воскресенье, 13 октября 2019 г.

zaliv

Bitcoin is a Permissionless, Decentralized Firearm: Cody Wilson is Satoshi Nakamoto

You Are Responsible Enough to Read Unapproved White Papers and Controversial Firearm Schematics

The fate of cryptocurrency’s future could very well rest in the hands of a 30-year-old former law school student who has been called The Most Dangerous Man in the World by Wired magazine. No one could have foreseen this, of course, least of whom Satoshi Nakamoto when he delivered his white paper, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System not quite a decade ago.
bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment
In it, the pseudonymous author went about detailing technical aspects of a trustless digital cash system with a decentralized audit log, a database conferring immutability for transaction recordings. The history is well known by most Bitcoiners, and today an entire universe of variations on that Bitcoin theme have sprouted.
Bitcoin is a Permissionless, Decentralized Firearm: Cody Wilson is Satoshi Nakamoto
They’ve done that because, for the most part, a healthy portion of the world has access to critical information regarding cryptocurrencies. And it is a universe unto itself: initial coin offerings, alternative coin projects, tokenizing, blockchain technology, speculation, exchanges, crypto loan products, etc. The list is virtually endless. What is in store for decentralized, digital money is in large measure up to how governments react.
bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance finance
business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business business IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT IT Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment Entertainment
A sizeable number of enthusiasts will suggest there is no scenario by which crypto can be completely snuffed out. This is true as far as we understand at the moment. It is always dangerous to underestimate the power of government, however. A few twists and legal turns here, a few draconian laws there, and, yes, even Bitcoin could be stifled, albeit not killed outright – the genie is surely too far from the bottle now for Bitcoin to be snuffed out.

Cody Rutledge Wilson is Satoshi Nakamoto

Governments have every incentive to make life hard for Bitcoiners, even if such policies seem largely benign at the start. If cryptos gain adoption on a massive scale, it is not inconceivable that crackdowns could begin. In the United States this will happen under the pretext and ruse of its legal system. The media, always looking to be law enforcement’s lapdog, may dutifully portray those who dabble in crypto as criminals or worse. It’s not difficult to see this already happening in pockets of the US.
All it will take is precedent, a legal prosecution upholding the idea some thoughts are too dangerous to allow digitally. If said thoughts are too contrary to government whim, and courts agree, applying a vague standard of censorship, it could have major ramifications for cryptocurrency adoption.
Bitcoin is a Permissionless, Decentralized Firearm: Cody Wilson is Satoshi Nakamoto
That standard already has one puzzle piece: Ross Ulbricht and Silk Road. Mr. Ulbricht, when all was said and done, was convicted for operating a website where illegal goods and services exchanged. He was given two life sentences, and without the possibility of parole. Have a website where people engage with it and wind up doing something illegal, and the publisher/owner is on the hook for legal consequences.
Enter Cody Rutledge Wilson, the notorious cryptoanarchist in Austin, Texas who shocked the world five years ago when he squeezed off the first shot from a printed plastic 3D mold. At the time, Mr. Wilson was considered a nuisance, an attention-seeker whose weapon, The Liberator, was thought to be irresponsible at most. Just as quickly, however, the US Department of State sought jurisdiction over Mr. Wilson’s project.

Cody Rutledge Wilson is Julian Assange

The bureau sent a cease and desist order to Mr. Wilson and his nascent company, Defense Distributed. The letter briefly explained hosting downloadable 3D gun files would be in violation of an international arms act. Mr. Wilson immediately cooperated, taking down CAD files which by that time had been downloaded some 100,000 times.
He was subsequently interviewed by authorities, and sent on his way as an ideological crank. He has never been arrested. He has never been charged with a crime. After waiting years for clarification on the substance of the State Department letter, Mr. Wilson lawyered up and went proactive. He sued the federal government on two grounds: First Amendment speech and Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.