Author

Topic: The recent house hearing concerning bitcoin and cryptocurrencies (Read 263 times)

legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
I mean, the comment on the California Lottery tells it all. This people will always have a pre-determined agenda to respect and in fact they don't actually care about the underlying value of bitcoin.

Jeebus that was bizarre. How is people wasting time on the lottery better than investing in literally anything?? I know that the government gets funding through the lottery, but recommending the people to go with lotteries instead of investing? That's definitely one way to make sure the masses stay poor.

You hit it on the head with the comment above.  They want the money and the power that comes with distributing it.  People like Sherman (and his party) want the power to control everyone by controlling their financial lives.  His attitude is that he doesn't believe people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, but are smart enough to vote dunces like him in to do it for them.  And his "something for nothing" mentality where "someone else" is going to pay for everything is the same mentality that the Democrat slave-owners in the old South had:  I have the right to dispose of the labors of your life merely because I want to do so.  Talk about an evil and immoral philosophy.
Defending their own garden, that's what it's called. The annoying thing is that these people are being paid with taxpayers money to go out in public saying these sort of bullshits.
Great job done by coincenter, I did my small anonymous contribution. Thanks for sharing them mk4, I forgot about them completely.
full member
Activity: 1820
Merit: 107
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG3N_QcHEcs

We're once again remembered how technologically incompetent the committee is, and that Brad Sherman is a worm.

I'm wondering how they will produce quality legislative results when they are deeply divided, it looks like a circus to me, by the way, it doesn't matter anymore because in the end Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will stand victorious over those backward games of politics, just saying my opinion.
hero member
Activity: 2352
Merit: 953
Temporary forum vacation
On the other hand Coin Centre's Peter Van Valkenburgh is an absolute legend.

Definitely. Outside Nic Carter and probably Andreas Antonopoulos, I couldn't think of a better sort of "defender" than Van Valkenburgh.

Donate to Coin Center, people. They're doing a damn great job in defending Bitcoin from these imbeciles: https://www.coincenter.org/donate/

Sadly this is only the first time I have seen or heard his name but you are right,,, the guy's quite good to read about. I did hear his interview last month explaining Bitcoin though and it is SO surprising to hear interviews still talking about Bitcoin like this (comparison about email 20 years ago example).

I still think Andreas has a better way of simplifying things but this is just as good an educator. Thank you:)
mk4
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 3873
📟 t3rminal.xyz
On the other hand Coin Centre's Peter Van Valkenburgh is an absolute legend.

Definitely. Outside Nic Carter and probably Andreas Antonopoulos, I couldn't think of a better sort of "defender" than Van Valkenburgh.

Donate to Coin Center, people. They're doing a damn great job in defending Bitcoin from these imbeciles: https://www.coincenter.org/donate/
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1860
However, at the very least, it is worth appreciating that there are hearings such as this, even if it is just on a relatively small subcommittee level. At least, democratic processes are still working. Moreover, reliable resource persons were invited, given ample amount of time to elucidate on contentious issues regarding Bitcoin and crypto, which probably made a lot of less-informed lawmakers realize the real score.

While the committee may generally be considered technologically incompetent, it has also showcased certain members of congress such as Rep. Anthony Gonzalez and Rep. Warren Davidson who appeared to be objective in appreciating Bitcoin as an emerging financial technology.

I don't think there is much to celebrate or appreciate here. These meetings are done for very small things so I would expect Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies to at least have a hearing. We have to remember that the government will probably be more hostile to Bitcoin than friendly and it does not really matter who they invite to the discussions. It is within their interest to recognize Bitcoin as an emerging financial technology since they currently profit from it. They are in full control and can apply more strict regulations whenever they want. This is why I think these kind of meetings regarding Bitcoin will  be conducting on a routine basis. 

Compare that to a blanket ban on the basis of unfounded assumptions which is what is probably happening in other countries, or even in the US in the earliest years of Bitcoin. A hearing in congress where Bitcoin advocates and evangelists are given time to speak and enlighten the officials, where fellow congressmen debate with each other for or against the technology, is already something worth appreciating.

The moment the government wants to profit from Bitcoin is the moment the government becomes friendly to Bitcoin. At the very least, it is an acknowledgment of Bitcoin as a neutral technology rather than just a criminal's tool.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 13
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG3N_QcHEcs

We're once again remembered how technologically incompetent the committee is, and that Brad Sherman is a worm.

Ben Sherman is an obvious attention seeker. On the other hand Coin Centre's Peter Van Valkenburgh is an absolute legend.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1080
However, at the very least, it is worth appreciating that there are hearings such as this, even if it is just on a relatively small subcommittee level. At least, democratic processes are still working. Moreover, reliable resource persons were invited, given ample amount of time to elucidate on contentious issues regarding Bitcoin and crypto, which probably made a lot of less-informed lawmakers realize the real score.

While the committee may generally be considered technologically incompetent, it has also showcased certain members of congress such as Rep. Anthony Gonzalez and Rep. Warren Davidson who appeared to be objective in appreciating Bitcoin as an emerging financial technology.

I don't think there is much to celebrate or appreciate here. These meetings are done for very small things so I would expect Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies to at least have a hearing. We have to remember that the government will probably be more hostile to Bitcoin than friendly and it does not really matter who they invite to the discussions. It is within their interest to recognize Bitcoin as an emerging financial technology since they currently profit from it. They are in full control and can apply more strict regulations whenever they want. This is why I think these kind of meetings regarding Bitcoin will  be conducting on a routine basis.

Jeebus that was bizarre. How is people wasting time on the lottery better than investing in literally anything?? I know that the government gets funding through the lottery, but recommending the people to go with lotteries instead of investing? That's definitely one way to make sure the masses stay poor.
That is what they want though. They earn from lotteries and there is a lot more people entering the lottery within their jurisdiction than there is in crypto. It was a bizarre comment that only really proves their bias views on the discussion instead of anything noteworthy. 
sr. member
Activity: 1526
Merit: 252
Regardless of what topic you are building on this thread, it would be more convenient when we were given several one-paragraph descriptions to provoke a narrative. but at first glance, you're talking. I'm trying to get into the realm of this topic, so please correct me if there are any mistakes.
As far as I know, when the congress took place, what Warren said had shown how important the presence of Bitcoin and crypto was to continue to push the technology industry to become more sophisticated. where at the time of the discussion we also saw Gonzalez Gonzalez boredom watching for several hours it was very boring. the final decision was just to bruise something that shouldn't have earned the congressmen the credit.
legendary
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1313
I mean, the comment on the California Lottery tells it all. This people will always have a pre-determined agenda to respect and in fact they don't actually care about the underlying value of bitcoin.

Jeebus that was bizarre. How is people wasting time on the lottery better than investing in literally anything?? I know that the government gets funding through the lottery, but recommending the people to go with lotteries instead of investing? That's definitely one way to make sure the masses stay poor.

You hit it on the head with the comment above.  They want the money and the power that comes with distributing it.  People like Sherman (and his party) want the power to control everyone by controlling their financial lives.  His attitude is that he doesn't believe people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, but are smart enough to vote dunces like him in to do it for them.  And his "something for nothing" mentality where "someone else" is going to pay for everything is the same mentality that the Democrat slave-owners in the old South had:  I have the right to dispose of the labors of your life merely because I want to do so.  Talk about an evil and immoral philosophy.
mk4
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 3873
📟 t3rminal.xyz
I mean, the comment on the California Lottery tells it all. This people will always have a pre-determined agenda to respect and in fact they don't actually care about the underlying value of bitcoin.

Jeebus that was bizarre. How is people wasting time on the lottery better than investing in literally anything?? I know that the government gets funding through the lottery, but recommending the people to go with lotteries instead of investing? That's definitely one way to make sure the masses stay poor.
legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG3N_QcHEcs

We're once again remembered how technologically incompetent the committee is, and that Brad Sherman is a worm.
I mean, the comment on the California Lottery tells it all. This people will always have a pre-determined agenda to respect and in fact they don't actually care about the underlying value of bitcoin.
Tom Emmer was more pragmatic when he stated that:“Over the last few years I’ve been fortunate to meet with many great crypto and blockchain innovators. A common refrain during our discussion is that they so badly want to develop their crypto and blockchain ideas right here in the United States. But they don’t because of continuing uncertainty with crypto regulation.”
That's the thing.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 7064
I won't listen all two hours of this hearing but it seems that politicians are generally divided with ones that hate bitcoin and others that invested in Bitcoin or they are sponsored by someone.
They are especially concerned about DEX exchanges and they are talking about banning all exchanges that are not registered and regulated, so we can probably expect more strict regulations in near future.
It may be interesting for people to read Committee Memorandum if they don't want to watch it all:
https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-117-ba09-20210630-sd002.pdf
hero member
Activity: 2352
Merit: 953
Temporary forum vacation
Brad Sherman gets his money and lobbying from banks I guess,,, this is the only explanation I can come up with listening to him.

I suppose when you think about it,,, all the committees hearing about all these different things in different industries and fields are all incompetent in their own ways. People elected them, not academics or not workers necessarily.

And technology experts will be in the tech and research field maybe,,, not currency and finance?
full member
Activity: 218
Merit: 105
The Nomad
However, at the very least, it is worth appreciating that there are hearings such as this, even if it is just on a relatively small subcommittee level. At least, democratic processes are still working. Moreover, reliable resource persons were invited, given ample amount of time to elucidate on contentious issues regarding Bitcoin and crypto, which probably made a lot of less-informed lawmakers realize the real score.

While the committee may generally be considered technologically incompetent, it has also showcased certain members of congress such as Rep. Anthony Gonzalez and Rep. Warren Davidson who appeared to be objective in appreciating Bitcoin as an emerging financial technology.

Yes. It was actually surprising how sort of neutral some of the representatives are. But I swear Brad Sherman is a total dunce.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1860
However, at the very least, it is worth appreciating that there are hearings such as this, even if it is just on a relatively small subcommittee level. At least, democratic processes are still working. Moreover, reliable resource persons were invited, given ample amount of time to elucidate on contentious issues regarding Bitcoin and crypto, which probably made a lot of less-informed lawmakers realize the real score.

While the committee may generally be considered technologically incompetent, it has also showcased certain members of congress such as Rep. Anthony Gonzalez and Rep. Warren Davidson who appeared to be objective in appreciating Bitcoin as an emerging financial technology.
full member
Activity: 218
Merit: 105
The Nomad
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG3N_QcHEcs

We're once again remembered how technologically incompetent the committee is, and that Brad Sherman is a worm.
Jump to: