Razpakiranje »Lummis-Gillibrandovega zakona o odgovornih finančnih inovacijah«

To je uvodnik mnenja Beautyona, izvršnega direktorja Azteca.

V tej objavi razčlenjujem zgoraj navedeni akt, ki opozarja na očitne pomanjkljivosti in napake v njem. Vsakemu Američanu bi moralo biti jasno, da je ta predlog zakona gnusoba in da ne bi smel sprejeti v zakon. Če bo, ga bodo izpodbijali na vrhovnem sodišču, ga razveljavili, odstranili s predsodki in ostro kazen, ki si jo zasluži.

Ideja, da lahko obstaja "odgovorna inovacija", je na prvi pogled absurdna. Če bi bili senatorki Cynthia Lummis in Kirsten Gillibrand še živi v obdobju dostave jezerskega ledu s konji in vpregami, bi ugotovili, da je električna ledenica »neodgovorna inovacija«, ker bi številni moški ostali brez dela, konji pa bi se spremenili v lepilo oz. meso.

That is exactly what is happening with Bitcoin. This new innovation, which allows everyone to have the powers of a bank in their pocket or their business, puts pre-Bitcoin banks and their ignorant regulators out of business forever. This is “irresponsible” according to Lummis and Gillibrand, who want to preserve the broken and corrupt system and put a lick of orange paint on it to give it a modern look. This is the true meaning and effect of them tacking on and spraying the imaginary, concocted phrase “digital assets” throughout old regulations as is suggested in this bill. It’s blockchain fairy dust and it will not wash off.

Lummis and Gillibrand, with this scandalous, scabrously proposed bill, are going to cause American entrepreneurs (that have passports and know how to use a map) to opt out of their crony capitalist, anti-American sandbox for the free market — which is rapidly settling on bitcoin as the new global reserve currency in over 45 different countries. They can incorporate anywhere and their computers and staff don’t have to be in any particular place at all. No one has to or will choose to put up with this, unless they want to.

Gremo…

V razdelku z definicijami je zlobno seme in koren problema, ki je začel to absurdno in globoko žaljivo neumnost. "Digitalno sredstvo" ne obstaja. To je analogija used to contextualize bitcoin for computer illiterates, and not a real thing at all.

Številna orodja v programski opremi se lahko uporabljajo za podelitev ekonomskih, lastniških (zaprto kodnih) ali dostopnih pravic ali pooblastil. PGP/GPG (Pretty Good Privacy/GNU Privacy Guard) to počne in se ne šteje za sredstvo, vendar ga je v skladu s to definicijo mogoče razvrstiti kot takega – tako kot uporabniško ime in geslo z navadnim besedilom – ker obe stvari in številne druge podeljujejo pravice dostopa ali pooblastila. V primeru šifriranja z javnim ključem dostop do odprtega besedila in možnost dešifriranja.

Usernames and passwords are cryptographically secured when they are stored in databases, so they are captured by this definition also. This bad logic and computer illiteracy is what powered the insane non-fungible token (NFT) craze. It is obvious that the people who wrote this bill are totally ignorant when it comes to how computers and software works; otherwise they would have been more precise in their language to capture exactly what Bitcoin does, but of course if they did that, they could not have drafted this daft legislation at all. Lying is an absolute prerequisite here.

Podobno vrstica »kateri koli podoben analog« zajame dobesedno vse, kar lahko beleži podatke na urejen način, kot je abakus ali rezultat v videoigri. Verjetno so mislili, da so smešni, ko so tukaj uporabili besedo "analogno". Sploh ni smešno.

»Virtualna valuta« je nejasen izraz, ki lahko pomeni dobesedno katero koli številko na zaslonu, kjer gledalec verjame, da gleda stanje, ki mu je dodeljeno. To pomeni kateri koli rezultat v videoigri, kot je »Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins«, kjer dobesedno zbirate kovance.

Zdaj bi neinteligentna oseba rekla, da zato, ker igra Game Boy ni omrežna in kovanci niso prenosljivi, ni "kripto" ali "virtualna valuta", vendar ne razumejo, da je sama kartuša " digitalna denarnica«, ki jo je mogoče kadar koli izročiti za gotovino, naprava Game Boy pa je pregledovalnik denarnice, s katerim lahko vsakdo preveri, koliko od šestih zlatih kovancev je v igri.

If you don’t know anything about video games, have never played Super Mario Land, don’t know what cartridges are or how scores are kept in games, you should not be drafting legislation that touches bitcoin.

Stablecoins are of no interest and should not be conflated with bitcoin. That they are bundling all of these different tools and services into one piece of legislation further displays their total ignorance. Stablecoins are nothing more than contracts that don’t rely on mythical “blockchain technology,” but on the soundness of the companies issuing them and making the promises that their offering is backed, for which no new legislation is required.

Če podjetje goljufivo trdi, da ima njegova lastniška podatkovna baza en dolar na vnos v skrbništvu in se izkaže, da to ni res, so direktorji lagali in zagrešili goljufijo. Noben nov zakon ni potreben, da bi pokril to okoliščino preprosto zato, ker uporabljajo novo zbirko podatkov in prodajni jezik za izvedbo goljufije.

»Drugi vrednostni papirji in blago«, kateri?

Vsakdo, ki piše videoigre, bi se lahko prisilil, da se registrira, ker hrani rezultate v igri z bazo podatkov in bi bil zajet v to zakonodajo. To je noro.

Ta definicija jasno pove, da so avtorji računalniško nepismeni in da ne razumejo, kako karkoli deluje v 21. stoletju. Vsaka baza podatkov na Zemlji, ki ima replikacijo, MySQL-NDB ali druge podobne zmogljivosti, je zajeta s tem. Kaj tukaj pomeni "sodelovati"? Koliko baze podatkov je dovolj "delno", da sproži, da ta definicija vrne "true?" Vse zbirke podatkov v več vozliščih so privzeto sinhronizirane. Kako lahko tega ne vedo? Kako to, da v svojem osebju nimajo nikogar, ki bi vedel ali kdo bi vedel, katero osebo ali kakšno vprašanje postaviti?

Podatki so vedno dodani bazam podatkov v skladu s pravili soglasja mehanizma baze podatkov. Po tej definiciji Wikipedija spada pod to, ker ima vse lastnosti »tehnologije porazdeljene knjige«. Wikipedia,

• Is shared across a set of distributed nodes that participate in a network and store a complete or partial replica of the database.
• Is synchronized between the nodes.
• Has data appended to it by following the specified consensus mechanism of the Wikipedia moderators.
• May be accessible to anyone or restricted to a subset of participants.
• May require participants to have authorization to perform certain actions or require no authorization.

Po definiciji v tem zanikrnem, smešnem in sramotnem predlogu zakona je Wikipedia "tehnologija porazdeljene knjige" in je v celoti zajeta z zakonom, zato se bo morala registrirati pri Komisiji za vrednostne papirje in borzo (SEC) ali kakšnem drugem nepristojnem organu. Če ne, zakaj ne? Tudi tukaj ni možna nobena "izločitev", saj vse največje svetovne službe (in majhne) delujejo na podlagi načel, ki jih Lummis in Gillibrand poskušata izklesti zase in za svoje protiameriške prijatelje.

Izraz »posrednik digitalnih sredstev« zajema vsakogar, ki zagotavlja storitve baze podatkov ali zbira informacije, ki se dodajo v bazo podatkov prek lastniškega vmesnika. »Dejavnosti digitalnih sredstev« dobesedno pomeni metanje kock. Mislite, da sem nesmiselna, ko to govorim? Zelo resno mislim.

Primer ena.

Primer dva.

Primer 3.

Vse to bi veljalo za "dejavnosti digitalnih sredstev", kar pomeni, da bi proizvajalci orodij, ki omogočajo dejavnosti, spadali pod to zakonodajo ... in kaj potem? Bodo izdali licenco za posedovanje kock? Sliši se smešno, kajne, vendar ni nič bolj smešno kot ta absurdni osnutek zakonodaje. Smešno je trditi, da je matematična operacija, opravljena s kockami, bistveno drugačna od tiste, opravljene v računalniku. Po tej logiki je prvi amandma omejen le na ročno napisano besedilo, ne pa tudi s pisalnim strojem ali računalnikom.

Naprava, s katero pišete, je nepomembna, nepomembna in popolnoma ločena od vaše temeljne pravice do pisanja in objave.

Noben ameriški zakonodajalec se tega ne bi smel zavedati. Prav tako v prvem amandmaju ni nobene izjeme za pisanje, ki je matematika. Matematika je v skladu s prvim amandmajem zaščiten govor.

Ta smešen odlomek velja za Zlaganje doma, the distributed protein-folding project, BitTorrent and any tool where more than one computer is connected to another that splits the work or monitor system state. “Any similar analogue” means that Folding at Home is captured — heaven help them if they offer a financial reward to whoever finds the solution to a protein-folding problem because it could be seen as a “block reward” for finding the solution to a hard biology problem — which is exactly what bitcoin miners do!

When a Folding at Home participant finds a solution, that solution is sent to Folding at Home headquarters, where it has a monetary value to pharmaceutical companies. They are taking control of a unique “digital asset” that was mined and then transferred to them. All participants in Folding at Home and the discovery of solutions to the folding problem are captured by this law.

In zdaj ... Tukaj je ...

Ojoj.

Ne obstaja "digitalno sredstvo", zato preostanek tega razdelka ne velja. Gradijo stolp laži, nalagajo laž na laž na laž. Zakaj dobroimetje v bančni aplikaciji ni "digitalno sredstvo?" Če imate aplikacijo Chase Bank za iPhone, lahko takoj pošljete denar drugim uporabnikom aplikacije Chase na enak način, kot lahko pošljete plačila Lightning vsem, ki uporabljajo aplikacijo Lightning. Chase uporablja tehnologijo porazdeljene knjige, ki jo podpira programski jezik COBOL, zato jih ta zakonodaja 100-odstotno zajema. Če ne, zakaj ne?

Digitalna sredstva v aplikaciji Chase niso zakonito plačilno sredstvo; je »digitalna predstavitev zakonitega plačilnega sredstva«. Ni podprt z ničemer; Chase obljublja, da bo plačal zakonito plačilno sredstvo do zneska, prikazanega v vaši aplikaciji Chase; je le oblika pogodbene obljube in ne denarja. Chase vsekakor poda izjavo v obliki obljube, da bo imetniku računa plačal ameriške dolarje na zahtevo, in obstaja trda vezava 1:1 za vsak digitalno predstavljen dolar v vaši aplikaciji Chase. Za vse namene in kot je opredeljeno v tem osnutku zakonodaje, je bančna aplikacija Chase aplikacija za stabilne valute.

Does it immediately follow that Chase is now under these absurd and irrational “cryptocurrency” rules, or is there a carve-out exemption for the crony capitalists and vested interests set to be obliterated by the Bitcoin ecosystem?

“Used primarily as a medium of exchange.” This is, of course, totally absurd. The writers of software can have no knowledge of how a tool is used in the future, and burdening companies with rules borne of assumptions like this is irrational. What if the minority uses it to simply count anything, like how numbers are normally used? Should the fact that they are counting on a “blockchain” expose them to regulation? Why is counting money a regulatable act whereas counting a herd of ostriches is not? Or are ostriches not money? There are people who think that anything can be money, so in the confused minds of the people who think bitcoin is money, ostriches can be money too and should, quite naturally, be regulated.

Rejci nojev pravzaprav niso »rejci«; oni so nojevi rudarji. Prodajalci nojev ne prodajajo ogromnih ptic, so prenašalci denarja. Te stvari so, ker sem senator in tako pravim. Točno to je vrsta logike, ki jo vidite v tem nepremišljenem zakonu.

This section specifies that it must not be legal tender. But bitcoin is legal tender in El Salvador, so therefore it is totally exempt from this bill, correct? If not, why not? If you’re going to say that the laws and definitions used in El Salvador have no force in the USA, then the opposite is also true and U.S. law cannot infect other countries. I think most non-U.S. citizens would be happy with that arrangement. Keep your odd, parochial ideas locked inside U.S. borders while we forge ahead into the future.

Bitcoin is a database administered by tens of thousands of people and incorporations all over the world. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) cannot be granted jurisdiction by fiat over foreigners and the software they’re running on their machines. This land grab, this power grab, will be rejected by all non-U.S. persons, sovereign nations and the foreign corporations wherever they are incorporated. The U.S. legislature cannot seize the intellectual property of foreigners or demand anything of any kind from them. This is hubris and ugly American chest-beating of the kind that has made America into a hated nation around the globe.

Ta del je zanimiv, ker prikazuje, kako se država trudi slediti neštetim načinom, kako razvijalci programske opreme pridejo do novih tržnih idej. Zelo neumna modna muha »digitalnega zbirateljstva« ali »NFT« je tisto, kar se poševno omenja v vrstici 26. Do takrat, ko to slabo zakonodajo zavrneta oba domova ali jo SCOTUS izpodbija in jo očisti, modna muha NFT — kot ICO moda pred njim — bo mrtev in pozabljen zaradi neke druge sijoče nove motnje in ta jezik je popolnoma nepomemben. »Hej Kidz. Vidim, kaj počneš, in imam legalizacijo tega 4U.«

V tem razdelku zakonodajalci oblikujejo pravno zahtevo za uporabo licenčnega ali pooblaščenega ali registriranega subjekta, za katerega veljajo pravila, ki so jih že določili za subjekte v podedovanem sistemu, da bi tem podedovanim subjektom odprli vrata do najti mesto v novem ekosistemu, ki ga zagotavlja zakonodaja. Zelo malo verjetno je in težavno, če bi poskusili, da bi katera koli nova ustanovitev prestala preizkus in delovala kot enakovredna družba za zagotavljanje storitve hrambe »digitalnih sredstev« (ki sploh ne obstajajo), zato so starejše družbe v popolni položaju, da še naprej prevladuje z blagoslovom države.

Očitno lahko kdorkoli v kateri koli jurisdikciji razen ZDA vse to prezre in zgradi izzivalno podjetje, ki bo spremenilo svet in bo lahko globalno prevladovalo. In to bodo storili. Ta zakonodaja ne more zaščititi podedovanega sistema pred konkurenco, kot je njen namen.

Kar se tiče linije,

“(v) An appropriate foreign governmental authority in the home country of the custodian.”

Zakon ZDA ne more določiti, kaj je in kaj ni »primerno« za početje tujcev, ali standardov, ki bi se jih morali držati, če sploh obstajajo. Kdo mislijo, da so ti ljudje? Mnogi prebujeni Američani imajo sredstva in znanje za uporabo velikih prednosti, ki jih na trg prinašajo tuje jurisdikcije. Ne bodo se dali odvrniti, zapreti, prisiliti ali osramotiti, da bi kapitulirali pred tem protiameriškim nagajanjem, če sploh postane zakon.

Also, the cancerous tentacles it inserts into other legislation over its 60-plus pages represents a maze of pure filth that will be very difficult to untangle should anyone try to salvage this unspeakable garbage. Even if they do, it is an absolute certainty that the interns tasked with doing it will be Ivy League computer illiterates with the worst human characteristics and tendencies, i.e., crony capitalism, hubris, superiority complex, sociopathy, socialism, etc., and will be diametrically opposed to Bitcoin and everything to do with it out of the gates.

Bitcoin is permissionless, and companies that work with it should not require advance permission to use that database for any purpose. Since it is a (soon to be acknowledged as) First Amendment Protected Activity (FAPA), this will be struck down as predhodna omejitev. The U.S. government cannot stop a person from publishing anything in advance because they simply believe it may cause harm. This all goes back to what Bitcoin actually is and how it works.

People making Bitcoin transactions are publishing text to a public database that anyone can read, even machines. As you’ve seen above, all the operations required to use Bitcoin can be done manually. They are done by machines for convenience and speed, but the acts being done are without question acts protected by the Prvi amandma.

Ali kakšen računalniško nepismen to razume ali ne, ni pomembno. SCOTUS bodo to razumeli in bodo z besno jezo zavrnili ta zakon, če bo večina kongresa dovolj skorumpirana, da bo glasovala za zakon.

Absurdno je, da je ta razdelek vstavljen. Pravijo, da je nezakonito, razen če se stranka odpove svoji zaščiti (nota bene: "zaščita" in ne "pravica") pri CFTC. To ne bi smelo biti obveznost potrošnika. Če sklenejo pogodbo s podjetjem, od katerega prejemajo storitve, se lahko ob podpisu odpovejo svoji mafijski "zaščiti". Zakaj ti ljudje verjamejo, da bi morali posamezniki pisati pisma, ki jih ne bodo nikoli prebrali ali se nanje zanašali? Kdo mislijo, da so, da verjamejo, da lahko komur koli naložijo težka in ostudna bremena? Zakaj pogodbe, ki jih ljudje prostovoljno sklenejo, na drugih področjih zadostujejo za odpoved vsem vrstam drugih »pravic«, vendar so v tej zadevi nezadostne, saj je treba poslati dodatno dopolnilno pismo? To je popolnoma nelogično in umetno breme za potrošnike, ki ne služi ničemur in ne ščiti nikogar.

Če so dejanja, ki jih poskušajo preprečiti, res vredna preprečevanja, zagotovo sploh ne bi smeli dovoliti, in ne dovoliti ljudem, da se izpostavljajo tveganju, če je res naloga CFTC, da obvaruje ljudi pred samimi seboj. Zakaj torej ne bi ljudem dovolili, da se v celoti izločijo iz vseh pravil CFTC tako, da preprosto napišejo pismo, ki razglaša:

»Nočem nobene vaše zaščite niti imeti ničesar s tabo. Za vedno se odpovedujem vsem zaščitam, ki jih zagotavlja in ponuja CFTC.”

Zakaj ne?

Še enkrat, "digitalno sredstvo" ne obstaja. Če upoštevamo to, zakaj se Hollywoodska borza (HSX), ki jo je ustvaril genij Max Keiser, ni štela za pristojnost CFTC/SEC? Nihče nima odgovora na to. Tisti, ki so preučili te zadeve in so odločeni, da bodo vpisali svoja imena v zakonodajne liste, niso zaskrbljeni. Vse, kar si želijo, je, da bi bili slavni in da bi bila njihova imena ovekovečena na računu.

HSX se imenuje "igra", vendar zakaj is it a game? Why aren’t bitcoin exchanges considered “games?” They are indistinguishable from HSX. Is it the case that if any bitcoin exchange called itself a game that none of these crazy new rules would apply? No one can answer this, obviously, and this is the crux of the problem.

If the HSX decided to swap out its MySQL database and use Solana or Bitcoin, would the function of HSX suddenly change? Of course, it would not, but saying this exposes the entire thought process of this bill for the nonsense that it is, and this perfectly sound, irrefutable argument will be used in the SCOTUS case to destroy the possibility all new Bitcoin regulation in the USA, and force the removal of existing regulation.

People with limited intellectual resources will prattle off “blockchain speak” to describe why MySQL isn’t the same as Bitcoin, but they are only able to think in analogies that have been spoon-fed to them, and can’t deal with reality and facts. Even when you pokazati, kako je njihovo razmišljanje popolnoma napačno, tega nočejo sprejeti, ker so člani kulta, ki je pravzaprav kult za pranje možganov, z dodatno spodbudo finančnih naložb in pohlepa do vratu, da ostanejo popolnoma zasužnjeni in v sužnji kultnih pripovedi, vzorcev govora in blebetanje.

Pri snovanju teh neumnih nesmislov se avtorji podzavestno zavedajo, da je to, kar počnejo, 100% narobe. Zato v tem razdelku piše:

"NA SPLOŠNO. — Vsak sistem trgovanja, ki ponuja ali želi ponuditi trg z digitalnimi sredstvi, se lahko registrira pri Komisiji kot borza digitalnih sredstev ...«

Lahko se registrirajo ali pa se ne registrirajo. Ne piše, da se morajo registrirati. Zakaj ne? Pod katerimi natančnimi okoliščinami je treba storitev izvzeti iz registracije? Očitno je, da hollywoodska borza ni "prava" borza, ker je vse na njej izmišljeno, vendar je tako vse na kateri koli "kripto borzi", kjer so se ljudje preprosto odločili, da želijo igrati to igro in prevzeti posledice. Ne, samo zato, ker ljudje plačajo za storitev igre, ne pomeni, da je to "finančna dejavnost", analogna pravim borzam, genij.

Razlog, zakaj ti zavedeni in nevarni ljudje ne morejo z absolutno gotovostjo reči, katera agencija ali pravilo velja za zbirke podatkov, je v tem, da ne razumejo, kako karkoli deluje ali kaj karkoli v resnici je. So žrtve lastnih laži, pripovedi in izmišljotin. Zato so dvoumni, negotovi in ​​se prepuščajo prijaviteljem, pri čemer uporabljajo kretnje, običajna pravila, analogije in lažne definicije, da omejijo lažno ozemlje, na katerem lahko vladajo.

Če se nihče ne odloči registrirati pri CFTC, ker je kontekst plačana igra v njihovih pogojih storitve, pod kakšno pretvezo je CFTC pooblaščen za ukrepanje? Za uporabo finančnih izrazov v nobeni igri ni nobenih zakonskih omejitev, zato lahko podjetniki prosto naredijo kopije 1:1 katere koli storitve finančnega sistema, borze ali trgovalne mize. Tako kot hollywoodska borza z vsemi povezanimi izrazi, grafi, orodji in efemerami imajo v popolni simulaciji, ki ni resnična, absolutno pravico zaračunavati dostop do svoje igre pod kakršnimi koli pogoji, ki jih igralci sprejmejo. In ne, zgornja omejitev, koliko lahko ljudje zaračunajo za storitev, ni možnost. In ne, zakoni o igrah na srečo ne bi zajeli teh spletnih mest kot iger, ker ne navajajo kvot in izrecno zavračajo, da so igre na srečo dejavnost, v kateri se uporabniki ukvarjajo.

To je resnična narava tega, kar se dogaja s fiktivnimi "digitalnimi sredstvi" in celotnim poljem, za katerega so bili nori iskalci slave prepričani, da je resnično. Zdaj zahtevajo »pravila ceste«, ki so si jih izmislili oni in njihova zavedena skupina anonimnih pajdašev kapitalistov, nevednih pripravnikov in protiameriških samomorilskih saboterjev.

Po tem razdelku z Ethereumom in vsemi alternativnimi kovanci, ki so jih snovalci napačno šteli za "digitalna sredstva", ni mogoče trgovati na podlagi tega novega zakona. Vsi nadomestni kovanci v sistemih z dokazi o vložku ali s krmilniki super vozlišč ali katerim koli sistemom z osrednjim podjetjem, ki lahko spreminja pravila, popolnoma ustaviti sistem ali narediti kar koli enostransko, ni mogoče uporabiti v skladu s tem predlaganim zakonom.

Manipulacija je tukaj nedefinirana; kdo pravi, da prehod z rudarjenja z dokazom o delu na konsenz o dokazu o deležu ni manipulacija? Dokaz o deležu takoj postavi tiste z deležem pred tiste brez deleža, kar ustvari večstopenjski in dokazljivo nepravičen sistem. Verjetno gre tudi za kršitev obljube, odvisno od pogojev »verige blokov«, ki izvaja spremembe.

Vsi to veste »Faketoshi« poskuša razveljaviti starodavne transakcije, da bi denar dodelil sebi. Were he to succeed in doing this, bitcoin and all its derivatives would be captured by this crazy rule. And of course, super-node gatekeeper controllers fulfill the criteria of "... funkcionalnost ali delovanje digitalnega sredstva lahko bistveno spremeni katera koli oseba ali skupina oseb pod skupnim nadzorom."

Since so many “coins” fall afoul of this, it is obvious that game sites that mimic commodity and stock exchanges using them should not and cannot fall under CFTC remit, but instead are just game points on a new database. They all escape these irrational rules if the rules become law. Otherwise, all game point systems fall under the rules and must be stopped.

Omrežja, ki posredujejo podatkovne baze, ki se uporabljajo v tem, kar ti slabo obveščeni liki imenujejo "digitalna sredstva", se vsa zanašajo na druge ljudi in so zgrajena na njih, ki uporabljajo delo, vloženo v upravljanje omrežja, da ohranijo celovitost omrežja in ohranijo delovanje in sposobnost preživetja omrežja. Reči, da ta podjetja ne morejo uporabljati orodja, ki ga uporabljajo (katerega uporaba je potrebna za ohranitev sposobnosti preživetja orodja), je neracionalno in nelogično. Najenostavnejši primer tega so »provizije za rudarjenje«, ki jih je treba plačati za izvajanje transakcij v omrežju ali v dokazu o deležu, pri čemer se uporablja dejstvo, da je delež v lasti, ki se lahko dodeli strankam kot del dokazila.

Še enkrat pravijo, da je vsaka stranka, ki se strinja z izvzetjem iz teh pravil, lahko izvzeta z opustitvijo … torej, zakaj potem sploh določiti pravilo? Vse, kar mora podjetje storiti, je, da opustitev vključi v določila in pogoje, nato pa je pravilo privzeto takoj razveljavljeno.

Tukaj pravijo, da je treba podjetja prisiliti v objavo lastniških tržnih podatkov, ki bi lahko koristili njihovim tujim konkurentom. Učinkoviti tržni mehanizmi izhajajo iz trga, ne po ukazu države, ki je prvovrstna zabloda, spotikajoča se, nesposobna vmešavalka.

Podobno ne morete prisiliti ljudi, da uveljavljajo nejasno idejo o »pravilih«, ki niso izrecno kodificirana. Tudi "zaščititi" v tem kontekstu ne pomeni ničesar; zaščititi koga pred čim točno? In kaj pomeni "žaljivo"? Ustvarjanje prevelikega dobička, brez dvoma; mnogi ljudje, ki stojijo za tem predlogom zakona, so socialisti po vsem, razen po imenu. Tudi "pošteno" ne pomeni ničesar.

Preostali del tega razdelka je poln kramljanja. Vse izdajo absurdno idejo, da so te nove menjalne storitve analogne obstoječim delniškim in blagovnim trgom in da je treba za te nastajajoče trge uporabiti podobna pravila, nespremenjena brez kakršnih koli novih predpostavk, pravilnih predpostavk, novega razmišljanja ali kakršnega koli razmišljanja. Vendar pa je zahteva, da imajo CFTC odprta zadnja vrata, zoprna in žaljiva ter pomeni kršitev zasebnosti. Absolutno grozljivo in skrajno protiameriško.

Še enkrat, samo manični despot bi zahteval ta vdor, motnjo, kršitev in invazijo v zasebna podjetja s strani CFTC (ali katere koli druge agencije) in pooblastilo za likvidacijo položajev na ukaz CFTC ali celo prekinitev storitev na njihov ukaz. Seveda, če bi bila ta žaljiva norčija sprejeta v zakon, bi bila ostroga zabodena v bok osla, da bi ustvarili več izmenjav, kot bisq ki se jih CFTC ne more dotakniti.

Zakaj? Zakaj bi bil kdo prisiljen razkriti lastniške poslovne informacije CFTC? Če ni v teku nobena kršitev pogodbe ali tožba, ni obtoženo nobeno kaznivo dejanje in izdani nalogi, zakaj bi morali komurkoli izsiljevati dokaze? Amerika tako ne deluje. Preden ste lahko prisiljeni razkriti informacije, je treba izdati nalog. To je četrti amandma ameriške ustave, geniji. Ali ste vedeli, da? Kako lahko zakonodajalci tega ne vedo?

Kar zadeva javno objavo obsega trgovanja, je to lastniška informacija. Podatki o cenah so že objavljeni, da trg lahko deluje, genij. Zakaj CFTC teh informacij ne zbira sama na svoji opremi? Ker so nesposobni, zato. Kaj so "drugi podatki o trgovanju?" Če tega ne navedete, nihče, ki je zdrav, ne bo zagotovil ničesar, kar ni izrecno zahtevano. To bi moralo biti privzeto, če bi bil ta podli in zlobni zakon sprejet.

First of all, exchanges do not want to be over capacity, ever. Stipulating this is absurd and insulting. No one wants to ever have incomplete records due to overcapacity events. What is demanded here is a strictly technical requirement that the CFTC has no business asking for. The shareholders of every company working with Bitcoin demand fine-grained information and reporting, as do the users of the trading systems. If any company does not produce rich data, consumers will move to services that do. The market takes care of this. CFTC is not needed at all and their interference is un-American and unwelcome by real Americans.

Vodenje evidenc je poslovna operacija, ki bi se morala izvajati le v zadovoljstvo in zahteve lastnikov podjetij, delničarjev in njihovih strank, ne pa za potrebe CFTC. Če želijo, da ljudje vodijo evidence, naj vljudno prosijo in nato plačajo za vzdrževanje evidenc, saj se vodijo za CFTC in za nikogar drugega.

Obvezno poročanje informacij bi moralo biti samo na podlagi naloga in ne na podlagi splošne zahteve po "kar koli želimo, kadarkoli." Kdo mislijo, da so ti ljudje? Enako velja za SEC, ki je označen tukaj.

Seveda bi pričakovali, da bodo te agencije zlorabile vaše podatke in jih razširile po vseh vejah ameriške vlade, vključno z NSA, CIA in vsemi drugimi tajnimi agencijami. Napačno je in to je mogoče preprečiti. Tukaj je presenetljivo, da so sprejeli zakon, da bo CFTC delil informacije ameriških korporacij in državljanov z zunanjimi ministrstvi. Kako lahko kdorkoli, ki se imenuje "republikanec", pripravi osnutek tako nezaslišanega statuta, ki krši suverenost? Je dih jemajoče in šokantno. Absolutno, čisto protiameriško.

Tukaj je prikazan samo en konflikt interesov: konflikt interesov med CFTC in ameriškimi podjetniki ter državljani s to žaljivo, protikonkurenčno, iracionalno, smešno, obremenjujočo neumnostjo.

Kako bo imelo katero koli podjetje pri roki finančna sredstva, da bo služilo strankam, ko jih izsiljujejo, da bodo porabili denar za potešitev nepotešljive žeje CFTC? Zakaj klavzula o likvidaciji ne vsebuje možnosti zavrnitve za uporabnike, ki želijo prevzeti tveganje poslovanja s podjetjem, ki ne obljublja, da bo imelo sredstva za likvidacije? Omogočajo izključitev za druge stvari. Zakaj ne tega? Zakaj ne bi omogočili zavrnitve za celoten zanič predlog zakona in njegove škandalozne določbe?

Vse to so poslovne in programske zahteve, polne besed, ki jih pripravljavci očitno ne razumejo. Na primer, kaj pomeni "zanesljivo" v smislu ... karkoli? Kar zadeva analizo tveganja, imajo kompleksni sistemi, ki medsebojno delujejo v pisarni in prek API-jev, množične scenarije napak in načine napak, ki jih ni mogoče zlahka predvideti. Vnaprejšnje poskušanje vojne igre je popolnoma nerazumna zahteva, v vsakem primeru pa ljudje, ki gradijo te sisteme, vedo, kaj na splošno počnejo, in razumejo, da morajo vzdrževati uptime, besede, ki je ti pripravljavci v tem kontekstu očitno ne poznajo.

Testiranje in drugi tehnični ukrepi, tehnike, postopki in neštete naloge, ki jih opravljajo sistemski skrbniki, ne bi smeli biti del kaj pravo. Vsi tehnični ukrepi in specifikacije so zasebna stvar podjetij, ki lahko kupijo zavarovanje proti napakam, če želijo. Podobno je z varnostnimi kopijami: varnostne kopije so le eden od načinov zagotavljanja kontinuitete. Če imajo uporabniki svoje zasebne ključe, varnostna kopija na ravni podjetja ni potrebna. To kaže, da so pripravljavci v resnici računalniško nepismeni in nimajo potrebne domišljije za pripravo zakonodaje – če bi bila sploh legitimna –, ki zajema vse možne ureditve programske opreme v podjetju.

The line about the audit trail is similarly absurd. They don’t like Bitcoin, but want a perfect audit trail — which Bitcoin provides out of the box. Bitcoin is the audit trail by design, but if they concede this, they have to acknowledge that bitcoin isn’t money, but an audit-trail database.

Težki časi za računalniško nepismene!

Zdi se, da ti ljudje razumejo, da je lahko vse, kar so pripravili, strašno napačno in uničujoče za prevlado Amerike na tem novem področju. To je razlog, zakaj so postavili to loputo, da vsako podjetje, ki posluje dobro, izvzamejo iz teh nevednih in nepremišljenih predlogov pravil, ki jih je mogoče preklicati za nazaj, kar pomeni, da če podjetje postane storitev, vredna bilijonov dolarjev, ki služi ljudem po vsem svetu, pripravijo določbe, tako da lahko to podjetje ostane nemoteno, ker je del kritične infrastrukture – kot so banke, ki so jih rešili in ki so bile izvzete iz pravila zaradi nevarnosti sistemskega tveganja.

Razdelujejo to novo industrijo podatkovnih baz in delijo delčke svojim prijateljem. Tukaj tudi pravijo, da lahko ta nora pravila kadar koli dodajo; to pomeni "pravila predpisovanja" - več strupenih tablet.

Kar zadeva zahteve za neregistracijo, je vse, kar je potrebno, registracija zunaj ZDA. To je enostavno narediti in številna podjetja, ki delajo s temi novimi zbirkami podatkov, to počnejo. To vedenje izogibanja je predhodnik tega, kar prihaja: nihče z možgansko celico in potnim listom se ne bo sprijaznil s tem, če bo postalo zakon, in druge jurisdikcije si oblizujejo ustnice, ko to berejo, ker vedo, da bo spodbudilo na stotine milijard dolarjev v njihove pristojnosti.

To je splošen primer, kako onesnažujejo drugo zakonodajo v tem predlogu zakona. Povsod dodajajo izmišljeni izraz »digitalno sredstvo«, da zajamejo vsako bazo podatkov, ki simulira denar. Neki pripravnik je šel skozi drugo zakonodajo in izbiral mesta, kjer se lahko vstavi ta izmišljen izraz. Pravnih in poslovnih stranskih učinkov teh večkratnih vstavljanj ni mogoče vnaprej vedeti. Dodajanje tega jezika ogroža številne panoge in posameznike, in kot je slavno rekla Nancy Pelosi, "Predlog zakona moramo sprejeti, da boste lahko izvedeli, kaj je v njem«.

They’re trying to enshrine the conflation of physical assets like gold and entries on the Bitcoin database. There is no such thing as a “digital commodity.” That term is an analogy created to help computer illiterates understand how these new database arrangements can be used; it is not a description of what they actually are. Lummis and Gillibrand have missed this entirely and been tricked into thinking an analogy is reality.

Na novo morajo definirati, kaj je finančna institucija, ker podjetja, ki uporabljajo zbirke podatkov, niso finančne institucije. Ta razdelek je ključni pokazatelj narave tega zakona in poskusa prilaščanja zemlje.

Torej, potem ko so ustvarili ta gnusni protiameriški farrago, predlagajo, da bi stroške upravljanja pravil, ki so jih ustvarili, prevalili na ljudi, ki vodijo storitve. To je naravnost podlo. Če bi ti pokvarjeni, poniženi, razuzdani, izrojeni, izprijeni, sramotni, neugledni, sprevrženi, razuzdani in brezsramni razbojniki ubogali svoje prisege, ne bi bilo dodatnih stroškov za poslovneže, ki preprosto želijo služiti drugim, kar je njihova absolutna pravica. Kakšne živce imajo ti ljudje.

Oh, they’re so kind! Remember the appalling and destructive New York “BitLicense,” where applying for it is so expensive that Bitcoin companies simply choose not to do anything there, rather than pay? Here is a pro tip: Companies will leave America entirely rather than be exposed to the insane risk, exorbitant and unethical fees, the predation, prejudice, inconvenience, consumer violation by law and morally repugnant rules these monsters are threatening everyone with.

Za precej nižjo ceno, kot stane BitLicense, se lahko podjetje ustanovi v Hong Kongu in je popolnoma brez te totalitarne neumnosti. Lahko se vključijo v El Salvador, kjer vlada sprejema inovatorje … in tudi vreme je tam dobro.

Nobenega razloga ni, da bi se kateri koli podjetnik kjer koli na Zemlji moral sprijazniti s tem. V katastrofalnem izidu, da bi moral postati zakon, bo to pomenilo, da bodo druge države pridobile posle, ki so v ZDA de facto prepovedani, in da bodo ameriški državljani uporabljali te storitve – brez dovoljenja kogar koli, tako kot počnejo druge stvari, ki so ki jih je država v ZDA prepovedala, kot so »spletne igre na srečo«.

Bitcoin, like pirated software, cannot be stopped. All of the incentives of pirated software exist in Bitcoin, except they are exponentially bigger in every way. The desire to get the latest software and movies is very strong; just imagine how strong the incentive will be to get bitcoin, since you need it to buy things online and exist? The company that solves “the bitcoin delivery problem” will be a multibillion dollar unicorn, and it doesn’t have to be based in the USA either. None of the drafters of this sad, tawdry bill understand these facts.

If they had any sense, ethics, understanding or fealty to the oath they swore, these members of Congress would do nothing and let the market sort everything out for itself. Then, once the new market is established, they can gently milk it. The problem is these people are old and dying, and they want to hurt as many young, vibrant people as they can because they’re jealous of Bitcoiners and the power being unleashed by Bitcoin. They’re like a dying, old coot, doing his best to put the knife in one last time by changing his will to cut out his disobedient children.

Ta škandalozni zakon postaja bolj neumen, čim globlje se poglabljaš vanj. Kako lahko protokol zagotovi, da je obseg dovoljenih transakcij, ki se lahko izvedejo, razkrit v pogodbi s stranko? Protokol ni oseba, nima nobenih pravic ali obveznosti in ga ni mogoče prisiliti k ničemur. Kako so lahko ljudje tako neumni?

This is totally absurd. Under “9802. Consumer protection standards for digital assets” if bitcoin is classified and captured as a “digital asset” then prior to any updates, the users of Bitcoin would need to be informed before material source code version changes. Each customer. Which is 100% insane. Of course, there is no Bitcoin company at all, which leads to the question, are developers on Bitcoin itself going to be attacked by the CFTC for doing “git push?”

Since Bitcoin is not a company or a person, clearly none of this should or even could apply to it. That means that either bitcoin is not a “digital asset” or they’re just going to ignore Bitcoin as a thing, and only go after tools where there is an identifiable company and people who they can persecute and torment.

If on the other hand, bitcoin is classed by them as a “digital asset,” how are they going to administer any of this? By misusing English and terminology, they’ve built an effigy that makes no sense at all and doesn’t take reality into account.

This section shows the problem. Are they actually claiming that a fork of Bitcoin is a “subsidiary proceed?” Anyone can fork any code repository and create their own chain; there are even tools online that allow you to create your own clone of Bitcoin, delivering you the software you need after filling out a simple form. Under this bill, that would be a regulated act, as would making a complete copy of Bitcoin and its transaction history (block chain).

Še enkrat, ti ljudje so računalniško nepismeni, ki ne razumejo ničesar in ki tarnajo in poskušajo biti videti relevantni. Pravzaprav so zelo nevarni protiameričani in upam, da bo njihov predlog zakona v celoti zavrnjen, da bi se izognili temu, da bi pravi Američani šli v SCOTUS, da bi ga uničili.

Vmešavanje se nadaljuje. Razdelek v vrstici 5 pravi, da se bodo zadeve izvorne kode in ne funkcije pisno strinjale. Izjemno redko se zgodi, da kateri koli potrošnik pozna izvorno kodo, ki se uporablja za izvajanje potrošniške funkcije, obvezna razkritost lastniške in tajne izvorne kode pa je kršitev pravic. Ljudje, ki so to napisali, ne razumejo ničesar o programski opremi ali o tem, kako je razvita.

Če je ta razdelek upravičen in razumen za altcoine, zakaj senat in kongres nista izdala podobnih pravil za Microsoft Windows in Apple iOS? Več denarja in življenj je odvisnih od teh operacijskih sistemov kot od "kriptovalute". Kaj pa vsi drugi programski paketi, na katere se zanaša svet, kot so OpenSSH, Apache in vsi ostali paketi, ki poganjajo dobesedno vse na Zemlji? Ti zavedeni ljudje nimajo pojma, o čem govorijo, in so si izmislili te neumnosti zaradi popolnega napačnega razumevanja, kaj je programska oprema in dobro uveljavljenih, varnih in sprejetih načinov njenega razvoja, uvajanja in posodabljanja.

Prepoved spreminjanja izvorne kode ali načina delovanja omrežij s spreminjanjem izvorne kode, če bi ta norost na hoduljah postala zakon, bo obleganemu projektu Ethereum takoj preprečila prehod na dokazilo o deležu z dokazila o delu.

Za trenutek si predstavljajmo, da ste pijani od Tequile in si predstavljate, da bo prehod z proof-of-work na proof-of-stake dober za Ethereum; po teh pravilih ne bi bilo dovoljeno po zakonu Lummis-Gillibrand. Ta razdelek pomeni, da ko je sistem izdan in se ljudje zanašajo nanj, ne bo več mogoče, da bi se preusmeril na kaj boljšega ali karkoli drugega. To je Kraljestvo Moltz-ravni anti-inovacije. Z uporabniki se nikoli, nikoli ne posvetuje o izvorni kodi. To ve vsak, ki ima kaj izkušenj s tem. Pripravljavci tega so popolnoma nesposobni in nevedni.

Settlement finality, which is the wrong phrase for what happens when something happens in Bitcoin, is not a feature of tools where there is consensus governed by super nodes who can collaborate to undo transactions. The conditions under which things happen in a database are not the business of the CFTC, but are business logic to be determined solely by the software developers and the business owners demanding and designing features. This is like the Soviet Union making commands about economics and the mehanik izdelave gum.

Legal certainty is not required in Bitcoin transactions; that is why the code was written in the first place. Users have certainty in math, not legal enforcement. The fact that the authors say this shows they have no idea of why Bitcoin was written or what the certainty of math really is. The law is not required to guarantee anything in Bitcoin; it guarantees itself and protects its users from characters like Lummis and Gillibrand.

To je zelo zanimivo. Evropska unija je načrtovanje prepovedi "negostovanih denarnic" where messages can be initiated without the need for a third party. That means any of the ethical Bitcoin wallets — Samourai, Breez, Wallet of Satoshi, Muun, Pine, Phoenix — may be made illegal in the EU. This section is diametrically opposed to that idea, saying that no one should be compelled or required to use a “hosted wallet.” Clearly, wallet developers who maintain the tools in the above list and any wallet where users have full control over Bitcoin will have to address this, ending up in the USA and shunning all EU customers. In any case, you can expect the Apple App Store and Google Play to remove all “unhosted wallets” to comply with EU fascism and crony capitalism.

Nekako je neki predrzni pripravnik to vrinil v osnutek tega zakona. Lahko ste prepričani, da bo odstranjen, ko bo nekdo pokazal, kaj v resnici pomeni. V nasprotju je z oddelkom (1); imeti lastne ključe izrecno dovoljuje kateri koli osebi, da se ukvarja s tržno dejavnostjo, za katero je potrebno dovoljenje v skladu z zvezno ali državno zakonodajo - brez kakršnega koli pooblastila ali dovoljenja. To pomeni, da lahko prosto opravljate transakcije brez dovoljenja, kreteni.

Preskočil bom del o "stabilnih kovancih."

These people seem to understand that Bitcoin and other tools completely destroy their punitive and unethical collective-punishment “sanctions regime,” and not having found an answer in time for the drafting of this abomination, kick the can down the road to other people who will also not be able to solve this unsolvable problem.

Bitcoin is like the invention of math itself; it is a fundamentally new tool that once unleashed, will have effects that can’t be contained. It’s like unleashing the idea of the wheel and then expecting no one to make use of it, or trying to reduce the efficiency of the transport of goods moved on wheels by strictly licensing how carts on wheels can travel and who is allowed to use them.

Če mislite, da je to noro in da se v resnici nikoli ne bi moglo zgoditi, tega ne poznate Locomotive Acts (ali Red Flag Acts) that were introduced when motor cars were beginning to gain popularity. Oddly enough and unironically, Lummis is calling for “rules of the road” in Bitcoin. You couldn’t make it up if you tried.

The Comptroller of the Currency, being tasked with assessing “payment system risk,” is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. When they say “payment system,” they mean the corrupt Federal Reserve system and all the cronies that feed off of that system and the public. Anything that poses a risk to that — Bitcoin and its ecosystem of companies — is an enemy, even when, as in the case of Bitcoin, the public and the United States itself will benefit by the emergence of a parallel system that is not under the comptroller’s power to control, supervise or develop rules for.

As for “community contribution plans,” by merely existing and serving people for a profit, Bitcoin companies are contributing to and protecting “the community” because they’re insulating them against the lethal inflation and theft in the legacy financial system. Consumer education happens automagically by people being shown that bitcoin is better, and doesn’t need to be compelled. As for “financial literacy,” that actually means propaganda and lying to keep the public gulled and believing that the fiat system is safe and fair, when it manifestly is not.

"Sem iz vlade in tukaj sem, da pomagam.” Kaj pomeni "ustrezno"? Zakaj ti ljudje verjamejo, da so maziljeni, da s kraljevim dekretom razglasijo, da je trg »dovolj konkurenčen«, in s kakšno metriko to določijo? Kdo mislijo, da so ti ljudje?

This enshrines in law and puts into the open the “snitch hubs” that have been operating in secret, started by unethical companies where law enforcement could come for guidance, make requests and do all sorts of other nefarious things in secret. Note how they appropriate the language of the free market to cover this unethical nonsense: They call it an “Innovation Laboratory” when it is in fact a “surveillance hub.” Regulatory dialogue is not “innovation,” nor does it foster, engender or promote it. Data sharing — a privacy violation — doesn’t help innovation either. As for “appropriate supervision of financial technology,” no one who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution should think that is appropriate in any way, and Bitcoin supervision is ultra vires.

Ti ljudje imajo radi jezik in kulturo inovacij. Zato so to grozljivo smet dali na GitHub, da se na njem drgne sijaj novega in hipa, v resnici pa je star, posušen, nepomemben, grd in grd. To je kot 100-letna ženska, ki bi si na ustnice nanesla šminko, ki jo uporabljajo prostitutke, in mislila, da je zaradi tega videti mlada. Ne gre. To je odbijajoče.

"Chief Innovation Officer" je delovno mesto, ki bi ga pričakovali v Sovjetski zvezi, ne v Združenih državah Amerike na prostem trgu. Inovativnost je stvar trga, ne države. Vlada se ne bi smela ukvarjati z izbiranjem zmagovalcev. To, da je treba to povedati leta 2022, je osupljivo.

This absurd Laboratory (that is not a Laboratory at all) is tasked with surveilling new software innovations to ensure that they’re not a threat to the status quo. This is the real meaning of “supervision of financial technology”: databases. They don’t have the staff or the competence to be able to surveil the entire market and will rely on very ignorant and naive developers to report themselves to the Comptroller of Innovation with their new ideas before publishing them. This is, of course, anathema to any true software developer. Imagine if Satoshi Nakamoto went to the CFTC to ask them if he could release Bitcoin. Imagine if Elizabeth Stark asked permission before releasing Lightning. It’s unthinkable and impossible.

The extent to which this appalling law poisons the economy and people working in software — should it even pass, which is not a given — is entirely up to the people doing the actual work of running companies and writing software. If no one cooperates, it cannot possibly work. Uber didn’t apply for licenses to be a taxi company, and once they succeeded, they could buy off the Lummis class to keep them quiet. They did this all over the world. Everyone is the winner as a result. This absolutely must happen in Bitcoin if this sad legislation becomes law.

“Certain novel legal positions?” Bitcoin is not in a novel legal position; it is not illegal and it is a form of writing within the law. Bitcoin was not written to frustrate precedents, though it is outside the traditions of the Federal Reserve Act and “our” dual banking system. (Who is “our” exactly? Fed je zasebna banka; ni v lasti ameriškega ljudstva ali njihove skorumpirane vlade.) Tudi tu se ne moremo sklicevati na imperative kongresa, ker ustava določa, kaj je denar v ZDA, in ne katero koli posebno sodobno zasedanje kongresa.

Bitcoin is an extraordinarily brilliant construction on several fronts simultaneously, the only responses to it are total acceptance or dismantling of America’s fundamental law — either explicitly or through unconstitutional legislation that will be challenged.

Bitcoin behaves like money, but it is not money; It is speech that behaves like money.

This is the property that makes Bitcoin so powerful and corrosive to the State. This absurd legislation is flailing around like a screaming housewife whose ponev gori. Ne morejo izdelati nobenega sredstva, da bi se temu približali in ga nadzorovali, in mislim, da se tega zavedajo.

Bitcoin is novel. It is as novel and disruptive as the Gutenberg printing press or the internal combustion engine or the refrigerator. There really isn’t anything anyone can do to stop it now. It is too useful in many ways, the most important of which ordinary people don’t care about: a switch to Austrian Economics from Keynesianism.

All of these technical specifications, which in any universe should never be introduced or drafted by anyone other than competent people in the actual industry, will go away in the world where bitcoin is the only money. Imagine Lummis making a demand for changes in the Bitcoin address format; if you think that’s absurd, you’d be right. If you think it can never happen, you’d be wrong, and this section proves it.

Kdo je napisal to norčijo? Kako to, da je tukaj vstavljena tehnična specifikacija? Kdo je zahteval? Komu služi? Zakaj si ljudje ne zastavljajo teh vprašanj in zakaj na stotine pripravljavcev teh smeti ni v seznamu, ki jih poimenuje, njihove povezave in povezave do zakonodaje, ki so jo zahtevali, je vstavljeno? Zakaj pomanjkanje preglednosti? Kaj imajo za skrivati?

To pomeni, da bo obstajal "izpraševalec" (ki bo računalniško nepismen, lahko ste prepričani), ki se ga bodo vsi bali telefonirati. To je, če se odločijo, da bodo vljudni in ne bodo samo napadli vaših pisarn z ekipo SWAT.

What this section does is say, “We will be making some other laws, open-ended in scope, that we will announce later.” That’s unacceptable. Bitcoin is not money, and anti-money laundering laws should not apply to it at all. Sanctions, as you should now understand, are rendered moot by Bitcoin, so making American companies jump through hoops for it just makes them uncompetitive on the international stage, the exact opposite of what any American wants.

And there’s that “payment system risk” talk that we talked about earlier. Consumers are protected in Bitcoin by default, if they use the correct tools. That means tools in the style of Pine, BlueWallet, Phoenix, Muun, Wallet of Satoshi, Samourai Wallet and Breez. In case you didn’t know, Pine is developed in the EU, BlueWallet in the U.K., Phoenix in France, Muun not in the USA (I believe), Wallet of Satoshi in Australia, and Breez comes from Israel. All of the best wallets already come from countries beyond U.S. jurisdiction. This should frighten any real American who wants America to dominate in Bitcoin. This crazy law won’t help America win.

Bitcoin is not a “financial asset” and therefore should not be touched, regulated, rule-made, distorted or bother the people who use it in any way by the SEC or the CFTC. It is a lie to claim that jurisdictional arbitrage opportunities produce uncertainty for innovators; innovators can read, have lawyers and can choose the jurisdictions that are best for their business models. Uniformity is poison to innovation and the coming multipolar world will make life better for innovative entrepreneurs and Bitcoiners alike.

Once again, the “systemic risk” they talk about is risk to them alone and their so-far unchallenged positions as the sole gatekeepers for everyone’s money and financial services. Bitcoin disrupts this status quo and that’s what they’re trying to kill. They will not succeed. Codifying rules in this case means bringing Bitcoin and Bitcoin companies inside the fence. They say this explicitly. They actually believe that they can bring Bitcoin inside their walled garden and everyone will simply go along with them. Even in foreign countries where billions of people desperate for liberty live. They’re totally delusional.

In Bitcoin, when you use an ethical Bitcoin wallet, there is no custodian and no custodial legal relationship between the wallet developer or his incorporation and the user. In fact, standard software disclaimers apply (as found in OSX and Microsoft Windows) where the company assumes no liability of any kind for any loss.

Because Bitcoin is software and not money, these disclaimers, end-user license agreements and other standard software customer agreements and contracts apply, not any financial services form of contract these computer-illiterate imbeciles are trying to enforce on Bitcoin companies. The legal relationship in the ethical Bitcoin context is, “You’re on your own, write down your seed phrase and enjoy Bitcoin.” That’s all that is required, and the best Bitcoin wallets will have that as their absolute, fundamental, zero-compromise standard.

As bitcoin is not a financial asset, or an asset held in a custodial account in an ethical Bitcoin wallet, the bitcoin balance displayed in any such wallet cannot be a part of the wallet company’s balance. That idea is simply crazy.

I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. government can’t stop Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, Syrians or the citizens of any country listed on any list from writing software. Eventually, when they stop thrashing themselves with chains they’ll wake up and start using Bitcoin. Very probably it will be Iran that does it first. They’re not stupid, and were able to take over a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel by vdreti vanj med letom, ga prevzame in varno pristane.

Do you really think people who are skilled enough to pull off a science fiction-level event like this can’t write and manage a Bitcoin wallet? When they do decide to do it (and believe me, it is inevitable), they will not be consulting Lummis and Gillibrand about how they should go about doing it. They’ll become peers on the network and there will be nothing anyone can do to stop them transacting in bitcoin globally.

Je to grožnja nacionalni varnosti Združenih držav Amerike? Ne toliko kot Fed. V strogem omrežju enakovrednih bo Amerika izšla močnejša, če bodo zakonodajalci vsakič sledili ustavi. Svoboščine Amerike so njeno največje orožje. Ta zakon Lummis-Gillibrand je jedka za te svoboščine in sposobnost Amerike, da tekmuje, in je zato bolj nevaren za Ameriko kot je iranska vlada.

Bitcoin and the services built on it are not “financial services” and should not be subject to regulation any more than book publishing or other speech activities. Federal financial regulators have no control over speech services in the USA. This is nonnegotiable.

Bearing this in mind, it is absurd and unconstitutional that publishers should be in a “sandbox” of any kind for any reason. Bitcoin businesses are not engaged in activities that are financial in nature, any more than McDonald’s is engaging in “financial activity” because they accept electronic or physical money in exchange for beef.

Bitcoin is not a financial product or service any more than an abacus is, and neither is it a delivery service, system or mechanism. The fact that there may be other services that are comparable should not exclude entrepreneurs from trying the same thing simultaneously in a “sandbox.” By nature, the management teams and the models, software and processes they produce will either be superior or inferior to each other and the market will decide which team wins. There is no logical reason to say that a team should be prevented from trying something simply because it is not novel. By this crazy logic, the first company to build a search engine would be eligible for the “search engine sandbox,” but not the second, because the second cannot be novel by its nature. Anyone who knows their history knows many early search engines failed and Google won.

Lummis in Gillibrand sta zaradi tega zbegana in želita, da je to prepovedano. št.

Kako je mogoče, da lahko en sam človek na položaju prepreči Američanom, da poganjajo programsko opremo na lastni opremi? Zakaj bi se kateri koli Američan izpostavil takšni potencialni grožnji s strani pajdaševskih kapitalistov? Vsak Američan z možgansko celico, tako kot ljudje, ki vodijo LN Markets, se sploh ne bi trudil umestiti svojega podjetja v ZDA in bi svoje podjetje postavil v etično jurisdikcijo, kjer so inovacije dobrodošle in slavljene. Potem bi lahko odkrili kodo QR in sodelovali v tej novi igri, ki so jo ustvarili, imenovani »LN Markets«.

LN Markets, which is a work of genius and innovation on many fronts, would be forbidden from operating in the USA, unchanged. It leverages the unique characteristics of Bitcoin and Lightning in a tour de force of techniques, most notably, using Lightning itself to “log in.” That this innovative company could be forbidden from emerging in the USA should terrify all Americans.

Lummis and Gillibrand want to do the equivalent of controlling the weather. You can’t. You have to live with the weather, and Bitcoin is exactly like that; you have to live with it on its terms. There are many benefits for anyone who does, like going to the beach in Miami to skiing in Colorado.

Znova se goljufivo napačno kategoriziranje in mešanje običajnih baz podatkov z denarjem uporablja kot pretveza za ustvarjanje množice novih zakonov najpozneje dve leti po sprejetju tega škandaloznega zakona. Nelogičnost je tukaj očitna. Želijo povečati enotnost, da bi zmanjšali regulativno breme. Tu nikakor ne bo šlo za najmanjši skupni imenovalec. Neupravičeno, neetično in neameriško vsiljevanje licenc za prenos denarja ljudem, ki upravljajo baze podatkov, je absurdno in uporabniki se mu bodo na koncu izognili ali pa ga bo SCOTUS razveljavil.

Tako imenovani "stabilni kovanci" niso nič drugega kot baze podatkov. Kaj je »payment stablecoin«, nimam pojma; zakaj se pripravljavci izrecno ne sklicujejo na orodja in projekte, ki jih poskušajo uničiti? Mislim, da vedo, da bodo, če bodo izrecno imenovani, na koncu imeli dobro financiranega nasprotnika, kot je Brad Garlinghouse, ki bo porabil 100 milijonov dolarjev, da Lummisa in Gillibranda ne bo vmešal v orodja njegove programske opreme.

There is a carve-out for companies and individuals doing Bitcoin mining, and astonishingly, non-custodial wallet providers.

This single line alone could make all of this legislation moot. As you will have seen, it is possible to build financial services tools in a non-custodial way. Everyone in Bitcoin will simply move to non-custodial models and earn money from connecting people who have all their money on their phones. This will mean that all the agencies trying to land grab will be rendered irrelevant by their own hand. It also shows that the drafters have no idea how much of a hole this is in their legislation, and how they really don’t understand how anything works at a fundamental level.

Vsako posamezno podjetje v prostoru se lahko spremeni v neskrbniško tako, da spremeni svojo programsko opremo in iztrga vso uporabniško specifično kodo, kjer se morajo ljudje »prijaviti«. Ljudem, ki jih zanima zasebnost, so cilji "gibanja brez prijave" znani. Če ni potrebe po zbiranju informacij, tega ne počnite. Zaradi GDPR v EU so se številna podjetja zbudila do tega: če prenehate jemati informacije ljudi, GDPR izgine, prav tako pa tudi izgube zaradi skladnosti s popolno norostjo, ki prihaja iz Evropske komisije.

To samomorilsko tableto bo treba črtati iz končnega osnutka, sicer zakon ne bo imel zob. Vsaka določba je zaradi nje sporna.

Lahko se motim, a to se mi zdi, kot da bo direktor sprejel pravila, ki se bodo uporabljala, če se Florida noče uskladiti z norimi zakoni in enotnimi pravili, ki jih uvaja urad za finančno zaščito potrošnikov in ki jih podpisujejo druge države. v to državo s kraljevim odlokom. To je nezaslišano. Ron DeSantis se s tem ne bo sprijaznil, zagotavljam vam!

Nekdo si pripravlja raziskovalno delo. Zakaj je to raziskavo sploh treba narediti? Po svoji naravi decentraliziranih financ in tehnologij (programske opreme) ne morejo nadzorovati ZDA, SEC, CFTC, mreža za boj proti finančnim zločinom ali kdorkoli drug, zakaj torej to sploh želite preučiti? Zaradi tega se boste le počutili nemočne in slabe.

V resnici lahko izdelava teh poročil naleti na milijoni dolarjev. Letni proračun kongresne raziskovalne službe je 106.9 milijona dolarjev. Kakšna velika izguba denarja.

Kot veš, Bitcoin doesn’t waste electricity in po definiciji ne more. To je bilo vstavljeno sem, da bi pomirili nore protiznanstvene ludite in verske fanatike antropogenega globalnega segrevanja.

Še enkrat, sejanje semena za prihodnje vmešavanje na trg, ki ga bodo ubogali le debeli in neumni, ki mislijo, da jim bo "pohvala" regulatorjem olajšala življenje. Profesionalni nasvet: Ne bo.

Določanje standardov je povsem zasebna in tehnična zadeva, pri kateri CFTC in SEC nimata nobene vloge. Tako kot je svetovni splet postavil vse svoje standarde – vključno z odhodom prostor v standardu za prihodnji način plačila — preden sta CFTC in SEC pomislila na kar koli od tega. Ti pozno prihajajoči luditi in geriatrični vmešavalci bi se morali umakniti tem stvarem, preden omadežijo in zastrupijo pokrajino s svojim smradom. Z njimi se načeloma ne bi smeli posvetovati ali vnaprej obveščati o tehničnih specifikacijah, ker so nesposobni in se nimajo pravice vmešavati v objavo.

Potrošniška pismenost? Morda bi morali začeti pri opismenjevanju potrošnikov glede fiata. Potem, ko vsem pokažejo, da so kompetentni učitelji, lahko svoje storitve brezplačno ponudijo podjetnikom, ki so dovolj neumni, da mislijo, da lahko ti nepismeni izobražujejo njihove stranke.

Professional accreditation? Only imbeciles from the State use these proxies to tell them who is and who is not capable of doing their job. The software industry has worked for decades without professional accreditation, which is nothing more than the state creating an obedient guild to control users by proxy. The entire internet was built without professional accreditation in place. It is not needed in Bitcoin either. “Vaš denar tukaj ni dober, »Ludditi!

Market surveillance is coming to an end with the new features that will be released in Bitcoin making the entire network opaque. You have no business or right surveilling other people’s use of their own money, and Bitcoin is going to shut you out forever. Even if you could see everything, you will never again have enough money to hire violent subhuman thugs to trouble innocent people who are minding their own business.

Foundations are worthless, and so are idiotic “associations.” Several people have tried to impose these old-world structures on Bitcoin, the latest one being the ridiculous Statist poseurs “Beseda B.” Vsi so propadli, ker prosti trg nima nobene koristi od klepetavih nikogaršev, ki so strahopetci in nesposobni služiti trgu.

As for voluntary and compulsory membership structures, no one in their right mind will join or support a compulsory membership structure. What do they have to gain from it? The only way it would be worthwhile is if membership granted them immunity from trash like this legislation. In absentia of that, it is of no use to anyone. Yet again, this is geriatric fiatism trying to impose its arthritic nonsense on something it can’t understand, rolling out all of the gestures it has from their long history of interference, and concatenating it on to Bitcoin: Bitcoin Association, “Bitcoin Developers Guild,” “Bitcoin Miners Committee,” etc. It is as predictable as it is useless and boring.

These people have no idea about anything. They permute phrases to hand and tack them in front of and behind “Bitcoin,” without any understanding of what anything means. None of them are software developers and this report will be yet another waste of time.

Resnično mislijo, da lahko organizacijska kultura naredi programsko opremo varnejšo; to je stopnja njihove popolne zablode. Dobesedno vzamejo dve veliki žlici in zmešajo besedno solato: patetično.

To je mesto, kjer lažnivi, debeli, svetlolasi slavljenci verjamejo, da jim bo dana priložnost, da usmerjajo regulacijo proč od svojih podjetij in morda škodijo uveljavljenim podjetjem. Gre za žalostno, depresivno in gnusno obliko korupcije, kjer imenovani dobijo status, ki nima nobene zveze z zaslugami, ter moč, ki je uničujoča in protiameriška. To, da bodo sedeli poleg CFTC in Fed, bi moralo biti dovolj, da odvrne vsako etično osebo.

69 strani popolne umazanije

Neopravičljiv, neameriški in absurden, ta sramotni dokument je tako slab, da se noben spodoben človek ne bi opisal z njim. Edini razlog, zakaj to ni popolna katastrofa, je, da ga lahko vsak Američan prezre, če bi katera koli določba v njem postala zakon. Američani se lahko ustanovijo kjerkoli na svetu in živijo svobodno.

That’s the way the world works, and Bitcoin is going to make it even better (or worse, if you’re from the class that authors bills like this). Every slave in the Bitcoin future will be one because they choose to be one, not because they’re being forced to be slaves. The entrepreneurial class can avoid this nonsense. There is precedent with the international online gambling companies run by Americans outside of America.

The Bitcoin future is America’s to lose. This bill will help them lose if it becomes law. It should be printed out and then ritually incinerated after being struck down by SCOTUS.

This is a guest post by Beautyon. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.