Topic: What happens when the US makes crypto-currency illegal? - page 5. (Read 8827 times)

This is an opinion. I asked for facts. I wanted him to tell me what a citizen is factually.

BTW, I find your opinion on what a citizen is 99% in concordance with mine 

A citizen is an undead cartoon of a human, an enslaved payer of protection money to the state/church mafia, farmed in monogamous pairing families.

If the government really wanted to get rid of Bitcoin they could take down the internet, although that is unlikely because too many businesses in this day and age rely on the internet. I think another dangerous outcome could be the investment in mining equipment. Who are the best miners? The richest people. Who is the richest entity? The government.
They could litteraly invest millions in building ASICs just to take over the network.

Love this

that is an AMENDED document. Under the living document argument, it means whatever the PTB say it means (read Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe he coined the term).

It has been interesting to observe the development of our thread.

My comments so far are:

1. The current US government requires the US dollar. It is necessary for its survival in its current form. Hence, Bitcoin will be made illegal soon in the United States. (With Peter Vessenes organizing a lobby, he will fuck it up. Perhaps there is a reason he will fuck it up).
2. Hemp and certain Mushrooms are illegal in most of the United States. They have been here for millions of years, Bitcoin for about 4 years.
3. The current US government is controlled by a layer above.
4. Most people who in live in the geographical area of the United States are good people. They are not the US government.

Predictions for the future:

1. People will be put in "Crytpo-Camps" for reprogramming by the US government.
2. The idea of distributed crypto-currency is out of bottle, the next stage of economic organization will take place. It will be a difficult transition.

Comment on the dork (troll) SEC Agent:

Where was the SEC for Lehman, Enron, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and AIG scams? The SEC is an unnecessary appendage of the US government.

Comment on charters:

These charters are old, they refer to god. There is no god. If god shows up with a charter then we can take a look.
There could be a new charter for the rights of people in this digital age.

Comment on countries:

There should be no countries and no world government. Let's get back to the freedom of the Magna Carta days where you could travel where you wanted without papers. But let's get rid of the Lords too.

Comment on discoveries:

Bitcoin was a wonderful discovery by Satoshi. All the pieces were there and he put them together. Let this be encouragement that there are other great discoveries that can be uncovered to free people from the Lords.

Many people would be ruined.  But huge buys would be seeb miles away in a sence.  Lots of people would cash out rather quickly with the hike.  Look what happend when it hit $250. The winners wher the ones who bounced some serious coin at that pinnacle price  I certainly bounced a fair amount.  Most didn't really give two shits.  They would hang on reguardless.  The losers however kept buying at that high rate without feeling it out.  The same thing would happen if the feds engulfed the market.

The major problem I do see.  If it was to hike up to ab insane price would these exchanges be able to pay out? Can you see btc cashing out a few million?  Not I

IMO is obvious that sooner or later factual powers will attack Bitcoin. But banning it may very well be a short sighted and counterproductive strategy,  and they should know it.

Mid term would be more effective for them to buy as many coins as possible and then crash the market so millions of people are ruined. Sure, they would have created notable fortunes in the process, but that's just collateral damage. Most of people would just avoid to go nowhere near Bitcoin, at least for a while.

Long term, not even that kind of stunt may be enough to kill Bitcoin (or a superior decentralized crypto)

Reason why the U.S won't ban it:

Don't you think a Country would want to make a powerful currency? Right now BitCoin is used by millions. All from different cities, towns, states, countries, and regions. BitCoin is probably the highest cryptocurrency right now. Instead of destroying it, wouldn't you think the U.S would want to control all of it?
I doubt they'd have the guts to destroy the future currency of the world. Most likely try to control it.

I disagree. Occam's razor. The most common sense thing to any person is to read the text only for what it says.


Okay, but how many ways can you interpret the following:

No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

The first part of that Wikipedia article states, "A living document or dynamic document is a document that is continually edited and updated". 

I suppose (depending on what you consider "continually") the definition may apply to the Constitution or not.  My interpretation is that since the document can (and is) updated through Ammendments, it would qualify.  That said, I see how you arrive at your interpretation as well.

The reality of the situation is that there is not one definitive answer, which is why we have the supreme court to analyze and interpret the law, and why different judges, legal scholars, and lawyers have come to conflicting conclusions about how the constitution should be interpreted.


 

It depends on what you mean by living document. If you only mean amending the Constitution yes that is constitutional, but "living document" would not be the right way to refer to this process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document

I doubt the U.S Government has the power to stop Cryptocurrencies. I also doubt that they'd try.

If they ever do, I'd laugh right in their faces.
And I think other people would also know my reason why.

Surely it's not possible to ban them as it would be tantamount to banning the Internet. U.S.A. don't really control the world anymore hahahaha 

The constitution is difficult to change, but it can change (there have been 27 amendments), and those changes are a reflection of our societies views at that point in history.  

How exactly is that not a living document?

Again with the "living document" horseshit.

No. It. Is. Not.

It's at best a contract, and a contract CANNOT be unilaterally altered. It has within it provisions for making a change. Those provisions DELIBERATELY make it very difficult to change. You and your heroes in Washington have made a mockery of that. As Spooner said, If the constitution does not PREVENT the sort of government we have, OR if it ALLOWS the government we have, then it is unfit to exist.

If it can be changed by the will of the government, or ignored at their will, then it is, as GWB, just a goddamned piece of paper.

Jefferson was wrong. Evil is NOT necessary. Further, enshrining it as something sacred and giving it power and legitimacy is just plain stupid,

Comrades, what would you say if someone build the constitution of a nation into a program? A program so effectively constructed that by merely using it you are agreeing to it's terms of use, any attempts at hacking it would merely be patched.

I'm going around the issue a little bit, but isn't Bitcoin a system akin to A Democracies Constitution?

We have a protocol, the Constitution, it is freely available as Open Source.
We engage in it's use every time we interact with each other.
If deprived of it's terms of use, there are others that can bridge the gap to repair the damage done.

so... are we noticing a network breach of protocol if they try to ban something that is a expression of ones freedom of expression? or is it a flaw in the protocol that allows you to say what you want... but not to do what you want. freedom of speech is not freedom of action.

I agree, but that's why you try to write laws clearly, and why it's up to citizens, as always, to have final oversight.

I agree.  But if the choice is between a bad law and a generous interpretation, judges often go for the generous interpretation. 

I used the term rape in reference to the posters statement of getting raped in prison. Also I am not a libertarian (assuming the sentence is directed towards me) lol.