Boris on Nostr: Fransis Pouliot, Bull Bitcoin's CEO wrote the following in blog post ...
Fransis Pouliot, Bull Bitcoin's CEO wrote the following in blog post https://www.bullbitcoin.com/blog/bitcoin-drain-in-the-usa
> Some people in the Bitcoin space are making the case that no Bitcoin service provider can be interpreted to be a money transmitter because Bitcoin is “not money” but rather is “speech” or “software”.
> This argument is, pardon my French, fucking retarded. Of course, Bitcoin is money. Even if Bitcoin is not legally recognized as such by every government institution in many countries, anybody with half a brain recognizes that it acts as money in practice (particularly when it suits them). Governments refraining to consider Bitcoin as money for political reasons simply classify it as a virtual asset that act as a money equivalent/substitute and include companies dealing with Bitcoin within the same frameworks that cover money service businesses, or they create new frameworks for virtual asset providers entirely, usually similar, and often worse than those covering fiat money transmission.
I disagree with the assertion that labeling "Bitcoin as free speech" is an invalid argument. A similar argument supported the freedom to use cryptography (PGP) in the 20th century. While software source code is indeed software source code, it also embodies free speech and should not be targeted by the government. Similarly, a Bitcoin transaction is not solely a financial transaction but also an expression of free speech, thus warranting protection from government interference.
Consider a deeper perspective: Freedom of speech represents a fundamentally libertarian form of liberty, one of the three primary freedoms that, if upheld, undermine the existence of the state entirely: freedom of speech, assembly, and movement. The state encroaches upon these freedoms while denying its actions. It justifies limiting freedom of speech as "anti-money laundering," restricting assembly as "antitrust laws," and curtailing movement as "migration laws."
Let's call these actions what they are: taxation as theft, migration laws as violations of freedom of movement, antitrust laws as infringements on freedom of assembly, and anti-money laundering measures as infringements on freedom of speech. By acknowledging this reality, the state loses legitimacy and support within society. It faces the choice of either transitioning into an overt totalitarian dictatorship or scaling back its assaults on ordinary human activities such as Bitcoin transactions, assembly, and border crossings.
#bitcoin
> Some people in the Bitcoin space are making the case that no Bitcoin service provider can be interpreted to be a money transmitter because Bitcoin is “not money” but rather is “speech” or “software”.
> This argument is, pardon my French, fucking retarded. Of course, Bitcoin is money. Even if Bitcoin is not legally recognized as such by every government institution in many countries, anybody with half a brain recognizes that it acts as money in practice (particularly when it suits them). Governments refraining to consider Bitcoin as money for political reasons simply classify it as a virtual asset that act as a money equivalent/substitute and include companies dealing with Bitcoin within the same frameworks that cover money service businesses, or they create new frameworks for virtual asset providers entirely, usually similar, and often worse than those covering fiat money transmission.
I disagree with the assertion that labeling "Bitcoin as free speech" is an invalid argument. A similar argument supported the freedom to use cryptography (PGP) in the 20th century. While software source code is indeed software source code, it also embodies free speech and should not be targeted by the government. Similarly, a Bitcoin transaction is not solely a financial transaction but also an expression of free speech, thus warranting protection from government interference.
Consider a deeper perspective: Freedom of speech represents a fundamentally libertarian form of liberty, one of the three primary freedoms that, if upheld, undermine the existence of the state entirely: freedom of speech, assembly, and movement. The state encroaches upon these freedoms while denying its actions. It justifies limiting freedom of speech as "anti-money laundering," restricting assembly as "antitrust laws," and curtailing movement as "migration laws."
Let's call these actions what they are: taxation as theft, migration laws as violations of freedom of movement, antitrust laws as infringements on freedom of assembly, and anti-money laundering measures as infringements on freedom of speech. By acknowledging this reality, the state loses legitimacy and support within society. It faces the choice of either transitioning into an overt totalitarian dictatorship or scaling back its assaults on ordinary human activities such as Bitcoin transactions, assembly, and border crossings.
#bitcoin