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

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 1:41 PM UTC

jordanb wrote: post #83

jihadjihad wrote: post #33

> [The Patriot Act] contains many sunset provisions beginning December 31, 2005, approximately four years after its passage. Before the sunset date, an extension was passed for four years which kept most of the law intact. In May 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunset Extensions Act of 2011, which extended three provisions. These provisions were modified and extended until 2019 by the USA Freedom Act,…

Whenever leftists say that "Trump is a symptom of an illness that has been metastasizing for a long time" this is what we mean.

Post by moduspol » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 1:43 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #86

moduspol wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote is "single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts." If you download any normal Bitcoin wallet today, it'll use a series of words to derive a series of private keys that are used by the wallet. Each one gets a different address. Then your wallet software is smart enough to treat all the addresses derived as a single wallet. When you go to make a payment, it makes it from the various addresses owned by the walle…

Doesn't that result in multiple transactions/transaction fees if you ever need to spend more than a single wallet contains?

Post by criddell » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 1:44 PM UTC

baggachipz wrote: post #64

electric_muse wrote: post #10

[flagged]

If only there were some sort of loud opposition to this act, predicting exactly the situation we're in today. Our elected representatives would have had to take a hard look at this and reject it due to its danger!

Post by potato3732842 » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 1:44 PM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #87

potato3732842 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point. They can't overtly outlaw things because aggrieved parties would sue and win. So they soft outlaw them with expensive record keeping requirements and ambiguity because no business big enough to win but smaller than a giant mega-corp will intentionally risk going toe to toe with the government in court as doing so would likely be financially ruinous. And even if the government doesn't look like…

As long as the government only tazes your dogs and ruins your business, you can't even sue against the law even on constitutional grounds. See Knife Rights V Garland. [] No one had been convicted in the past 10 years for violating the switchblade act, so the state ruled the law couldn't be challenged ("no standing"), even though it was actively being used to ruin people's businesses and raid their homes (the governme…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 1:45 PM UTC

blindriver wrote: post #81

conception wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine the world today if Bernie had won?

He was sabotaged by the DNC. Even Elizabeth Warren said that the nomination process was rigged by the DNC. Absolute corruption and the world would absolutely be a different place. But his support of ratcheting up the Ukraine war disappointed profoundly. That’s not the Bernie I would have voted for.