[Cryptography] 1984! US Senate Doesn't Launch Forfeiture and Crypto / Cash / Assets / Prepaid War

[grarpamp]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:12 AM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> In article <CAD2Ti2_mMFhXTw0YKcUku03kX-wzjXM4x1nXXgY4tdAeiDJ1kw at mail.gmail.com> you write:
>>> The US and many other
>>> countries have for a long time required you to [declare cash at the border]...
>
>>> adding them to the list of cash-like things.
>>> all it does is make them subject to the same rules
>>
>>Status quo apologist copout from those unable to
>>consider working, cohabitant, symbiotic, even better,
>>innovation, empowerment, and alternatives.
>
> This really sounds like someone who hasn't read the bill, or didn't
> look at the words while doing so.  It regulates physical things that
> one carries through customs.  If the only way you can figure out to
> transport bitcoins is to print your wallet hash on a physical thing,
> you probably have issues beyond the scope of this mailing list.

While this *particular* bill may "only" impinge upon some trivial
to some readers, parts of DC's... the underlying issue present in the
linked posts is that bills are being floated and passed that hamper
upon some aspects of these cryptosystems, of which philosophical
aspects are forefront and capable of / postulated to being different,
by design. And where there is one bill, there will be more, and then
it won't be such a trivial side thing to those interests anymore.

Further, those people hardly understand the ramifications of
even such bills they consider trivial. To do that they'd actually
have to read the bills, and hundreds of pages of associated US Code...

These links should get actual readers started...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5312 (a)(2)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-IV

"Border" games are least of the change.

>>So what exactly is *real money*?
>
> The working definition for economists is whatever you can use to pay
> your taxes.

Who says?

> There are lots of things that are a step or two away from
> money, e.g., a gold coin which you can sell, but that doesn't mean
> they're money too.

Oh right, Governments banned those in the 1930's too.
Can't have other entities (people) digging them out of the ground (printing)
and transacting (DC's, blockchain, etc) privately amongst themselves with
them, no no no.

>  (This definition has some fuzz, e.g., are CDs and
> savings accounts money

Must be, because like their "real money", they lose value
to printflation etc just by holding them. It's intentional.

> -- they use the same units as cash or current
> accounts, but bank rules don't let you use them directly to pay.)

CD's... certainly not with their time locked future value, that'd be
suicide to banks, so they force holders to liquidate.

> I realize that there are people who have faith-based beliefs that
> money is something else, and who apparently believe that governments
> are all illegitimate and have no right to regulate anything*

True, Govt's codes grow very long, and ops very deep upon them,
few ever really ch[o]ose that, explictly or implicitly.

> but you
> can find fringe beliefs about anything.

Like that the planets actually revolve around the sun?

> * - yet many of them expect someone to show up if they dial 911

Then their beliefs are in conflict there and they need to sort out that
discrepancy in their thinking.