Wake up people! Banks are not governments. They can't make things illegal!

[Elwar]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

[franky1]

put simply banks are banning their bank branches from handling out bitcoins.. just like banks wont hand out baked beans directly.

this does not stop individuals or private businesses from using bitcoins.... or baked beans  

banks are simply contracted to only touch fiat. (this has never changed, and is just a reminder)

summary:
you will not find a baked bean or a bitcoin inside your bank account balance or credit card statement.

[tntdgcr]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

bigger newsflash , Banks are more involved with Governance then people imagine. One can be used to exercise the will of the other, and often happens. But hey, you are right, they can't "write" into law their own stuff, but their lobbyists can. and if you can't use the technology at the FIAT point of exchange, you are handicapping the convenience, and therefore the adoption by users.

[LiteCoinGuy]

yep you are right but i guess some more mainstream media will write that bolivia banned btc...

and even if they banned it: who the hell cares? its fucking BOLIVIA! 3. world country... (sry)

[franky1]

yep you are right but i guess some more mainstream media will write that bolivia banned btc...

and even if they banned it: who the hell cares? its fucking BOLIVIA! 3. world country... (sry)

thats why we are trying to stamp down on coindesks stupid and unresearched 'opinion' (like many other stories they write) before mainstream reads it and thinks it is true. hopefully mainstream media will do the research like we have.

coin desk is getting worse!

[S4VV4S]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

No, banks are not countries, banks are the controllers of ANY country's economy.

I do not understand what your statement is but Bitcoins can also be controlled by banks.
They have the means to print the shit paper we call "money'.
So yeah banks can do pretty much whatever they want even with Bitcoin because as we have witnessed Bitcoin is controlled by the one who has the biggest hashrate.

Bitcoin experts please prove me wrong....
(and I truly do mean it)

[franky1]

No, banks are not countries, banks are the controllers of ANY country's economy.

I do not understand what your statement is but Bitcoins can also be controlled by banks.
They have the means to print the shit paper we call "money'.
So yeah banks can do pretty much whatever they want even with Bitcoin because as we have witnessed Bitcoin is controlled by the one who has the biggest hashrate.

Bitcoin experts please prove me wrong....
(and I truly do mean it)

we see your point, we know that side of government exists.

but if you actually read the BCB (bolivian central bank) anouncement. not coindesks interpretation of panamposts article.
not panamposts article's interpretation of the banks notification.

but if you read the actualy BCB announcement you will see that it mentions that bitcoins are an investment risk (standard investment warning every country has) and that it says that financial institutions are reccommended to not directly touch bitcoin and stick with FIAT.

this is the same as what every other country has said.

its just that people then put their own opinions to this, such as the point your making. and doing a 1+1=3. (invisible 1(your opinion)

bitcoin is maths so im sticking with 1+1=2. so if you can prove 1+1=3  and show me in the announcement or in actual law that the "invisible 1" is actually active and involved. then your point can be used in this scenario.

so show me the act (bank policy), show me the law (governement rule) before allowing this fud to spread further

[thecoindoctor]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

Before mentioning things like this, please post facts first.

[beetcoin]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

i guess we live in different worlds. maybe the situation is different in bolivia, but banks DO run countries.. especially in the USA. our politicians work for the big corporations, and banks have A LOT of money to throw at them. in spite of what happened in 2008, there have not been any major players who were arrested for the shit they pulled. do you think that's a coincidence?

[bitsmichel]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

i guess we live in different worlds. maybe the situation is different in bolivia, but banks DO run countries.. especially in the USA. our politicians work for the big corporations, and banks have A LOT of money to throw at them. in spite of what happened in 2008, there have not been any major players who were arrested for the shit they pulled. do you think that's a coincidence?

It depends on the country indeed. I don't know about Bolivia, but not in all countries the banks are the most powerful;
 

[Meuh6879]

you can't buy on internet without a bank.
that why bitcoin must rease !

[beetcoin]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

i guess we live in different worlds. maybe the situation is different in bolivia, but banks DO run countries.. especially in the USA. our politicians work for the big corporations, and banks have A LOT of money to throw at them. in spite of what happened in 2008, there have not been any major players who were arrested for the shit they pulled. do you think that's a coincidence?

It depends on the country indeed. I don't know about Bolivia, but not in all countries the banks are the most powerful;
 

yeah i don't disagree with that.. but banking is one of the most powerful instutitions in the world, and i don't think people realize that. all wars need to be funded, cartel drug lords need to be funded, terrorism, presidential elections, politicians.. they all tie back to banks. money makes the world go round, and who do you think are the brokers of money?

[franky1]

yes we understand the economics lesson.. we understood it years before you were born...

but the point is, its not law right now that bitcoins are banned from human use.
its not even banks policy.

try to translate the banks announcement (not the media's opinion) and you will see its an announcement/recommendation. that only tells banks not to personally hold bitcoins.

so until someone is arrested under some law for using bitcoins.. shut up trying to exaggerate an announcement into a countrywide ban against human use.!!!!

seriously this is like telling the world that termites eat houses, then someone announces their house is made of wood. and you shout out that termites are destroying everyones house and eating everyones wooden leg and clothing.

chill out bolivians (human beings) can still use bitcoins. they just cant go to a standard bank owned bureau de change to get them. they will have to get them through businesses, localbitcoins, meetups..

the same as the rest of the world

now lock this thread

[Balls]

Simple solution: stop listening to the banks. People can easily take the banks power away from them.

[S4VV4S]

Simple solution: stop listening to the banks. People can easily take the banks power away from them.

The same goes for politics: it's your vote that counts

The only problem is, who is counting the votes ?

[tabnloz]

Simple solution: stop listening to the banks. People can easily take the banks power away from them.

The same goes for politics: it's your vote that counts

The only problem is, who is counting the votes ?

Or, are your voting options really only 2 sides of the same face?

[jc01480]

Consider your local bank branch as a convenience store.  Once the "convenience" is removed, it is no longer sustainable and closes (lost revenue, local marketing influence, reduced investment opportunity, etc.).  Banks are a dying breed.

[allthingsluxury]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

I agree with you on many levels, but unfortunately banks do run governments. Not the other way around.

[knight22]

Banks are not states but they do have a powerful lobby.

[freedombit]

News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

bigger newsflash , Banks are more involved with Governance then people imagine. One can be used to exercise the will of the other, and often happens. But hey, you are right, they can't "write" into law their own stuff, but their lobbyists can. and if you can't use the technology at the FIAT point of exchange, you are handicapping the convenience, and therefore the adoption by users.

Let's take it up a notch.

Banks don't think or do anything. Governments don't think or do anything. Individual people within banks and governments guide these institutions.

There are plenty of individual people in both banking institutions and governments that are PRO Bitcoin and changing their FIAT for Bitcoin.

Create more Bitcoin followers in the banks and governments, and the banks and governments will support Bitcoin. (If banks and governments "do" anything.)

[Cicero2.0]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

I agree with you on many levels, but unfortunately banks do run governments. Not the other way around.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but I am starting to believe this.

[Elwar]

Banks can certainly influence governments and get their candidates elected just like large corporations or unions or any other large economic force.

But until a bank has the power of guns and can kidnap you and lock you in a cage in a socially acceptable manner, they cannot make things illegal. Only governments are allowed to do that.

And since no government has passed a law saying that they will kidnap you and lock you in a cage if you use bitcoins then it has not been made illegal.

Even the bank of Bolivia, as powerful as it may be, has not influenced their government to pass such a law. Hence, Bolivia (the country's government) has not banned bitcoins.

[CurbsideProphet]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

Pretty sure McDonald's doesn't have the authority to ban a Burger King product  

[CoolBliss]

Banks sometimes can be more cruel than worst governments are

[btcxyzzz]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Banks are countries, banks are states.

[hdbuck]

banks own you all.

[Willisius]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

As others have said, banks are integral to and have significant control over governments. I'd just like to add an addendum that we are all quite awake.

[jonsi]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

It may be but most of the time banks controls governments.

[Elwar]

Pretty sure McDonald's doesn't have the authority to ban a Burger King product  

McDonalds has as much authority to ban a Burger King product as a bank has to ban a competing currency.

[cryptnutter]

Unfortunately to many people the articles may as well read that the country itself banned Bitcoin.

What we really need is to counter those articles with articles which show how irrelevant the first article was 

[Ludi]

The power of FUD strikes again with this. Half of the time the banks or governments haven't even 'banned' bitcoin but people panic like they have. Misinformation spreads fear all too easily.

[johnyj]

As long as people have belief in their printed money, banks can print money and purchase everything including the governmet

[smoothie]

The fed is a bank and with enough monetary influence on the US government they can buy whatever law they want practically.

[lihuajkl]

put simply banks are banning their bank branches from handling out bitcoins.. just like banks wont hand out baked beans directly.

this does not stop individuals or private businesses from using bitcoins.... or baked beans 

banks are simply contracted to only touch fiat. (this has never changed, and is just a reminder)

summary:
you will not find a baked bean or a bitcoin inside your bank account balance or credit card statement.

yes，the announcement can't stop people from using BTC. But it effects the distributin and application of BTC. First. People who don't really understand what btc is get scared about BTC and get away with it. people heard the bad news and are convinced. Second. Banks ban all the transactions related BTC. If people who hold BTC is not easy to change to fiat through the domestic exchange.Even they can, how can they withdraw the fiat through bank?

[justusranvier]

McDonalds has as much authority to ban a Burger King product as a bank has to ban a competing currency.

I don't know what "authority" means in practice.

GE can get incandescent light bulbs banned because they want to sell more CFLs. Taxi cartels can get Uber and Lyft banned. Appalachian coal mining companies can get EPA regulations that flavor their dirtier coal over the cleaner Rocky Mountain coal. Child seat manufacturers are well on their way to getting driving banned if any child under 30 years old isn't sitting in one of their products. Monsanto can get seed lines that aren't Roundup Ready banned.

Do any of these companies have the authority to do this?

All that matters is whether they succeed or fail in getting what they want, and they succeed fairly often.

[Elwar]

McDonalds has as much authority to ban a Burger King product as a bank has to ban a competing currency.

I don't know what "authority" means in practice.

GE can get incandescent light bulbs banned because they want to sell more CFLs. Taxi cartels can get Uber and Lyft banned. Appalachian coal mining companies can get EPA regulations that flavor their dirtier coal over the cleaner Rocky Mountain coal. Child seat manufacturers are well on their way to getting driving banned if any child under 30 years old isn't sitting in one of their products. Monsanto can get seed lines that aren't Roundup Ready banned.

Do any of these companies have the authority to do this?

All that matters is whether they succeed or fail in getting what they want, and they succeed fairly often.

In each of your examples:
company -> government -> ban

In no instance can:
company -> ban
other than within their own company.

We get it. Banks have a lot of money/influence/lobbyists, etc.

But a bank cannot ban bitcoins.

Unless a bank has the power to kidnap people and put them in a cage after a socially accepted show of "fairness" they do not have the power to make something illegal. Only governments have such power.

[sumantso]

Governments are controlled by money men. Make no mistake, banks have a huge influence on them.

Virtually all the political events, decisions can be traced back to money motives by greedy people.

[justusranvier]

In each of your examples:
company -> government -> ban

In no instance can:
company -> ban
other than within their own company.

We get it. Banks have a lot of money/influence/lobbyists, etc.

But a bank cannot ban bitcoins.

Unless a bank has the power to kidnap people and put them in a cage after a socially accepted show of "fairness" they do not have the power to make something illegal. Only governments have such power.

You're just splitting hairs.

[rext]

technically the banks do pay them a certain percentage.

[Elwar]

You're just splitting hairs.

When a central bank's legal department recommends banning the use of bitcoins in the banks it is not splitting hairs to say that the country (Bolivia) did not ban bitcoin.

[justusranvier]

You're just splitting hairs.

When a central bank's legal department recommends banning the use of bitcoins in the banks it is not splitting hairs to say that the country (Bolivia) did not ban bitcoin.

That's a different issue.

The thread's claim is "banks can't make things illegal."

[ArticMine]

This depends to a large degree how the central bank is structured. In many parts of the world it is simply an arm of the government, a ministry or department, and not "independent" as is the case for example in the United States. If one visits the Central Bank of Bolivia website http://www.bcb.gob.bo/?q=Funciones%20del%20Banco%20Central it says:

El Banco Central es una institution del Estado

or

The Central Bank is an institution of the State

So yes in some countries central banks can make things illegal. As I indicated in this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=658405.0;all I believe that the Bolivian Central Bank tried to ban Bitcoin but failed because they worded their resolution very poorly.

[BittBurger]

coin desk is getting worse!

They're definitely putting out click bait news titles which is irritating the sh*t out of me.   But I guess that's the natural progression the larger you get. 
The Shrem news article threw me this week, claiming the "Govt banned him from speaking at the conference".
In reality he simply wasn't allowed to leave NY, and he was free to speak at the conference remotely.

[electerium]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

do you understand that those banks in bolivia are state run? which makes them defacto governments?

[Elwar]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

do you understand that those banks in bolivia are state run? which makes them defacto governments?

Can those banks write laws?

They stated that they will only use government currencies in their banks. This does not make all other things illegal in Bolivia.

[franky1]

banks can only stop people from getting bitcoins from banks.

the bank announcement says that banks won't directly handle / offer bitcoins, burgerking whoppers, baked beans, or tamagotchi electronic pets. they will however offer you a toaster when you open an account.

this does not make whoppers, bitcoins baked beans, tamagotchi's illegal. and toasters legal.
this does not make it a criminal act for people/private businesses to personally hold, buy or sell whoppers, bitcoins baked beans, tamagotchi's

[bananaeater]

Banks certainly have a country's economy under control but in the end their power is not overwhelming. They are not fully able to ban a currency, which is futhermore virtual and decentralized.

[#Darren]

True, but....

the banks OWN most nations, including the uSA.  Most of us are glorified slaves serving the banks.

Unless you come from Iceland, who have thrown off and jailed their oppressors.

[Kprawn]

Well to be more specific... Reserve Banks, are directly linked to government. They decide, how much currency will be "created" and then it's channelled to banks.

So your bank loans money from the reserve banks and then your bank loans the money to you.

So if your government decide not to back BTC they would "advise" the reserve bank, and the reserve bank, will "advice" their banks, and then your bank will freeze your accounts, dealing with bitcoins.

Well that is how, I was told, how it works. So if I am wrong, I beg your forgiveness. 

In short, governments pulls the strings, and we are the puppets. And when you deal only in BTC and do not convert to fiat, the strings are cut. 

[franky1]

True, but....

the banks OWN most nations, including the uSA.  Most of us are glorified slaves serving the banks.

Unless you come from Iceland, who have thrown off and jailed their oppressors.

get off the illuminati titled videos of youtube, come back to reality.. dont walk into the light..

banks cannot tell you that its illegal to pick your nose, to breathe, to swim in an ocean, to watch endless illuminati videos..

you are a human you have the choice to even ignore me asking you to stop sniffing the glue while watching the videos.

same goes for bitcoin. so please put into context banks control into real world, real reality scenarios. and not youtube fantasy.

summary
a bank tomorrow wont make a criminal law that outlaws bitcoins for consumer use between people. banks can lobby governments, and those governments can have there many months of meetings sending the request up the chain of command to the law makers, who then have thier own processes of evaluating the pro's and cons.

but a bank cannot click its own finger and thumb and outlaw bitcoins tomorrow.

alot of you activist mindsets try to make it appear that banks can directly ban bitcoins in an instant, with no processes, no chances of public hearings, petitions, overviews, decisions by anyone outside the banking system

[SpontaneousDream]

You're a fool if you think the banking institutions are not closely tied to government officials. Banks have A LOT of power and lee-way in this world (at least in the US). They're going to lobby hard for whatever they want, and there's not much the average person can do.

[franky1]

You're a fool if you think the banking institutions are not closely tied to government officials. Banks have A LOT of power and lee-way in this world (at least in the US). They're going to lobby hard for whatever they want, and there's not much the average person can do.

not from your sofa...

but i do love how these sofa surfing activists have alot to say on a forum but would never step foot into a government hearing to make their voice heard..

.. "because the government is illuminati".. i hear them cry

luckily im in the UK, and yes i do go to political events and other things that matter. so i have a better grasp of reality than the youtube viewing sofa surfing armchair activists that are posting apocalypse stories

[Elwar]

You're a fool if you think the banking institutions are not closely tied to government officials. Banks have A LOT of power and lee-way in this world (at least in the US). They're going to lobby hard for whatever they want, and there's not much the average person can do.

Most big companies have lobbyists that can push for laws. That is different from saying that companies can write laws.

[Beliathon]

Banks have A LOT of power and lee-way in this world (at least in the US). They're going to lobby hard for whatever they want, and there's not much the average person can do.

Power is more complex than you think, child. Public perception matters a great deal - now more than ever for the banks. They're on thin ice, and so is the US government. They're smart enough to know it, they won't be kicking any political hornets nests anytime soon.



This ain't China. Americans have guns and tempers. Imagine what could happen if the government managed to piss everyone off enough to unite Teaparty militiaman and Occupy Wall Street anarchists... It wouldn't be pretty, that's for damn sure.

[spazzdla]

Amercian's do have guns, is it starting to make sense now that gun violence is dropping massively but the media is still pushing the anti gun agenda..  Do you see what is going on.... it's quite scary.
Hitler removed all the guns from his people... it was celebrated as a great victory.. a few years later people were rounded up and gased..

[Beliathon]

Amercian's do have guns, is it starting to make sense now that gun violence is dropping massively but the media is still pushing the anti gun agenda..

I'm pushing the anti-gun agenda, and I hate the mainstream media. I don't think human beings need to be using violence to solve our problems in 2014. I think it's a fucking barbaric travesty that we still do.

Here are some facts to help deprogram your gun-loving brainwashing:



You like your guns because someone a whole lot smarter than you figured out that if they can program a nation of 300 million people to love guns, they could make a shitload of money selling guns to idiots who don't need them.

Gun culture = PROFIT, in exchange for your blood. Simpleton.

[franky1]

Amercian's do have guns, is it starting to make sense now that gun violence is dropping massively but the media is still pushing the anti gun agenda..

I'm pushing the anti-gun agenda, and I hate the mainstream media. I don't think human beings need to be using violence to solve our problems in 2014. I think it's a fucking barbaric travesty that we still do.

Here are some facts to help deprogram your gun-loving brainwashing:

forgive me for being british, but i have never been a gun lover or someone that see's the point in them.

if someone breaks into your house why is the mindset to kill them. wouldnt stun guns, or tranquilizer guns do a better job. as most people know unless average joe public was a marksman and could guarantee a headshot. a gun wont kill instantly, it usually just stops them in their tracks, injures them and a few minutes later they die due to blood loss.

a stungun does a better job of dropping someone to the floor even if you shoot them in the arm.. and there is no blood to clean up after, meaning your nice white shagpile rug doesnt need to be thrown out.

secondly in a apocalyptic world of zombies and disaster (the other reason gun lovers say they need to arm up) killing a military soldier would get 20 soldiers killing you. but stunning them with a tranquilizer would be less risky to your life, as they would know their colleague was still alive, and concentrate on getting him out of the danger zone and conscious

[BADecker]

Actually, banks just might be the government. Probably the strongest nation in the world is the United States. And here's how the banks are the government for the United States. And since they are government for the U.S., they are the government for the world, since the U.S. is the strongest nation in the world at this time.

House Joint Resolution 192 in the U.S. (1933) declared the bankruptcy of the United States. See:
http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/HJR192.htm.

For more significant understandings about this, see:
http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/US_Congress_House_Joint_Resolution_192_of_June_5_1_3312.shtml.

The U.S. bankruptcy was a chapter 11-like bankruptcy, a reorganization bankruptcy. In a chapter 11, the business that has gone bankrupt - in this case, the United States - is placed into a trust with a trustee running the show. The idea is to let the business continue operations with a trustee overseer guiding it so that it starts to operate in profit rather than in loss.

So, who is the trustee for the United States? Well, bankruptcy has to do with money, which has to do with banking. So it is probably the Federal Reserve Bank, or the International Monetary Fund that is the trustee.

In a bankruptcy, business bylaws are suspended in favor of trustee directives. In the case of the United States, the Constitution has been suspended in favor of the "orders" set down by the trustee. That is why the Federal Reserve Bank prints the money, controls lending and inflation, regulates anything having to do with money, and thereby indirectly controls government.

Now, there is the possibility (probability?) that the bankruptcy was a lie, set in place to bring even the U.S. into the One World Government. If we can find the lie, we just might be able to use it to escape the whole bankruptcy idea from within. Until then, Bitcoin is one of the few things that just might be able to fly in the face of the U.S. bankruptcy and destroy it from the outside.

[spazzdla]

True, but....

the banks OWN most nations, including the uSA.  Most of us are glorified slaves serving the banks.

Unless you come from Iceland, who have thrown off and jailed their oppressors.

get off the illuminati titled videos of youtube, come back to reality.. dont walk into the light..

banks cannot tell you that its illegal to pick your nose, to breathe, to swim in an ocean, to watch endless illuminati videos..

you are a human you have the choice to even ignore me asking you to stop sniffing the glue while watching the videos.

same goes for bitcoin. so please put into context banks control into real world, real reality scenarios. and not youtube fantasy.

summary
a bank tomorrow wont make a criminal law that outlaws bitcoins for consumer use between people. banks can lobby governments, and those governments can have there many months of meetings sending the request up the chain of command to the law makers, who then have thier own processes of evaluating the pro's and cons.

but a bank cannot click its own finger and thumb and outlaw bitcoins tomorrow.

alot of you activist mindsets try to make it appear that banks can directly ban bitcoins in an instant, with no processes, no chances of public hearings, petitions, overviews, decisions by anyone outside the banking system

What will happen to me if I refuse to pay my taxes as I do not want to support the central banks which our countries loan money from illegally and we pay back with interest?  We are slaves.

[BADecker]

What will happen to me if I refuse to pay my taxes as I do not want to support the central banks which our countries loan money from illegally and we pay back with interest?  We are slaves.

There are about 3.79 million square miles in the United States. That's something over 7.5 acres for every person in the country. But since most of the people live in the big cities, you could live off the land in some vacant area of the U.S. If you happen to be gregarious, you could live off what you find in dumpsters in the big cities.

Check out http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/US_Congress_House_Joint_Resolution_192_of_June_5_1_3312.shtml to see how you can use the bankruptcy to make the banks your slave.



EDIT: Incidentally, if the bankruptcy is declared a lie, and if the banks lose there control, and the treasury takes over the money, and the Constitution is found to be the controller of the U.S. again, Bitcoin might not be needed any longer.

[PolarPoint]

Banks cannot make bitcoin illegal, but they can close our accounts if we use our accounts to send or receive funds from exchanges. If all local banks close or freeze accounts once they are used for bitcoin activities, it is the same as bitcoin being outlawed.

[tmbp]

LOL, banks are not governments.

Banks could probably make oxygen illegal if they wanted to.

[franky1]

Banks cannot make bitcoin illegal, but they can close our accounts if we use our accounts to send or receive funds from exchanges. If all local banks close or freeze accounts once they are used for bitcoin activities, it is the same as bitcoin being outlawed.

most banks accept individuals/businesses that do bitcoins. but hate such entities that lie to banks. by pretending they offer advertising services or other stuff because they are scared that banks wont like the truth. also exchanges that want to handle FIAT for customers, but stupidly pretend they dont need FIAT money transmission licences, registering a business name with the state and IRS. thus banks treat the entity as being a financial risk as they are acting shady, not because they hold bitcoins.

so while you exaggerate the current state of banking, which is not objectionable to bitcoin, what are you doing to future proof yourself from any possible future changes..? or what are you doing to make things even easier.

or do you guys just want to sit on your asses and whine on forums saying "banks control governments, we cant do nothing" crying like babies?

[Beliathon]

Banks could probably make oxygen illegal if they wanted to.

Capitalism wouldn't make oxygen illegal, but if they could they would surely put it into plastic bottles and sell it to us for two dollars a pop, just like they have done with water - despite it being available from every faucet.

Bottled water is the greatest marketing coup in the history of mankind. Here in NYC we have some of the best tap water in the nation - fresh from the Adirondacks. Yet the consumer-whore brainwashed population loves to buy bottled water anyway, because it's "fancier".

Despite the fact that bottled water actually has LESS regulatory restrictions than tap! Such insanity...

Perhaps global pollution is being done deliberately to create the future market for fresh clean oxygen, bottled up into plastic for a few cents and than sold to brainwashed masses for a few dollars. Suddenly another billion dollar industry is born.

[PolarPoint]

or do you guys just want to sit on your asses and whine on forums saying "banks control governments, we cant do nothing" crying like babies?

Not all banks dislike account holders to buy and sell bitcoin, mine does. I received a letter from my bank asking where the bitcoin are from and when I spoke to them, they "persuaded" me to send the money to another bank. The fact is, most banks fear the trouble of dealing with money from bitcoin. This is no exaggeration. I buy from ATMs now and wire fiat to another bank.

[BADecker]

LOL, banks are not governments.

Banks could probably make oxygen illegal if they wanted to.

Remember Viet Nam? Iraq, Afghanistan, and the whole Middle East are being facilitated into the thing that was behind Viet Nam. Here's what it is.

The banks didn't have clear strength in Viet Nam. There were too many powerful individuals there, who would not work with the banks. The war was about subduing those individuals by either removing them, or by incorporating them - more or less voluntarily under threat - into the world banking system.

Google "Viet Nam." Today that country has a higher standard of living than it has ever had before... with regard to the general public, that is. Of course, they have the same minor slavery that Europe and America have - the slavery of having to pay a portion of their funds to the banks through taxes.

The bankers have come to understand that if you want to enslave the people, you need to let the people think that they have freedom. And in order to do this, you have to give them some REAL freedom. In fact, almost all the wars of the 1900s were about the bankers taking over, so that they could give the nations of the world, say, 90% freedom, while enslaving them through taxes of one form of another to the tune of 10% that would be turned over to the bankers. That's what WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Kroatia, etc., and now the Middle East, Yemen, Pakistan, and now, also, the Ukraine are all about. It's all about the bankers retaining control to keep the people free enough so that they unknowingly and unwittingly hand over a certain percentage of their labor to the banks.

Governments are secondary. Virtually all wars are bankers' wars. Banks rule.

What will bankers do when they have established themselves securely in power over the whole world? Who knows? But, they are aware that if they don't have the strength of direct force to use on the people, the people will rebel.

Bitcoin will have to be removed. Bitcoin has the potential strength to destroy the banking system, worldwide.

[ajareselde]

Banks are not countries. Banks are not states.

Bolivia did not ban bitcoins. Bolivia's banks did.

Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.  are not warning against using bitcoins. Their banks are.



Saying that a country bans bitcoins when their main banks ban them is like saying that a country has banned Whoppers because McDonalds in that country has banned all Whopper sales in their restaurants.


News alert, banks do not transfer bitcoins. Banks do not hold bitcoins in their accounts. Banning their use in their banks is meaningless.

yeah, but im guessing politicians are not that far from banks, and all they care about is protecting their interests.
getting rid of this "problem" started to solve itself when political parties started to recieve donations in bitcoin.
we need them on our side , and this is the perfect way

[tmbp]

Banks could probably make oxygen illegal if they wanted to.

Capitalism wouldn't make oxygen illegal, but if they could they would surely put it into plastic bottles and sell it to us for two dollars a pop, just like they have done with water - despite it being available from every faucet.

Bottled water is the greatest marketing coup in the history of mankind. Here in NYC we have some of the best tap water in the nation - fresh from the Adirondacks. Yet the consumer-whore brainwashed population loves to buy bottled water anyway, because it's "fancier".

Despite the fact that bottled water actually has LESS regulatory restrictions than tap! Such insanity...

Perhaps global pollution is being done deliberately to create the future market for fresh clean oxygen, bottled up into plastic for a few cents and than sold to brainwashed masses for a few dollars. Suddenly another billion dollar industry is born.

There is a difference between could and would