3 ms·

It is exactly the explicit job of the government to say exactly such things. That's who. Not because they are god, because they are how society codifies what i

It is exactly the explicit job of the government to say exactly such things. That's who. Not because they are god, because they are how society codifies what it wants and sets policies to achieve it. Cryptocurrency isn't even banned, only proof of work. It's a completely valid thing for a government to set a policy about. Especially now that the experiment has been allowed to run without meddling for many years, and the results are well and truly in. There might be an argument about invalid interference on day one, but not now.

taolegal 4y ago
> only proof of work Banning proof of work is tantamount to banning computation, it's silly and infeasible unless you want to start monitoring what people calculate. Which for anyone remotely sane is laughable on its face.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. The purpose of a state-level policy (state as in government not state as in NY) is to have a state-level agregate effect, not to actually care about each microscopic individual instance. If you make a policy that in effect Bitcoin is illegal, that will have a population-scale effect. The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. You didn't say anything they didn't know perfectly well.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    > The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. Why call me juvenile? That's not necessary to make your argument. It's rude too and against the rules. > Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. No it's not, enforcement practicality is the only important issue regarding a law. An unenforceable law is useless.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      I didn't say it's not an issue, I said it's a separate issue. The question of if a thing is harmful or should be controlled or declared illegal, and the question of how the implimentation mechanics of controlling a thing might be done, are two completely different questions. If you had no way to physically prevent murders, that does not then follow that therefor murder shouldn't be illegal. Failing to realize that is yet another example of jeuvenile. Practically every law, policy, regulation, code, etc has some element of arbitrariness, interpretation, and discretion or selective enforcement. This one is no different.

taolegal 4y ago

> only proof of work Banning proof of work is tantamount to banning computation, it's silly and infeasible unless you want to start monitoring what people calculate. Which for anyone remotely sane is laughable on its face.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. The purpose of a state-level policy (state as in government not state as in NY) is to have a state-level agregate effect, not to actually care about each microscopic individual instance. If you make a policy that in effect Bitcoin is illegal, that will have a population-scale effect. The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. You didn't say anything they didn't know perfectly well.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. Why call me juvenile? That's not necessary to make your argument. It's rude too and against the rules. > Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. No it's not, enforcement practicality is the only important issue regarding a law. An unenforceable law is useless.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    I didn't say it's not an issue, I said it's a separate issue. The question of if a thing is harmful or should be controlled or declared illegal, and the question of how the implimentation mechanics of controlling a thing might be done, are two completely different questions. If you had no way to physically prevent murders, that does not then follow that therefor murder shouldn't be illegal. Failing to realize that is yet another example of jeuvenile. Practically every law, policy, regulation, code, etc has some element of arbitrariness, interpretation, and discretion or selective enforcement. This one is no different.