rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-09-20 📝 Original message:> > Also, in the US, despite overwhelming resistance on a broad scale, > legislation continues to be presented which would violate the 2nd amendment > right to keep and bear arms. And yet the proposed legislation goes nowhere, and the USA continues to stand alone in having the first world's weakest gun control laws. You are just supporting my point with this example. Obama would like to restrict guns, but can't, because they are too popular (in the USA). The comparison to BitTorrent is likewise weak: governments hardly care about piracy. They care enough to pass laws occasionally, but not enough to put serious effort into enforcement. Wake me up when the USA establishes a Copyright Enforcement Administration with the same budget and powers as the DEA. Internet based black markets exist only because governments tolerate them (for now). A ban on Tor, Bitcoin or both would send them back to the pre-2011 state where they were virtually non-existent. Governments tolerate this sort of abuse only because they believe, I think correctly, that Bitcoin can have great benefits for their ordinary voters and for now are willing to let the tech industry experiment. But for that state of affairs to continue, the benefits must actually appear. That requires growth. I think there's a difference between natural growth and the kind of growth > that's being proposed by bank-backed start-ups and pro-censorship entities. > What difference? Are you saying the people who come to Bitcoin because of a startup are somehow less "natural" than other users? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150920/52eca066/attachment.html>