3 ms·

> The monoliths of finance will set the legislation that will determine everything about crypto-currencies in all major economies. As it turns, they won't. Or

> The monoliths of finance will set the legislation that will determine everything about crypto-currencies in all major economies. As it turns, they won't. Or, more to the point, can't. Bitcoin didn't 'ask' for permission for anything, because permission isn't required to do math. There seems to be this unshakeable belief in some people that things that things that aren't given permission by a government aren't legal, where it is, in fact, the other way around.

freeflight 9y ago
> There seems to be this unshakeable belief in some people that things that things that aren't given permission by a government aren't legal, where it is, in fact, the other way around. It's got more to do with the knowledge that governments are the ones who decide what's legal and what's not. So if governments deem cryptocurrencies as "illegal", or something worth regulating, then there's literally nothing you can do against that. Wouldn't be the first time mere math has been heavily regulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  No. Rights define what governments can and cannot do in democracies. It's amazing how many people from America of all places, that now fail to understand this.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    And who defines those rights? Governments do. That's something only very few people from US America seem to understand. Even the mighty US constitution has had twenty seven amendments since it's original inception. We are not talking about some unchangeable "god given natural law" here, we are talking about human made contractual frameworks which have been evolving just as much as the societies they are meant to govern.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      No. The constitutions define the limitations of government, not the other way around. It is those limitations that people give governments to act on their behalf within those limitations. Again. It is amazing that this has to be explained to an American. Guns are not 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take them away from you. Free speech isn't 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take it away from you. These amendments which you have brought up are about defining the limitations of government. QED.
      - freeflight 9y ago
        > The constitutions define the limitations of government, not the other way around. Not every nation does have a constitution, some even completely lack a comparable document. I'm also not a US American because as I said before: It's pretty much only US Americans who seem to have issues understanding this very simple dynamic. > Guns are not 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take them away from you. As confirmed by the supreme court: The government does have said power to enact regulations of said firearms because the second amendment leaves that interpretation room. > Free speech isn't 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take it away from you. The government, of course, has the power to take that away from you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone How "free" is speech really when you can't even choose time, place and manner of said speech? I ask you again: Who is in the ultimate position of power to interpret a nations constitution and actually enforce said interpretation? Idealists might claim "the people!", when in all actuality it's the acting government. Case in point: Many of the people in Hamburg also demanded their constitutional given right to "freedom of assembly", the vast majority of them did so peacefully. Guess how that turned out? With a media campaign painting the whole movement as rioters and common Germans demanding that police should simply shoot them.
        Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        Hate to break it to you, you've just brought up a bunch of disjointed statements, with questions peppered throughout in order to deflect attention away from the reality of what I wrote. Not a single one of your points counters what I said. Not sure why you'd do that, but here we are.

freeflight 9y ago

> There seems to be this unshakeable belief in some people that things that things that aren't given permission by a government aren't legal, where it is, in fact, the other way around. It's got more to do with the knowledge that governments are the ones who decide what's legal and what's not. So if governments deem cryptocurrencies as "illegal", or something worth regulating, then there's literally nothing you can do against that. Wouldn't be the first time mere math has been heavily regulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

Frogolocalypse 9y ago
No. Rights define what governments can and cannot do in democracies. It's amazing how many people from America of all places, that now fail to understand this.
- freeflight 9y ago
  And who defines those rights? Governments do. That's something only very few people from US America seem to understand. Even the mighty US constitution has had twenty seven amendments since it's original inception. We are not talking about some unchangeable "god given natural law" here, we are talking about human made contractual frameworks which have been evolving just as much as the societies they are meant to govern.
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    No. The constitutions define the limitations of government, not the other way around. It is those limitations that people give governments to act on their behalf within those limitations. Again. It is amazing that this has to be explained to an American. Guns are not 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take them away from you. Free speech isn't 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take it away from you. These amendments which you have brought up are about defining the limitations of government. QED.
    - freeflight 9y ago
      > The constitutions define the limitations of government, not the other way around. Not every nation does have a constitution, some even completely lack a comparable document. I'm also not a US American because as I said before: It's pretty much only US Americans who seem to have issues understanding this very simple dynamic. > Guns are not 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take them away from you. As confirmed by the supreme court: The government does have said power to enact regulations of said firearms because the second amendment leaves that interpretation room. > Free speech isn't 'legal'. The government doesn't have the power to take it away from you. The government, of course, has the power to take that away from you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone How "free" is speech really when you can't even choose time, place and manner of said speech? I ask you again: Who is in the ultimate position of power to interpret a nations constitution and actually enforce said interpretation? Idealists might claim "the people!", when in all actuality it's the acting government. Case in point: Many of the people in Hamburg also demanded their constitutional given right to "freedom of assembly", the vast majority of them did so peacefully. Guess how that turned out? With a media campaign painting the whole movement as rioters and common Germans demanding that police should simply shoot them.
      - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        Hate to break it to you, you've just brought up a bunch of disjointed statements, with questions peppered throughout in order to deflect attention away from the reality of what I wrote. Not a single one of your points counters what I said. Not sure why you'd do that, but here we are.