run full node Monero. it is 20x heavier than Bitcoin. Sorry.

Grin runs  full node on a mobile phone. it is below 5 gb. Grin will be used more for sure with deep liquidity and tainted bitcoins would be no problem becuz atomic swaps and dex will cure this.

[Cookdata]

The canadian truckers are unable to get a hold of the 21 bitcoin that have been donated to them recently because the wallets associated with the fundraising have been tracked and banned from all regulated financial institutions (including banks and exchanges). Two questions for discussion:
1. Is bitcoin really censorship resistent if the government can track and ban addresses? Bitfinex hackers being tracked and caught is another example (though most people would argue that this is an example of "positive" censorship resistence, unlike the canadian truckers example).
2. Can bitcoin be both censorship resistent and transparent at the same time?

I am late to this post, I wanted to continue a thread from the previous donations that were made last two weeks.
I am concerned about the exchanges that gave out the details of contributors to Canada's federal police force, other external wallet could simply mix their bitcoin and moved their sats to another wallet without any worries. Centralized Crypto exchanges are not different from banks, they make trading easier but they are more dangerous than banks, they can snitch on you and stab you in the back when any country bribes them.

[franky1]

anyway this is worth a read
https://fortune.com/2022/02/18/freedom-convoy-protests-canada-lawsuit-freeze-crypto-wallets-ottawa/

https://ottawaconvoyclassaction.ca/order-mareva.pdf

basically
locals from ottowa(a coffee company) petitioned the courts to hold the freedom convoy organisers to a court order whereby they, nor anyone acting on their behalf can move/spend/touch the bitcoin donations

point 1-2 basically says anyone in the fundraiser group, their associates, servants, people known to/by them. or other intermediaries including any exchanges, banks or other services, shall not move disperse, sell or spend the funds.

point 3 any amount above $20m. the organisers can do with as they please.

and in point 6 the coffee company says the fundraisers can request an order allowing them to explain and get consent for a certain allotment of the $20m to be spent on the fundraisers own normal living costs, legal costs

point 10 continues to list those that cant move, touch, spend the funds
namely services like
Bull Bitcoin, TallyCoin, Bitbuy, Shakepay, Satoshi Portal, Bylls, Binance Smartchain, PancakeSwap, Nunchuk

point 12 mentions the fundraisers and/or associates that have access to the funds are to hand the bitcoin to the court

1. THIS COURT ORDERS that this motion is properly returnable today as the motion is
brought without notice.

Mareva Injunction
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Mareva Respondents and their servants, employees, agents, assigns, officers, directors and anyone else acting on their behalf or in conjunction with any of them, and any and all persons with notice of this Order, are restrained from directly or
indirectly, by any means whatsoever:
   (a) selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring, assigning, encumbering,
        or similarly dealing with the assets of the Mareva Respondents listed in Schedule “A”
   (b) instructing, requesting, counselling, demanding, or encouraging any other person
         to conduct themselves contrary to paragraph 2(a) above;
  and
   (c) facilitating, assisting in, aiding, abetting, or participating in any acts the effect of
        which is to contrary to paragraph 2(a) above, until final disposition of this action or further Order of this Court.

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that paragraph 2 applies to all of the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order, whether or not they are in the Mareva Respondents’ own names, whether or not they are solely or jointly owned, and whether or not the Mareva Respondents have exclusive control over the asset. For the purpose of this Order, a Mareva Respondent’s assets include any asset which he or she has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were his or her own. The Mareva Respondent is to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the assets in accordance with his or her direct or indirect instructions.

4. THIS COURT ORDERS that if the total value free of charges or other securities of the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order exceeds $20 million, the Mareva Respondents may sell, remove, dissipate, alienate, transfer, assign, encumber, or similarly deal with them so long
as the total unencumbered value of the Mareva Respondent’s frozen assets remains above $ 20million.

Undertaking as to Damages
5. THIS COURT ORDERS that the requirement in Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the moving party to provide an undertaking as to damages potentially arising from the granting and enforcing of this Order is hereby dispensed with.

Ordinary Living Expenses
6. THIS COURT ORDERS that any Mareva Respondent may apply for an order, on at least twenty-four (24) hours notice to the Plaintiffs, specifying the amount of funds which the Mareva Respondent requires from the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order to spend on
ordinary living expenses and legal advice and representation. The Mareva Respondent may also be provided with access to the assets it requires to spend on ordinary living expenses and legal
advance and representation with the written consent of the Plaintiffs.

Disclosure of Information
7. THIS COURT ORDERS that each Mareva Respondent shall prepare and provide to the Plaintiffs, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, a sworn statement describing the nature, value, and location of his or her assets worldwide, whether in his own name or not and
whether solely or jointly owned, which are being used, have been earmarked for, or are intended to be used to fund, directly or indirectly, activities associated with the Freedom Convoy protests in or around the City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada which began on or about January 29, 2022 worldwide, including but not limited to any digital assets (and any associated cryptocurrency wallet addresses).

8. THIS COURT ORDERS that each Mareva Respondent shall submit to an examination under oath within 7 days of the delivery by the Mareva Respondent of the aforementioned sworn statement referred to in paragraph 7.

9. THIS COURT ORDERS that if the provision of any of the information set out in paragraph 7 is likely to incriminate the Mareva Respondent, he or she may be entitled to refuse to provide it, but is recommended to take legal advice before refusing to provide the information. Wrongful refusal to provide the information referred to in paragraph 7 is contempt of court and may render the Mareva Respondent liable to be imprisoned, fined, or have his or her assets seized.

Intermediaries
10. THIS COURT ORDERS that the entities listed in Schedule “B” as well as any banks, financial institutions, money service businesses, fundraising platforms or websites, cryptocurrency exchanges or platforms, or custodians of any cryptocurrency wallets, (collectively, the “ Intermediaries”) shall, upon being provided with notice of this Order, forthwith freeze and otherwise prevent any removal, dissipation, alienation, transfer, assignment, encumbrance, transaction, or similar dealing with any of the assets identified in Schedule “A” to this Order.

11. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Intermediaries shall forthwith disclose and deliver up to the Plaintiffs any and all records held by the Intermediary concerning the Mareva Respondents’ assets, including the existence, nature, value and location of any monies or assets
or credit, wherever situate, held on behalf of the Mareva Respondent by the Intermediaries.

Alternative Payment of Security into Court
12. THIS COURT ORDERS that this Order will cease to have effect if the Mareva Respondents provide security by collectively paying the sum of $20 million into Court, and the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice is hereby directed to accept such payment.

Variation, Discharge or Extension of Order
13. THIS COURT ORDERS that anyone served with or notified of this Order may apply to the Court at any time to vary or discharge this Order, on four (4) days’ notice to the Plaintiffs.

14. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiffs shall apply for an extension of this Order on or before February 28, 2022, failing which this Order will terminate.

[n0nce]

1) They can just mix the coins, thus getting new addresses that are not blacklisted, if they want CAD so bad.

2) They are only banned to get CAD from those addresses. The coins are not 'censored' really. Just some banks don't want to give them CAD for their coins. Anyone can deny anyone else business for whatever reason. I could sell something on eBay but not like a person, so deny to accept their $$$ for my 'object I'm selling'. That's not an argument to say that USD can be censored.

3) Bitcoin is not only a means to get fiat, but it can be used as money by itself, so any business selling stuff for BTC will accept payments from those addresses. They can easily get food at restaurants that accept BTC, can buy cars at dealerships that take BTC, they can even get Bitrefill Amazon gift cards or refills for clothes stores and order whatever they need^{(wasn't that the idea of the fundraiser?)}. The truckers could even get themselves BTC credit cards, load them up with however much they need & pay with those anywhere.

[kryptqnick]

The article on Coindesk, provided by stompix, says the money was raised in cryptos, but that the the Deputy Prime Minister said banks CAN freeze bank accounts tied to truckers. First, bank accounts and crypto wallets are two different things, so I suppose nobody's seizing the wallets themselves. Second, there's no rule that banks MUST freeze bank accounts, they are simply allowed to do that if they see it fit. And theor police ordered regulated firms to cease facilitating transactions from those wallets. So, based on all this, it seems that the wallets are still in the hands of the protestors (if the wallets are non-custodial), and the problem is with making big names accept payment from these wallets or with converting this money into fiat through regulated exchanges. It limits the options, but I don't think it shows the wallets being censored.

[Pmalek]

But for that we have mixers.  

We have mixers and CoinJoins, sure. But we also have exchanges that freeze coins that originate from known mixers, casinos, and whatnot. I expect this is going to become a trend in the future. Regulatory pressure will force centralized exchanges to consider funds that came from such services as being dirty, illegal, and laundered. You will be asked to prove that you are not a criminal and not the other way around. For that reason we have decentralized exchanges...until they find a way to blacklist those coins as well. When and if they do that, we are left with face-to-face deals.   

[franky1]

Bitcoin (network) is censorship-improbable and anonymous
bitcoin (btc) allotment of coins, is censorship-resistant and pseudonymous

resistance, is not the same as improbable or impossible

i personally am a bitcoin maximalist. but im not a wishful dreamer.
bitcoin is great. no one can touch your coins without the keys..  ..but be prepared and aware of the points of failure about how the keys can be found.
they cant brute force the blockchain for your coin. but they can bruteforce your front door, PC, devices, and interrogate you under punishment of prison for staying quiet

this second part is because of the human flaw of humans that decide who, how, they transact. and how foolish they are about making their activity publicly tied to their real life

[coolcoinz]

The article on Coindesk, provided by stompix, says the money was raised in cryptos, but that the the Deputy Prime Minister said banks CAN freeze bank accounts tied to truckers. First, bank accounts and crypto wallets are two different things, so I suppose nobody's seizing the wallets themselves. Second, there's no rule that banks MUST freeze bank accounts, they are simply allowed to do that if they see it fit. And theor police ordered regulated firms to cease facilitating transactions from those wallets. So, based on all this, it seems that the wallets are still in the hands of the protestors (if the wallets are non-custodial), and the problem is with making big names accept payment from these wallets or with converting this money into fiat through regulated exchanges. It limits the options, but I don't think it shows the wallets being censored.

They even contacted one of the wallet providers to share the data they have on the donators and stop funds and they wrote back that they only provide software allowing users to access money on the blockchain, they don't freeze anything and don't have access to any funds One would think they'd put someone tech savvy in charge of the investigation. Someone who knows that a wallet provider cannot access private keys.
You're correct about banks in Canada and anywhere else. If these people really want to get their money they can arrange a cash exchange. They can also send coins to a bank in another country and access it from there. The coins donated to truckers were obtained legally and donated legally. In any other country they'd be able to have access, so other countries are not obliged to freeze these funds like they would with money from a hack or a ponzi scheme.

[franky1]

They even contacted one of the wallet providers to share the data they have on the donators and stop funds and they wrote back that they only provide software allowing users to access money on the blockchain, they don't freeze anything and don't have access to any funds One would think they'd put someone tech savvy in charge of the investigation. Someone who knows that a wallet provider cannot access private keys.

a private individual (coffee shop owner) got the court to order crypto platforms offering different services to provide any and all info they have on the suspects. and ordered that anyone that could/would aid the suspects in moving, spending, transferring coins directly/indirectly to stop aiding the suspects or face punishment.
(this does not mean the platform had to have physical access to the keys, it can be as simple as knowingly providing software or technical support)

it was a generalised order for all platforms.. not a specific order per platform where by they would need to specifically order an exchange for different requirement vs a specific order of different requirements for a software provider

it was just a general order of stop assisting the suspects in any way, and then listing all possible ways any service could possibly aid the suspects

the reason these details need clarifying is so that people can learn from experiences.
too many people try to ignore facts, just to cry and scream, while learning nothing from their emotional outbursts.

if people actually read the court order, people can learn the pitfalls of how these suspects got found and how they got ordered to halt their actions, so that people can learn what not to do next time
EG
dont make yourself publicly known as a tinfoil hat separatists that wants to segregate a country.
dont wait 14 days to even just talk to protesters on the last days of a protest.. to then 'plan' how to pay the truckers weeks after the protest ended
dont announce the services you intend to use.
dont announce your name
DO speak to protestors that need reimbursing from day one
DO shift the funds to them protestors same day, thus funds no longer your responsibility

bitcoin is not anonymous. its pseudonymous. learn from this experience why the difference caused such an event
its not bitcoins fault. its the fundraisers fault of wanting fame and glory and to push their other public agenda

a badly organised protest"we are a politically motived group wanting to segregate canada in half these are our names these are our services we will use. we will eventually talk to protestors and if all goes well we will pay out after shifting funds around which will be atleast 48 hours after we have done things, if all goes well"

a good organised protest
"we have had some random volunteers who have already spoke to protestors and the protestors were paid within 3 confirms of setting up their bitcoin address, none of the volunteers had funded keys. as for the fundraiser keyholders, they no longer have the funds. protestors are happy, been paid. job done"

[rdbase]

No government can stop a Bitcoin transaction. They can only tell exchanges to not accept deposits from certain addresses, so the solution is to use mixing and use decentralized exchanges and p2p trading. It's bad that on practice you will want to exchange Bitcoin back to fiat, because it's hard to spend it directly, but Bitcoin is the only chance to avoid government control, everything else operates on KYC principle so accounts and funds can be instantly frozen.

They have tried. Did you see what Kraken had responded to their government's address of telling their exchange to ban accounts that have been interacting with connections to funds pertaining to the donations to the protestors?
If they all sent those donations to a non-custodial wallet and not from an exchange which has KYC, then they wouldn't have this problem of the seizing  bitcoins/freezing of accounts in the first place.

[franky1]

in response to a similar post in a different topic

You are just trying to justify the dictatorship. The "fact" if you have ever bothered to do some research, is that it had nothing to do with radicalism or even any anti-government move. The cases are simple as liking a photo of truckers protesting mandatory jabs some of them on private profiles.

seriously.. try to read the court order!!
no minister has been involved in the mareva injunction.

the actual time line of events that lead up to the mareva injunction has nothing to do with any politician
you do realise that normal citizens can file lawsuits too.. .. well i hope you realise it

it was a woman in her 20's claiming she was victimised by the protesters on like feb 3rd. where she claimed the honking and disruptions affected her health and mental wellbeing by keeping her up at night and she started an action that the neighbourhood could join into the claim. her claim was just for a $100 a day fine
"The estimated damages per Class Member is $100 per day of the continued use of the unlawful horn tactic."
(feb 4th 'honking injunction (just asking them to stop honking at night))
 it didnt really get her any result.. as it only lasted like a few peaceful nights before the noise started again.

then other local businesses entered into the claim and seen the compensation opportunity and added their own experiences of how the protest affected them.. but at this point the judge was not really in the mindset to actually allow the court order at that point either.
becasue it wasnt much different then the already issued 'honking injunction'

so they added in some extra details like the links of the organisers to some radicalist group of political separatists and showing how the organisers had a tendancy to cause mischief and political threat.. and how fundraising would suport their radical acts. and how by fundraising shows they didnt want to stop causing mischief, showing how they were not willing to stop their mischief, and how the truckers were also causing more mischief beyond a simple 'peaceful' protest (and other things added on)

this was not due to the government over reaching.
and if it was just a "noise complaint" of honking truckers expressing their rights. then the court would have gone in a different direction

all that would have happened was the truckers get a noise complaint fine (much like a parking ticket)
the reason it escalated in such a big deal about freezing funds in relation to possible criminal/radicalised activity was due to the organisers other side hobbies/past history of political motivated malicious acts

[n0nce]

But for that we have mixers. 

We have mixers and CoinJoins, sure. But we also have exchanges that freeze coins that originate from known mixers, casinos, and whatnot. I expect this is going to become a trend in the future. Regulatory pressure will force centralized exchanges to consider funds that came from such services as being dirty, illegal, and laundered. You will be asked to prove that you are not a criminal and not the other way around. For that reason we have decentralized exchanges...until they find a way to blacklist those coins as well. When and if they do that, we are left with face-to-face deals.   

If we extrapolate this to the extreme: governments can also simply state 'now all (opposed to coming from addresses a,b,c,d,e) BTC is illegal', banning anyone from trading BTC for products (buying stuff) or fiat (exchanging currency). It would be a purely legal thing, so no technological changes or advancements can prevent that.

Hence, it's not an issue of Bitcoin / the technology.

Nonetheless, Bitcoin does allow to circumvent such laws without an easy way of detection, through the support of the Tor network, Lightning, etc.... it does get tricky if trying to buy something like a house, nice car or similar with it, since you often have to declare these types of purchases. Then again, in such a scenario, you might ask yourself the question if you like to continue living in such a country.. But that's OT now.

[franky1]

If we extrapolate this to the extreme: governments can also simply state 'now all (opposed to coming from addresses a,b,c,d,e) BTC is illegal', banning anyone from trading BTC for products (buying stuff) or fiat (exchanging currency). It would be a purely legal thing, so no technological changes or advancements can prevent that.

'simply'? um not so simply

some countries have laws where by a government cannot just make a law that causes a sector of industry loss flat out, for no good reason.. without the government compensating the businesses. for its loss of business for their compliance

EG the only reason the the covid restrictions were implemented was because there was a real risk of life to people if businesses didnt go into lockdown, but businesses would be compensated.

a government cant just stop something without first weighing the risks/benefits of such actions.

take the american code 5318A(4)

(4) Process for selecting special measures.—In selecting which special measure or measures to take under this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury—
(A) shall consult with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any other appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) [1] the Secretary of State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration Board, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may find to be appropriate; and
(B) shall consider—
(i) whether similar action has been or is being taken by other nations or multilateral groups;
(ii) whether the imposition of any particular special measure would create a significant competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or burden associated with compliance, for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States;
(iii) the extent to which the action or the timing of the action would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, or on legitimate business activities involving the particular jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions, or type of account; and
(iv) the effect of the action on United States national security and foreign policy.

and other international laws(foreign policy) where industries can sue a government
research ICSID  International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

so the government cant just throw any decision around without showing good lawful reason for enacting a new law/policy. and if there is significant loss to the sectors being limited/halted in operation. the government could/should compensate for this.

.. its things like this that make it next to impossible for countries to say "ok by Xdate in 2023 every utility company has to go green"
and instead the government has to say by X date in 2030-2050. to mitigate potential losses due to their policy. and also offer 'grants' and rebates' for those companies that do follow policy. to mitigate any potential lawsuits.


basically..
its easier and cheaper to blacklist an address or a name of a MSB customer then it is to ban a whole currency system.
its easier and cheaper to blacklist an individual company from operating then it is to ban a whole currency system.
but they still need to show good lawful reason

to ban a whole currency system a government cannot just have some flimsy reason. it has to show good reason that the harm of the industry is more then any possible benefit the industry can offer.

china for instance used the "climate" effect.
america is trying to show that bitcoin is bad for the environment as reason to then possibly regulate it.
but they cant just implement it at a whim. they have to go through all the pro's and cons and seek guidance/judgement from many departments before enacting any change. why do you think china took from 2014-2021 to finally act

they dont just turn up and say "tomorrow you stop"
they dont just email a MSB and say. "we dont like this address, its just spelled wrong so we dont like it"
they still need to show good lawful reason

[Wind_FURY]

Anti-Bitcoin trolls will spread disinformation, and make you believe that Bitcoin is not a solution by using "phrases, and terms" to replace censorship-resistant, which is what Bitcoin truly is as a protocol, as a medium of exchange, and as a store of value.



No centralized, and all poweful entity should be given full control of our ability to transact.