greyface-

You are welcome to police the category of 'money' as much as you want, but I don't see what this has to do with the argument being made upthread. Are you saying that the government accepting tax payments in gold or bitcoin would eliminate profit-maximizing behavior and free us from the tyranny of the 8-hour workday?

Neither is taxed at rest; only when spent, on its appreciated (nominal) value. At worst, this is double (real) taxation, which, while still objectionable to some, is not continuously dilutive as GGP suggests.

Individuals in the U.S. holding this thesis (which I am sympathetic to) have had the ability to opt out of using government currency for savings since 2009 (bitcoin) or 1975 (gold). Yet, the problem persists.

Tesla has binding arbitration that prohibits class actions.

[1] appears truncated, I think you meant: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s...

The first Friday of every month, to be specific.

It's trivial for an attacker to learn the validation origins by triggering validations of their own servers while watching the logs. Secrecy confers no advantage here.

An Intel signature does not guarantee that it came from the enclave. It guarantees that it came from something blessed by Intel. To conclude that it must have come from an unmodified enclave requires trust in Intel and the integrity of their signing process. This is inconsistent with "no trust required".

What if, for example, a three-letter agency seized keys from Intel, served them with a gag order to prohibit disclosure of the seizure, put themselves in the middle of the network path between you and the user, and modified the server software to send falsified signatures derived from those seized keys?

> question is, is transit over exchange better/cheaper

Better? No, almost never. Cheaper? Sometimes, especially in DCs that charge ridiculous MRCs for cross-connects. For a small/personal ASN, it can be the right choice.

Related proposed legislation that would explicitly shield app stores (and wallet developers) from any liability related to such wallets: https://saveourwallets.org/ https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3633...

Certainly not via route servers or typical bilateral peering configurations - but transit-over-exchange is a thing, if you can find an exchange participant willing to offer it to you.

I tried to open source a weekend personal project while at $BIGCO via their "Invention Assignment Review Committee". It turned into a minor bureaucratic nightmare and I was ultimately never given the OK to release it, or any clarity over whether my employer was choosing to assert an IP ownership interest in it. In retrospect, I wish I had never notified them of its existence, and released it under a pseudonym instead.

> (non-treasury!) assets

What about TIPS and I bonds?

The message is an important one, and it deserves advocacy. I have advocated for this specific legislation myself in recent comments. But we've seen in the past what happens when this individual is given attention, and it is difficult to, in good conscience, assist him in attracting more of it.

For me, the headline evoked memories of this 2011 Dropbox security incident. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576

> Do you know if this would allow private action?

Yes - Sec. 8(c) establishes the right of a debanked person to take civil action (and recover attorney's fees) against the offending bank. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/987/...

This is a rather paranoid reading of the bill, and I don't think the clause you cite has the effect you describe. For one thing, it's in the "Findings" section, which is not operative statutory text - it's a statement of opinion to describe the authors' state of mind at the time the bill was written. Further, in the scenario you describe - a bank cutting off services after an individualized risk assessment - if the cut-off customer was in compliance with the law, 4(c) causes the bank to lose access to the Fed window, which is basically game over for them. Today, banks can cut off services for nearly any reason with little recourse. If the bill passes, banks will need to be extremely careful when cutting off services to individuals.

Read the legislation for yourself.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/987/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

I don't see a basis for the assertion by the resistbot letter that it could "force banks to cut off services to" "marginalized communities". It actually appears to do the opposite - banks that cut off services to law-abiding people would lose their access to the Fed lending window.

"Fair use" is a concept specific to US copyright law. The author is in the UK, where "fair dealing", which is more limited, applies instead. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30

It's good for incumbent terrestrial cable companies, too.

Good time to note that Buypass offers free certificates over ACME. I have a few of my domains configured to use them instead of LetsEncrypt, just for redundancy and to ensure I have a working non-LE cert source in case LE suffers problems like this over a longer time period.

Example OpenBSD /etc/acme-client.conf:

  authority buypass {
   api url "https://api.buypass.com/acme/directory"
   account key "/etc/acme/buypass-privkey.pem"
   contact "mailto:youremail@example.com"
  }
  domain example.com {
   domain key "/etc/ssl/private/example.com.key"
   domain full chain certificate "/etc/ssl/example.com.pem"
   sign with buypass
  }

The value of appreciated stocks (or other assets) still represents purchasing power, either through piecemeal sales as needed to match spending, or via asset-backed loans ("buy, borrow, die") to avoid sales entirely. This increased purchasing power drives up demand for (and therefore prices of) goods and services generally in the region.

PQ signatures are significantly larger than regular ECDSA signatures used today. This proposal builds on BIP-360, which suggests a witness discount increase to mitigate this (not precisely specified, but external discussions by the author have suggested 16-64x). A discount would mean larger blocks, while no discount would mean higher transaction fees and even lower on-chain throughput. Are we entering a new blocksize war? A 64MB block size, in exchange for defense against a vulnerability that at this moment remains hypothetical, seems unlikely to pass without some controversy.

Taxes don't directly pay for military spending. If tax revenue, for whatever reason, dropped off a cliff, they'd continue giving money to the DoD, and just increase debt / money printing to cover the difference.

> all existing wallets would be hackable until they migrate

Not necessarily. See "Discussion of Guy Fawkes signatures to protect some current bitcoins against quantum theft" and "Commit/reveal function for post-quantum recovery of insecure bitcoins" sections of the Optech page.