Poll: Is Bitcoin a weapon or speech?

[avikz]

The legal precedent is that encryption is a munition in the United States, and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.

It seems, as per the Export Administration Regulations act, cryptography or encrypted items of specific types are indeed considered as Munitions.

Read here: .https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States

So there are some legal provisions available for the Twitter battle that is ongoing! I am sure some moron within the government will try to prove it in the court of law as well. Thankfully, US doesn't represent the rest of the world!

[laurenB7742]

The legal precedent is that encryption is a munition in the United States, and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.

Don't confuse people here, there is no such precedent.

Bitcoin is a digital currency. It's not a weapon, it's not a free speech mechanism. There's absolutely no way that any court would deem that Bitcoin is protected within the First or the Second amendment. If the US government has a precedent of seizing gold, why would it recognize the right to own Bitcoin as a part of the Constitution?

I don’t mean to confuse anyone. This is not my analysis. The weapon position is from someone named Jason Lowery who works for the US Space Force. I do believe Bitcoin falls under speech because we have a 12 word seed phrase that gives us access to our property. Nobody can say we are not allowed to keep those 12 words in our head, speak those words, or write them down.

I really don't understand why people suddenly treat bitcoin like this, there is so much legality that makes bitcoiners more confuse.

In the beginning it was just that simple, you have your mnemonic phrase, and private keys then it's yours. We don't need to be like debating whether it is considered as a weapon or speech and what legal precedence is covered or not.

Bitcoin is for everyone, simple as that, this people just make it more complicated.

I agree that we don’t need to be debating these things, but there are officials in the US military who are bringing up this debate.

I don’t care what the precedence of anything is. The government still classifies tomatoes as a vegetable for tax purposes. I don’t trust the government. But I have serious concerns about this, because Jason has implied mining is a weapon of mass mutual destruction. Of course he says it’s “non-lethal” and claims to love Bitcoin and want it to advance, but I’m very uncomfortable with this idea.

Bitcoin is made for everyone and here we consider it an investment, a safe store of assets or a method of payment. As for the US military arguing and concluding what it is, we don't care and that doesn't make any sense here either. Who is the guy Jason? and who cares what he says? is he god? Why should we bother with what he says?

You just have to remember one thing, bitcoin is a great product created by Satoshi for us but what people use it for and for what purpose is up to them to choose. No one has the right to ban them.

[pooya87]

The US does not have the cheapest electricity, but they have the money printer. Price is not a concern to the government, especially when it comes to war. The fiat system is built in such a way that it incentivizes spending as quickly as possible, which is the opposite of Bitcoin. Fiat was created to fund war, and as long as the money can be spent before it affects the market, those who print the money can buy whatever they want for the current market prices.

No arguments there but you are forgetting an important bottleneck which is the supply. ASICs don't grow on trees, which means even if they kept printing money to buy them to increase their hashrate they would still have to wait for shipments from China or start building the factories and come up with the technology that could compete with the existing ASICs which is still in Chinese possession.

[yhiaali3]

I do not see that Bitcoin is a weapon or a speech, simply that it is a means of payment just like gold, is there a law that prohibits possession or trading in gold? So why is Bitcoin treated like this?

Simply, Bitcoin can be considered as the valuable things that people own, such as gold, jewelry, rare paintings, etc., these valuable things are kept by people in their homes and their price rises with time, and they can sell them whenever they want at the price they see fit for them, Bitcoin is almost the same as it is A virtual thing that has a high value that increases with time and you have the right to sell it at the price you want.

The government does not have the right to confiscate this property without a legal reason. The same is true for Bitcoin.