This issue is fundamentally an issue of property rights, specifically the property rights of the individual who is constructing block templates. While many people would construct blocks based purely on financial profit, aiming to maximize fees, it's crucial to note that there are more motivations than this. Moreover, this approach isn't a mandatory consensus requirement within the protocol. An individual may construct a block based on the expected social or psychological profit from their decision. For instance, regarding Inscriptions, one might opt to exclude them from Bitcoin and take steps to censor those transactions from their block template. If enough of the market agrees it could effectively lead to them being deactivated. In a broader sense, someone may act benevolently by crafting a block template that prioritizes low-fee transactions, aiding financially disadvantaged individuals in confirming their transactions on the base layer chain.
The idea is to make it public, humiliating and/or gruesome, so that it sends a message to the rest of them; a reminder of who they serve and why they are there in the first place. We are not supposed to be their slaves, nor are we supposed to kiss their feet and bend our knees to them. Many of us will only bend our knee to one entity, and that is by choice, not by force or coercion.
I think very few of us take satisfaction in the physical act of it, but with every action they take against us, the more justification we will have for a violent response.
Because fiat grows exponentially, by design, forever, and #Bitcoin supply is fixed, then as long as Bitcoin demand remains constant (at worst), every price point will be reached and exceeded, no matter how high.
$1M per Bitcoin? Guaranteed.
$10M per Bitcoin? You got it.
$1B per Bitcoin? Absolutely.
$1T? Of course.
It is only a matter of time.
Everyone here already knows this, but feel free to share with your friends not on Nostr.
Everyone on Facebook, Linkedin, TikTok, etc., have noticed....someone....was forcing these companies to censor various topics. Whether it was COVID, politics, money, religion, etc...
Everyone has seen something that just doesn't add-up.
So if...someone...is censoring speech, who, why and how are they doing it? More importantly, what could be a solution to this problem?
Here's something I wrote to answer all those questions. Enjoy.
Ledger Live Tracks and Sends ALL User Information to Outsourced Data Harvesting Service
"The tracking code is too structural to be just counting users and downloads, like regular apps do. Ledger Live is doing analytics on everything from screen views, to button clicks, error events, installs, uninstalls, etc. It's basically tracking everything. Anything you do on that app gets tracked."
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.
Welcome to a text based RPG GROUP GAME by #. Anyone can participate and affect the outcome but you MUST reply directly to each specific action message with only the action number itself. The first reply each round will decide what action is taken. A pool of 300 satoshis will be split among all that participate correctly if the game is won. Good luck! This game will time out in 6 minutes if no one responds. #games on #grownostr #bitcoin
You find yourself standing at the entrance of the Twilight Carnival, a mysterious and enchanting place. The sun is shining brightly, casting a warm glow on the colorful tents and rides. As you step closer, you notice a sign that reads, "Welcome to the Twilight Carnival! Enter at your own risk."
What would you like to do?
1. Enter the carnival and explore.
2. Look around for any clues or signs of danger.
3. Leave and come back later.
Remember, choose wisely! 
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.
it may be perceived as dismissive to say it, but inevitably, the majority of humanity will only ever interface with #bitcoin via the Lightning Network; they'll download softwallets, receive sats, and partake in the economy on L2
in the same way early adopters yeeted 10,000's of wholecoins without knowing what they were hodling
solutions will pop-up, such ad fedimint that will facilitate smoother UI/UX experiences...
fees will only remain high as long as ordinals are a thing, and the price-of-entry will remain prohibitive - both in terms of actual financial cost and education in learning about coin management