It would be trivial for them to weasel the definition of "lawfully owned" to allow seizure, the same as any other asset seizure.

Tells you universal health care might be on the way in the USA, if the UK history from the Boer war is any example: https://history.port.ac.uk/?p=2264

They simultaneous think the younger generation are softer, but also more dangerous.

They consider younger generations weaker, but also more criminal.

Less able to survive, but somehow dominating and threatening to the current order.

Any time you see someone arguing these kinds of contradictions you know they're a fool.

When a corporate like Pizza Hut run a promotion, it is not to shift ingredients near expiry. It is to achieve a revenue target set by their bosses which is nearing due.

Anyone been following this story? No love lost for the Russian government, but seems to set a dangerous precedent that Linux is essentially a US controlled project.

It's not the advertising I mind, it's the dragnet surveillance that underpins it.

And completely unnecessarily -- we had over a century of advertising which didn't rely on surveillance which worked very well for businesses and their customers. The idea all advertising needs surveillance is a myth.

A channel is what connects lightning with the base layer. Without channels there is no connection to real bitcoins.

Same story with Twitter.

Remember the Arab Spring and Western governments celebrating the role of Twitter in organising protest against repressive regimes?

Good money isn't free

Someone's going to fork the country

One of the big misunderstandings of healthcare is that even under a non nationalised system, other people will almost always be paying for your treatment.

Think of a fully privatised health insurance model - the premium you pay each month, over a lifetime, would still never be enough to cover one very complex health issue like cancer where the costs can run into the millions.

So whilst people in the US think they are paying for themselves, and reject the idea that they should pay for others, they manifestly are. Unless they're fortunate enough never to experience serious illness or accident, or simply have millions in personal wealth to cover these possibilities out of pocket.

He's almost coming around to bitcoin too: https://world.hey.com/dhh/i-was-wrong-we-need-crypto-587ccb03

100%, selling a preflashed phone just screams honeypot or supply chain attack risk.

If you care enough about the benefits, it's best to learn and do it yourself. Otherwise it's a larp.

I would also add that this is still "net bullish", as it demonstrates Bitcoin has far passed the point of being ignored. The race is on for political & corporate groups to try to understand it. What they do with what they learn remains to be seen...

Bitcoiners need to learn the difference between an organisation taking a new policy position and an organisation publishing research briefs.

This is a research brief.

Anyone who has worked in a large global corp or NGO understands that the rank and file of the org are regularly debating and exploring ideas, some of which go on to inform policy. But very often the wider political context of the org means research briefs and projects do not change policy.

Think of all the telecom companies who saw the internet coming but did nothing, the auto companies who had teams exploring EVs back in the 90s and went nowhere, how Kodak and Polaroid predicted digital photography but failed to shape their companies around it in time.

It's an interesting paper, but it's no indicator that the entire IMF is about to go Bitcoin maxi.

"The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management."

The context no one is talking about is the issues Peter is having with the local town council, who are currently not going to renew his lease on the football ground the team play at.

I wouldn't be surprised if a big factor in bringing big money in is to get the legal heft that comes with American billionaire backing.

Social media is mind of a dumb phrase. It's as valid a description of the web as it is anything else.

What sucks isn't social media, it's surveillance media, that is media which requires hoovering up behavioural data to serve content and advertising explicitly to change behaviour. This is the central problem of the platforms: on the one hand they collect behaviour data to better target advertising, on the other they explicitly change behaviour through advertising. Feedback loops of hell ensue.

There's nothing wrong with social media. There's nothing wrong with advertising either (free market + free speech). The risk is when dragnet surveillance couples the two together into a single system which feeds itself.