Topic: Does the US gov owns Bitcoin? (Read 1593 times)
Doesn't really matter if they legally do or don't, here in America, the USA government can own me, you, us, your house, my house, my sperm, and yours too if they want it. Not like we can stop them.
1. US Government owns printed money
2. You own US printed money
3. The US Government owns you
Puts bitcoin into perspective, doesn't it.
2. You own US printed money
3. The US Government owns you
Puts bitcoin into perspective, doesn't it.
ownership does't really matter. the individual has the choice to work and spend effort and energy to acquire said "money". you can print money, but you cant print wealth/value.
unless you are an all out slave, your labor is yours alone.
Phil Zimmermann, authoer of PGP, created an interesting precedent on ammunition regulations:
"""
Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book,[13] via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code text files. One could then build the application using the freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case).
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation
"""
Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book,[13] via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code text files. One could then build the application using the freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case).
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation
Thank you.
Phil Zimmermann, authoer of PGP, created an interesting precedent on ammunition regulations:
"""
Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book,[13] via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code text files. One could then build the application using the freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case).
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation
"""
Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book,[13] via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code text files. One could then build the application using the freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case).
"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation
1. US Government owns printed money
2. You own US printed money
3. The US Government owns you
Puts bitcoin into perspective, doesn't it.
2. You own US printed money
3. The US Government owns you
Puts bitcoin into perspective, doesn't it.
1. Bitcoin use SHA.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
US Gov't property released to the public is always in the public domain. Incorporating something in the public domain does not transfer copyright.2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
Ok, so what's with US gov cryptography export regulations?
Do you suppose that generally export regulations only apply to government property?
1. Bitcoin use SHA.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
US Gov't property released to the public is always in the public domain. Incorporating something in the public domain does not transfer copyright.2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
Ok, so what's with US gov cryptography export regulations?
They consider strong encryption to be 'ammunition' under export law. Rediculous, really, but it has zero effect upon bitcoin, because bitcoin doesn't actually encrypt transactions or any other broadcast data object. The network is, generally, broadcast in the clear. Secure hashing algos are not encryption algos.
Do they own addition too?
Who cares.
Maybe they will kill you, but it won't actually be because you are a witch no matter what they say.
Who cares.
Maybe they will kill you, but it won't actually be because you are a witch no matter what they say.
1. Bitcoin use SHA.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
US Gov't property released to the public is always in the public domain. Incorporating something in the public domain does not transfer copyright.2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
Ok, so what's with US gov cryptography export regulations?
1. Bitcoin use SHA.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
US Gov't property released to the public is always in the public domain. Incorporating something in the public domain does not transfer copyright. 2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
what if the US Gov (or any other) have found a weakness in SHA?
According to Wiki, there's SHA-3.....just in-case I suppose.
what if the US Gov (or any other) have found a weakness in SHA?
1. Bitcoin use SHA.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
2. The US gov owns SHA algorithm.
Jump to: