pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 20h \ parent \ on: OnRamp guy says self-custody is the reason mass adoption hasn't happened bitcoin
In the scenario where free banks are custodians for the masses, I am curious how it transcends geography. Won't govts be able to do as they do now and punish their citizens who interact with sanctioned addresses? And how is such a situation different from what we currently have going on with ecash mints?
I'd love to hear a conversation about this between you and Voskuil.
Before Bitcoin, when could a foreign company provide services to citizens of and against the will of an opposing state, on their soil? It's without precedent.
States level of relaxation, towards anything, isn't out of good will but because it's in a Mexican standoff. Just because they could open Pandora's box doesn't mean it's the best move.
Not sure what you're referring to re: ECash, there's nothing not retarded about ECash generally.
I actually agree with Eric most of the time under a set of assumptions, not sure what conclusions he'd arrive at given some my differing pre-suppositions.
You know I worked for him, sat outside his office when I otherwise should have been in college, way pre-Bitcoin? Unfortunately haven't bumped into him at Bitcoin events yet to catch up.
reply