Live data from Hacker News

The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

tftc.io

321–330 of 611 posts

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#321
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can forget about liberties until you come up with a better acronym

Would you settle for a catchy motto, mayhap? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Free_or_Die > "Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, adopted by the state in 1945. It is possibly the best-known of all state mottos, partly because it conveys an assertive independence historically found in American political philosophy and partly because of its contrast to the milder sentiments foun…

I suppose one must die, since living free is not an option.

Note to self: stay out of New Hampshire.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#322

I have a grad school professor that owes me $1M dollars on a bet that the Patriot Act would never end. I told him he was painfully naive and not suitable to each graduate school economics with such thinking.

Professor response after ignoring rambling student. Ok. Walks away.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#323

[flagged]

This should surprise literally nobody. Let me briefly explain the US political landscape.

Classic liberalism is a pollitical and moral philosophy that came about in the last 600+ years that (among other things) enshrined individualism and private property. This evolved hand in hand with enclosures (ie private property) and ultimately led to capitalism as an economic system.

Colloquially, "liberal" is used to describe someobody who is socially progressive, typically a Democrat, but that really has nothing to do with the origins.

Neoliberalism is what liberalism evolved into, primarily in the 20th century. The key principles are that capitalism (the "free market") is the solution to basically all problems and deregulation (to increase profits, basically).

Everybody is a (neo)liberal. Democrats and Republicans both. Note that "leftists" are by definition not neoliberals and are anti-capitalist but people often mistakenly use terms like "liberal" and "leftist" interchangeably when they couldn't be more different.

Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. Fascism is capitalism in crisis. The Democratic Party as it exists in the US today, is controlled opposition.

So we come to the Overton window. This is how it goes:

1. Republicans pass some legislation like the Patriot Act to take away rights, usually under the guise of "security". The Patriot Act of course was passed in the aftermath of 9/11;

2. Ultimately the Democrats get in office and... don't reverse it. It becomes the new normal. They do this by being institutionalists. But defending institutions is merely an excuse for inaction.

3. Come the next election the Patriot Act or the border wall or whatever will the new normal and some even more fascist legislation will be on the table. As an example, try and find the daylight between the immigration plan of the Kamala Harris 2024 campaign and the Trump 2020 immigration plan (that Democrats opposed at the time).

Nobody cares about our individual rights. Things continue to get worse because both parties will always choose the US imperial project and the profits of corporations over your rights. We are six companies in a trenchcoat.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#325

[flagged]

Agamben wrote some interesting analysis of this [1], expanding on the concept of the "state of exception", which was a older concept introduced by a much more odious man who employed it very effectively in the early 20th century. Agamben argued that modern governments now try to create permanent states of exception, of which I would argue the Patriot Act is a perfect example.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Agamben#State_of_Excep...

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#326

I think the case for why strong encryption is important is much clearer than why untraceable financial instruments are important and I don't think it's super compelling to argue that these things are actually the same, even if your opposition to government control is the same. I think it's actually pretty clear that almost all people are not capable of secure and reliable self-custody and would be better off with an…

I think you are conflating 2 things: - ability to privately give money to someone (mechanism is irrelevant, by hand or by way of a blockchain) - self-custody risks for uninformed users The first one is the privacy argument. Would you be comfortable if you’re not allowed to give the cash in your pocket to someone without someone watching over? If the answer is no, you are pro privacy for financial transactions. Cash h…

I don't have a predetermined opinion on whether it is good or bad for cash to be untraceable.

I think arguments for privacy are pretty poorly argued and often come down to "isn't the idea of someone watching you icky" which this thread is not disabusing me of.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you settle for a catchy motto, mayhap? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Free_or_Die > "Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, adopted by the state in 1945. It is possibly the best-known of all state mottos, partly because it conveys an assertive independence historically found in American political philosophy and partly because of its contrast to the milder sentiments foun…

I suppose one must die, since living free is not an option. Note to self: stay out of New Hampshire.

[flagged]

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both should be limited. Almost everything should be limited. Deciding the limits is called politics.

Political solutions are often messy and complex. Pragmatic fixes are rarely obvious and overreaches are common. Reforms are ongoing. Conversely, absolutists have no use for nuance. The war on cash is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://ij.org/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-convenience-s...

Something being imperfect doesn't mean that getting rid of it is an improvement.

Should civil forfeiture be heavily reformed, and is it being obviously abused? Yes. Is the ability to use cryptocurrency to bypass sanctions, fund oppressive regimes, drive criminal empires, and power a new generation of scams a much worse problem? Absolutely.

Proponents of a system explicitly designed to enable financial fraud shocked when governments apply fraud rules to them, news at 11.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#329
post #315

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do…

No one ever answers the “what do you have to hide” question, which is a little sus.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#330

There's a conflict between Bitcoin as a public ledger, privacy, and money laundering. With a bank you can have anti-money laundering and bank secrecy. Transaction are known by the bank, can be subject to subpoena or automatic reporting, but are non-public. If you want privacy on Bitcoin you need to do things that look a lot like money laundering. Governments banning money laundering isn't a surprise. The value of Bit…

> There's a conflict between Bitcoin as a public ledger, privacy, and money laundering There is, to be fair, a legitimate debate to be had about dismantling our anti-money laundering infrastructure.

No, there really isn't. Money laundering has been a huge problem enabling all sorts of crimes and issues. There is no debate to be had on the benefits of prohibiting it, and you have to be very deep in the Silicon Valley rabbit hole to think even 5% of the population of any nation would support doing away with those rules.
Post reply on HN