Topic: [Mt. Gox Court Case] Do you all know who controls the central bank of France? - page 2. (Read 4295 times)

This is good advice and has the occasionally useful advantage of being true.

An accurate (and probably the least controversial description) of Bitcoin is that is a record of public statements. I don't see that you can outlaw keeping such a record, nor outlaw making new public statements (that others may or may not add to their record) without going head to head with free speech.

What we call it won't matter. Obviously, we're all here not out of some social purpose but because bitcoin is a currency. Miners like using bitcoin to make money. Others like it as a mid-or-long-term investment. Day traders and bot-makers like it because trading here is less complicated and doesn't require $25K while under a strict ruleset that fucks the small guy. Lastly, some like it only to buy stuff or to be hip.

Most people are actually a mix of the above, but very few are using bitcoin for a purpose other than as a currency.

You do have a good point buried in there, however. Namecoin, as a vehicle for speech, might actually be more protected in the US and other free-speech nations than Bitcoin.

If we can sell the idea that bitcoin is money, but money is speech (Hello, occupy wall street), then you've got some protection. Attach Bitcoin to a messaging system and you've got a constitutional conundrum. It would be interesting if bitcoin could piggyback p2p messaging on every transaction. It would be slower than email, but obviously with some advantages.

Bam! Now bitcoin is both a currency and a form of speech. Include the ability to send messages to multiple addresses, and now it's a form of the press (e.g., if I can publish a newsletter by essentially sending small transactions to every subscriber, it's press).

Hell, let's try to hit as many constitutional protections as possible:

1.1 Religion. Quick, someone found a church that uses bitcoin and this new messaging system as the sole means which the church congregates (desseminates religious communication). The principle of semi-anonymous community, wherein one believer is not elevated above others (such as to a priesthood), is actually within the domain of Jesus' teachings.

1.2 Assembly. At this point, twitter itself is probably bulletproof for this reason alone. The equivalency of virtual assembly would be a supreme court decision, but it's one more for the fire. The more that bitcoin could be used for any form of virtual assembly, the better.

1.3 Press (already covered the right to publish).

2. Guns. Uh. Crap. Well, there is a small debate that does exist as to whether newer, stranger forms of arms are covered. For example: hacker tools.

3. Homeowners forcibly housing soldiers. Shit. I don't know.

4. Search and seizure. People pay a lot of attention to the search part of this, but it's also part of the argument against eminent domain being used without judicial involvement or for a third party's advantage, which possibly applies to bitcoin.

5. 6. 7. 8. Rights of the accused, etc. I don't know how this could apply to bitcoin.

9. Other rights may exist and just because they're not in the constitution doesn't mean they can be violated, or something like that. This one is lovely for bitcoin use on the shoulders of such arguments such as freedom of privacy, free movement, biased enforcement of laws, etc.

10. Federalism. Crap. Okay I'm going to give up on this line of insanity right there.

I did those amendments off the top of my head, so they might be off a bit.

I doubt they can buy a lot of things with debts 

Uh huh. The most powerful people in the universe are going to buy the case, but mayyyyyybbbeeee if we just don't mention (anymore) that Bitcoin is money, we can still win the case.

History has shown that people will not be irrational enough to allow their computing power to form a pool that has more than 51% of the power.

The fear was incredible when it was discovered how powerful Deepbit was once getting. I can only imagine the tremors in a more active future.

If you think the Rothschild's are bad, you'd better hide your rigs from De Beers.  I hear they're going to set up a mining pool and take control of the block chain.  Blood Bitcoins are just around the corner.

I haven't made any claims to the existence of a secret elite group.

The fact is the Rothschilds are a major private shareholder in these central banks along with many other financial institutions. I am not making claims to anything that isn't certain.

The fact is when you have the power to manipulate the production of money to your whims, you're omnipotent in regards to political and financial affairs. The incentive to maintain this power is clear. The true motives are undefined.

Goldstein huh?!?  Sounds like a JEWISH name!!!

A secret, elite group is not necessary to explain that banks will operate in their own interests (just as you and I do). Pointing out that some people own and control banks is silly.

Assume that there is an evil Rothschild group behind everything. What benefit is gained from that knowledge? The common criminal down the street with a gun is more dangerous to you than the Rothschilds. In fact, YOU are a greater danger to yourself than the Rothschilds... you're much more likely to kill yourself in a car accident than be in a position where knowledge of the evil Rothschildren will be of use.

Wait a sec, such a terribly distracting course of knowledge and infatuation could ONLY have been created to distract us by ONE group... the Rothschilds!!!!

That would be against their interests. It would only increase the value and adoption of the currency. Considering the whole Bitcoin economy can run off one Bitcoin, destruction by purchase is irrational and impossible. It will not and cannot happen.

doesnt really matter what its called, if they want it they can just buy it up, very easy for anyone in their financial position right now, not so easy if it was being well used, be an exciting ride if they did decide to buy it out tho

They can put all the regulations they want on Bitcoin but they can hardly be enforced. Transactions don't have to be tied to any identity, entity nor purpose. That's easy to fudge in terms of accounting to say the absolute least.

The real reigns are the borders:  Where fiat monies move in and out of Bitcoin.

Regardless of whether BTC is classified as a currency or not, the exchanges accept and hold deposits of real currency for their clients.  In many countries, that puts them firmly in the category of providing financial services and thus requiring a licence as either a deposit-taker, a money transmitter, or both.  Paypal fought this battle years ago throughout the world and ultimately ended up having to acquire financial services licences to continue operating in many places.

Battles yet to be fought are whether BTC and the exchanges will ultimately need to comply with regulations relating to securities and/or commodities, and whether online wallet providers are offering a "financial service".

All you have to do is look where the money flows. There is no conspiracy here; only the inconvenient truth. Feel free to refute me if you have taken the time to understand my position.

I also saw no mention of lizard men 

Feels like you should have mentioned the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission in there somewhere.

https://mtgox.com/press_release_20111021.html

In this Mt. Gox debacle, we're dealing with the Rothschilds along with private shareholders that control the central banks of Europe. You know that Wall Street scum and those billionaires everybody is butthurt about right now? Practically nobodies compared to these guys. These are the rulers of our planet we're dealing with. Undisclosed trillionaires. They own practically every nation's debt on the planet through their privatized banking regime and here is their representative from the Banque De France to make sure one of Bitcoin's central institutions, Mt. Gox, is limited.

Let me tell you: Nobody is getting past these guys in court. They'll buy the whole damn thing out if they have to, if Bitcoin becomes big. A decentralized money where profit is available to the rattiest neckbeard with a dozen GPUs is not their ideal world. Whoever controls the money controls everything, people. A pretty presidential seal and a stack of legal documents is bullshit compared to the omnipotent power of a printing press. Bitcoin challenges that. It neuters the banks and gives it power to every individual who owns a computer. That's true wealth redistribution.

Thus Bitcoin is going nowhere in terms of financial legislation, folks. You might as well forget about Bitcoin getting any legal protection against the banks.

My advice: Don't call it a currency. Don't call it money. Don't associate it with finances. Call it social-based transactions and say it's protected under free speech; The First Amendment if you're American. That's all you have.

They are going to fight this thing tooth-and-nail. We have quite a battle ahead. I don't know exactly what this is going to lead to but it's going to be interesting.