Should a protestor anticipate the gvmnt freezing their bank account and preemptively transition to crypto? How does said protestor buy food, gas, stocks?
But the bars to invoke the law are quite high: "... the situation must be considered a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
This law outlines four possible scenarios:
- Espionage or sabotage
- Foreign-influenced activities
- Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives
- Covert, unlawful acts intended to undermine or overthrow the constitutionally established government"
If Trudeau should decide to invoke the law, this would certainly be challenged at court.
On the other hand, it's an illusion to think of crypto as being "free" money:
- to ramp on / ramp of you need bank- and creditcard-accounts: the gov could prohibit to transferring funds to and from exchanges.
- to buy and sell crypto the majority of holders use exchanges: the gov could close exchanges located within the reach of its jurisdiction and block access to foreign exchanges.
- without being able to pay with it, crypto does not really qualify as money: the gov could prohibit to making any payments in crypto.
- to verify transactions many cryptos, including bitcoin, use proof of work, which requires big data-centers with high energy use. The gov could, like China did, crack down on these data-centers within its reach and convince its allies to act accordingly.
All of these measures together would probably not kill crypto but would make it practically useless for common people.
Re the bar for law — it's hard to see where the protestors fit in that context. Certainly a court challenge will happen, and the perfect example of a need for unrestricted money.
Re closing exchanges/govt prohibitions — I'll repeat from the other comment. The point of crypto is that the protocols are decentralized. Governments can't really control use of them, but they can try to set rules on them, i.e. governments can make it illegal to use crypto just like it's illegal to use drugs, but people can still do it as long as they have an internet connection. Those who need to use crypto because traditional banking systems don't support them will have the option even in a crypto-regulation regime. I imagine that those whose financial rights are being infringed upon won't worry that much about breaking crypto laws.
Further, in democratic countries, it will be hard for governments to pass legislation, which would probably take years if done at all, to seriously restrict crypto.
There's also a global competitive incentive that will prevent countries from excessive crypto regulation. We're already seeing states and cities embrace crypto to attract people to live/work/build businesses/pay taxes there i.e. Miami, Wyoming. The same will be true at a national level. Servers to host the chain will be available because opportunistic countries will make them available even if major countries don't. We're past the point of killing the experiment with regulation.
I agree: It is unlikely that crypto can be killed. But it might be regulated drastically and what would free money (or free speech) be worth, if in the end it would only be for renegades ...
Don't agree: though crypto might not be money at all (which is not clear at the moment), crypto and blockchain are probably the future of money. They are going to revolutionize the way how money is moving around and change the legacy infrastructure of banking forever. To pay or move money will be possible at a fractional amount of todays cost (maybe as little as 10%). If people say crypto has no real use, they don't see this potential or don't take it serious. But this potential can only materialize as a consensus within society (and yes, this means: partly regulated). As a means of renegades dreaming of freedom from society the real utility of crypto would never become a reality.
If i was an authoritarian i would rescind physical cash and replace it with a blockchain to increase surveillance, tracking, security, digitization, control.
I’ve heard that experiment is being run with el Salvador’s “leader”
Some crypto coins seems like a good way to transfer money "underground"
...probably not bitcoin.
When i send/receive crypto, i change fiat to crypto, send/receive the coins, and change back into fiat to buy necessities and make investments in businesses. Which coin i use and how much that coin is worth doesn't matter. What matters is transaction fees to change fiat/crypto. crypto is too volatile to hold as money.
i do not speculate on crypto coin prices because prices are propped up by Chinese stable coin Tether. Bitfinex and Tether are owned by the same parent company and they are minting unbacked USDT. (they claimed the coin is pegged to $) Now they pump crypto prices. $80 billion fraud.
So if crypto's primary use case is an intermediary to curry money to anti-government mandate protestors and unlawful activities... seems like just matter of time before the government initiates anti-crypto regulation.
Crypto's primary use case is freedom from authoritarian control of one's money. The point of crypto is that the protocols are decentralized. Governments can't control use of them, but they can try to set rules on them, i.e. governments can make it illegal to use crypto just like it's illegal to use drugs, but people can still do it as long as they have an internet connection. Those who need to use crypto because traditional banking systems don't support them will have the option even in a crypto-regulation regime. I imagine that those whose financial rights are being infringed upon won't worry that much about breaking crypto laws.
The drugs analogy reminds me of this quote from a former Nixon staff member: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Should a protestor anticipate the gvmnt freezing their bank account and preemptively transition to crypto? How does said protestor buy food, gas, stocks?
The OG freedom money is cold hard cash.
But the bars to invoke the law are quite high: "... the situation must be considered a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
This law outlines four possible scenarios:
- Espionage or sabotage
- Foreign-influenced activities
- Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives
- Covert, unlawful acts intended to undermine or overthrow the constitutionally established government"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60381096
If Trudeau should decide to invoke the law, this would certainly be challenged at court.
On the other hand, it's an illusion to think of crypto as being "free" money:
- to ramp on / ramp of you need bank- and creditcard-accounts: the gov could prohibit to transferring funds to and from exchanges.
- to buy and sell crypto the majority of holders use exchanges: the gov could close exchanges located within the reach of its jurisdiction and block access to foreign exchanges.
- without being able to pay with it, crypto does not really qualify as money: the gov could prohibit to making any payments in crypto.
- to verify transactions many cryptos, including bitcoin, use proof of work, which requires big data-centers with high energy use. The gov could, like China did, crack down on these data-centers within its reach and convince its allies to act accordingly.
All of these measures together would probably not kill crypto but would make it practically useless for common people.
Re the bar for law — it's hard to see where the protestors fit in that context. Certainly a court challenge will happen, and the perfect example of a need for unrestricted money.
Re closing exchanges/govt prohibitions — I'll repeat from the other comment. The point of crypto is that the protocols are decentralized. Governments can't really control use of them, but they can try to set rules on them, i.e. governments can make it illegal to use crypto just like it's illegal to use drugs, but people can still do it as long as they have an internet connection. Those who need to use crypto because traditional banking systems don't support them will have the option even in a crypto-regulation regime. I imagine that those whose financial rights are being infringed upon won't worry that much about breaking crypto laws.
Further, in democratic countries, it will be hard for governments to pass legislation, which would probably take years if done at all, to seriously restrict crypto.
There's also a global competitive incentive that will prevent countries from excessive crypto regulation. We're already seeing states and cities embrace crypto to attract people to live/work/build businesses/pay taxes there i.e. Miami, Wyoming. The same will be true at a national level. Servers to host the chain will be available because opportunistic countries will make them available even if major countries don't. We're past the point of killing the experiment with regulation.
I agree: It is unlikely that crypto can be killed. But it might be regulated drastically and what would free money (or free speech) be worth, if in the end it would only be for renegades ...
A niche product for speculation and illicit activity
Don't agree: though crypto might not be money at all (which is not clear at the moment), crypto and blockchain are probably the future of money. They are going to revolutionize the way how money is moving around and change the legacy infrastructure of banking forever. To pay or move money will be possible at a fractional amount of todays cost (maybe as little as 10%). If people say crypto has no real use, they don't see this potential or don't take it serious. But this potential can only materialize as a consensus within society (and yes, this means: partly regulated). As a means of renegades dreaming of freedom from society the real utility of crypto would never become a reality.
Physical cash is the freedom money.
If i was an authoritarian i would rescind physical cash and replace it with a blockchain to increase surveillance, tracking, security, digitization, control.
I’ve heard that experiment is being run with el Salvador’s “leader”
“Crypto's primary use case is freedom from authoritarian control of one's money.”
Are you saying this will be the case in the future or it already is?
Is it money if the purchasing power fluctuates 10% in a day and you can buy almost none of basic needs with it?
Some crypto coins seems like a good way to transfer money "underground"
...probably not bitcoin.
When i send/receive crypto, i change fiat to crypto, send/receive the coins, and change back into fiat to buy necessities and make investments in businesses. Which coin i use and how much that coin is worth doesn't matter. What matters is transaction fees to change fiat/crypto. crypto is too volatile to hold as money.
i do not speculate on crypto coin prices because prices are propped up by Chinese stable coin Tether. Bitfinex and Tether are owned by the same parent company and they are minting unbacked USDT. (they claimed the coin is pegged to $) Now they pump crypto prices. $80 billion fraud.
So if crypto's primary use case is an intermediary to curry money to anti-government mandate protestors and unlawful activities... seems like just matter of time before the government initiates anti-crypto regulation.
Crypto's primary use case is freedom from authoritarian control of one's money. The point of crypto is that the protocols are decentralized. Governments can't control use of them, but they can try to set rules on them, i.e. governments can make it illegal to use crypto just like it's illegal to use drugs, but people can still do it as long as they have an internet connection. Those who need to use crypto because traditional banking systems don't support them will have the option even in a crypto-regulation regime. I imagine that those whose financial rights are being infringed upon won't worry that much about breaking crypto laws.
The drugs analogy reminds me of this quote from a former Nixon staff member: "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."