I do think where the money is coming from to support vulnerable populations and how we define them is actually the key question for progressive policy. Right now we have mostly centralized authorities determining who is vulnerable (which is often arbitrary to some degree) and because there is no transparency in how people's taxes (let alone how their inflation) is spent, people are naturally suspicious of what is going on. To give a concrete example, as someone who has worked in the environmental regulatory space for over 20 years, I have seen this play out in my work. Environmental resources that should be protected often are not, typically because someone with a lot of money bulldozes their way through the regulations. On the other hand, perfectly reasonable and low impact projects are delayed and small developers stonewalled by endless red tape. I've also seen the environmental space be co-opted by certain favored actors to focus on funneling money to those causes, sometimes at the detriment of other environmental resources that are equally or even more deserving (in my opinion). The problem in short is that some person or entity is deciding how the money is redistributed and there is a lack of transparency as well as a lack of say from the people who provide that money. Hence, many people (not just libertarians) see this as unfair in some way and rightly so. In the olden days you had local communities that collected the funds and distributed them to the people to help the young, the old, and the disabled. There was still nepotism but the communities had much more input and your social standing mattered. Today the redistribution is at a national and even global level and the people's will is not observed. Therefore, I think it is of the utmost importance that any progressive policies address this key issue and I think that while Bitcoin addresses the Cantillon effect to some degree, we need to seek better cypherpunk ways of allowing the People to decide who and what causes they wish to help .


Cleared out the garage - giving my beer equipment to two active home brewers so it gets used again. Trying to reduce or eliminate my alcohol intake and find new hobbies.


We’ve been gaslit so hard as a society we think even legitimate things are a scam.


Been a bit over a month for me as well. Similar to adopting Bitcoin: anxiety down, hope for humanity up.


“Aim for where you want to go, not what you are seeking to avoid.” I think the first step for me was to unplug from X and other social media. My contributions may be small, but I’m no longer plugged into the matrix.


Primal


Welcome!


Parent life!


I was afraid “I’d miss something” if I unplugged from the algorithm. Instead by going 100 percent Nostr I’ve freed my mind from worry and opened it to the best of humanity. Don’t be scared, take the purple pill, be a free mind, once again.


I’m not on X anymore. I love that this is my timeline 😂


Spending time with people who are thinking deeply about the world and trying to make it a better place.


nostr:npub1lvfkd274unyj4z54q7gmcuk4r00zjx5r24wt933f4yh7m4uqdzkqnmukxq teaching the SacTown crew about Nostr tonight. nostr:npub1hxt5qldlnws7rs5pdfvm40kngeuphtylyjygv9uwnpvcvhh3y2jsmzsqcg


What if I’m just jealous of the tip touching? Still a dealbreaker?


Anyone using 0xChat for Nostr? Is it any good? Tired of Telegram scammers and looking for a replacement.


Test


There is no red, there is no blue. There is the state and there is you. Been saying this to my Bitcoin friends no matter the candidate.


Great explanation of the MSTR strategy. Why no wallet though? I’d like to zap your post.


Question 2: What impact would the proposed rule have on blockchain privacy or pseudonymity, noting that filings reported to FinCEN are not publicly releasable and the similarities of this proposal to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of transactions using the traditional financial system, such as with wire or Automated Clearing House (ACH) transactions?

Response to Question 2:

As noted in the response to Section A, Question 1, the proposed rule fundamentally misapplies a regulatory framework intended for traditional centralized financial systems onto a decentralized financial system. This decentralized system is built on code not owned by institutions and is, therefore, subject to protections under the First Amendment, similar to protected internet uses. Furthermore, the all-encompassing nature of these surveillance requirements also make the proposed rule a clear infringement on the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. This also makes it inherently unable to provide sufficient due process, under the Fifth Amendment. Finally, attempting to enforce these requirements may be viewed as extraterritorial overreach, since these requirements will clearly affect international finance as well as domestic.

Question 3: Does the impact on privacy and legitimate applications identified in Section IV.B potentially outweigh the risks posed by illicit activity facilitated by CVC mixing?

Response to Question 3:

While the proposed rule acknowledges the fact that there are legitimate uses of CVC mixing, it fails to quantify either legitimate or illicit uses. Therefore, it is not possible to make a complete estimation of whether the risks outweigh the benefits. However, the burden of proof for implementing an all-encompassing surveillance mechanism which infringes on privacy rights of the Fourth Amendment, has substantial and poorly understood costs to users, intermediaries and law enforcement, and very real economic costs to innovation should rest with FinCEN. That said, there is a sufficient body of evidence that the risks do not outweigh the benefits.

Question 4: What challenges are anticipated with respect to identifying the foreign nexus of a CVC mixing transaction?

Response to Question 4:

As noted in response to Section A, Question 1, there are legal, ethical, and technical challenges. On the legal front, there are concerns with First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights as well as the extraterritorial application of U.S. Law; the ethics of this proposal are fraught with moral hazard as what is proposed is in opposition to fundamental human rights of freedom of speech, privacy, and use of property; and technically the inherent pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions as well as challenges relating to identification of participants in a CVC transaction make enforcement practically impossible. While there are technical ways of achieving identification of CVC users (e.g., Advanced Heuristics, Forensics, KYC, AI, Geo Analysis, Public Ledger Analysis), this cannot stop even reasonably sophisticated individuals, let alone foreign state actors. In effect, the proposed rule will strip law-abiding U.S. citizens of their rights while doing nothing to stop actual criminals or foreign enemies.


Here are some of the summaries I made:

A. CVC Mixing As a Class of Transactions of Primary Money Laundering Concern
Question 1: Is the scope of the recordkeeping requirement appropriate?

Response to Question 1:

There are several significant issues with the scope of the recordkeeping requirements including legal and regulatory concerns, practical and ethical considerations, and feasibility.

First, there are several concerns regarding legal and regulatory factors. These include overreach of the agency’s regulatory mandates, including the fact that these actions likely constitute legislative powers. These requirements could exceed the boundaries of “reasonable statutory authority” under the PATRIOT Act. Furthermore, they are so broad and poorly defined that they fail to demonstrate sufficient evidence that they are not “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  Moreover, the all-encompassing nature of these surveillance requirements also make them a clear infringement on the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure. This also makes them inherently unable to provide sufficient due process, under the Fifth Amendment. Finally, attempting to enforce these requirements may be viewed as extraterritorial overreach, since these requirements will clearly affect international finance as well as domestic.

Second, there are practical and ethical considerations regarding the recordkeeping requirements. This includes weighing the effectiveness of the proposed requirements in enhancing AML/FT efforts against the substantial burden of financial institutions. Additionally, these stringent requirements could discourage legitimate use of CVCs and stifle innovation.

Third, there are numerous technical feasibility hurdles that the proposed recordkeeping requirements do not address. These include the inherent pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions as well as challenges related to identifying participants in a CVC transaction, the decentralized nature of the blockchain making enforcement across the network impossible, potential conflict with existing data privacy laws, and potential technological workarounds and evasion.


Per the request from nostr:npub1s5yq6wadwrxde4lhfs56gn64hwzuhnfa6r9mj476r5s4hkunzgzqrs6q7z and others at Ego Death Capital, please respond to the FinCen request for comments: https://egodeath.capital/blog/fincen-may-be-violating-your-rights-bitcoin#fincen-questions


EMH

Newly Forged Bitcoiner, Homebrewer, Conservationist


Fuck cancer.


Step 1 is something we are working on with our local Bitcoin group. There are a shocking number of people who see Bitcoin as the only asset but still struggle with cold wallet storage. Seedsigner makes it easy and most importantly it makes teaching easy with its inherently trustless state.


I especially enjoy listening to your based thoughts on Nostr. Reminds me of Behind the Music.


Works now! Thanks for all your hard work. https://image.nostr.build/28419283b58a40590625a67a63d1d6e5934df8c8d9c8539fce852158309978a8.jpg


Tried to make a payment on that page and the QR to pay doesn’t show up. Tried both the custom and sliding BTCpay.


They are scared.


The fact they are moving this direction is they are big scared.


fuck this dystopia

https://m.primal.net/HPtG.jpg


Are we actually the ones responsible though? We've supported a company that says "we are on the mission" and then turns right around and says, "no daddy banksters don't hurt me!" But us plebs went to Pacific Bitcoin and supported all their sponsored plebs. We need to stop giving oxygen to companies that are only Larping.


We as plebs need to recognize our complicity in this. You've probably been suspicious of the things Swan has said and done regarding Prime Trust. But if that didn't set off your alarm bells, this must. Look, I could give this company a pass if they didn't say things like "we're on the Mission" or "in a race to win the war against Bitcoin". They say, "we just have to comply with the banks, we have no choice, boo-hoo!". You aren't fooling us, we're past that point, it's obvious Larping. But furthermore, we have to hold ourselves accountable. Because we are the ones who attended Pacific Bitcoin, supported the Bitcoiners they sponsored and didn't tell them to pound sand. We are in the "and then they fight you" stage. We must resist. Boycott Swan, boycott their conference, boycott anyone they sponsor or who is associated with them. They will fear us more than the banksters.
https://void.cat/d/4s2k9gjzXanmGYgBGNDaPs.webp


Wow, that’s a fantastic story and shows the power of adversity when growing up and how that defines you. No wonder you are such a badass 😎


Great article. Loved the discussion of Dutch wealth coming from the private entrepreneurs rather than the State or even commodities.


The collective fear regarding the FinCen proposal is that tens of thousands will be jailed for political reasons.

That's the narrative that they would like you to think. But the reality that was learned during the French revolution and every time a western government has gotten too big for its britches is to get burned down to the ground. As we learned during the Block Size War, a minority of intransigent and belligerent maxis will destroy anyone with fiat-based incentives. And that is what these guys have. They may have the majority of the money and power but they don't actually believe in anything worth dying for.

This is why the colonies in the US went to war and won against the far superior British navy/army over a 2% tea tax. It was the principals that motivated people. In case you are thinking the we don't still have that today, just check in with the Zoomers. I have some Zoomers as employees at work. Despite immense pressure from corporate they will not come back into the office full time and no they aren’t putting in ridiculous overtime for promise of a piddly bonus at the end of the year. And the powers that be are finally starting to realize it - they are dead meat. Their entire business model is based on using the younger generation as free sweat equity for the Boomer's 401(k) plan and hefty medical bills. But the Zoomers won't pay up.

They (and the rest of us) have nothing left to lose. Everything worth having has been taken from us. The majority of us can’t afford to live – and forget raising the future generation. People, especially the younger generations, are fed up. The people in power see that and they are afraid of us. They are afraid of encryption, they are afraid of decentralization, they are afraid of the ways we employ to ensure free speech. And they are about to learn what every bourgeois learns every few generations from the proletariat - there are many more of us than there are of them. They stole our future and we are coming to take it back.


For us non technical people it’s a huge service. Thanks!