{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2012-01-17\n📝 Original message:On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:46:39 PM Alan Reiner wrote:\n\u003e In response to Jeff and Luke-Jr, I don't see how this is /just any other\n\u003e poltical issue/.  It strikes at the heart of everything Bitcoin is about.\n\nSorry, Bitcoin is not about the same thing to everyone. For me, Bitcoin is \nabout one thing: providing a monetary system for the Tonal number system. \nOtherwise, it would be merely an interesting project I have no real concern \nwith. To assume everyone has the same interests is a sure-fire way to prevent \nwidescale adoption. If you want Bitcoin to succeed, don't try to impose a \nsingle purpose/\"about\" on everyone using it (which a \"blackout\" would do).\n\n\u003e Barring Bitcoin-specific legislation, I don't see how any legislation\n\u003e could be more relevant to Bitcoin and the community around it.\n\nBitcoin is an innovative new currency. How is a bill on internet censorship \n(which is badly needed, even if not in the form of SOPA/PIPA) directly \nrelevant? I don't think it is."}