What kind of bullshit is regulated bitcoin


Compliance meand the act of obeying a law or rule, especially one that controls an industry , basically it is the conformity in the fulfillment of official requirements. It also refers to the act of doing everything that someone tells you or wants you to do.

Compliance is what is done within the legal framework of positive law regulated by the State - or States - and non-compliance is what is outside the regulation of this positive law.  

Compliance should not be confused with legality. In the most advanced systems of social organization, all new creations that do not harm third parties are legal, but at the same time they are outside of compliance. This is in accordance with the principle that everything that is not prohibited is permitted, in addition to the absence of specific regulations –compliance- for the new sector. Regulations that have not yet been created by the States because human creation is very recent or because the States consider compliance unnecessary for the phenomenon in question.  

In this legal normative political-cultural context, Bitcoin was born in 2009. Legal and without the need to adapt to any compliance given the absence of specific compliance regulations at that time. Later, as the network gained importance, States began to create specific compliance regulations for this technology. Which brings us to the present in which we find ourselves, in a 2024 of state hyper-regulation of the monetary phenomenon.    

 

While Bitcoin can be used in a compliant manner, its raison d'être is to exist as money to be used outside of compliance. 

Bitcoin is essentially a peer-to-peer (P2P) electronic cash system, meaning that there is no intervention by unwanted third parties. There can be third and fourth parties involved, but only if they are desired by the participants in the transaction.  

For example, when making a transaction from a single-signature wallet to another single-signature wallet, we would be dealing with a pure p2p case. Without any third party involved. But multisig transactions can also be made where different entities control various private keys and their participation in the scheme is necessary.  

In a more extreme example of the involvement of multiple entities, we can imagine a bitcoin transaction with the sending of sats to a regulated exchange (VASP). In this last case, although the transfer is p2p (the sender sends directly to the receiver), the regulator is also indirectly involved, since the latter controls - more or less directly - the actions of the VASP. This includes, to a greater or lesser extent, the administration of private keys through the use of the monopoly of force, coercion and the threat of violence and imprisonment.  

The essence of the protocol is to function without the need to obey laws or rules that regulate it. That is, without necessarily fulfilling official requirements. It is designed to serve humanity as a whole without having to obey this or that individual. Regardless of whether this or that person was elected as some form of representative of some State, such as Congressman, President, Prime Minister, Supreme Emperor or absolute Monarch of the Andromeda galaxy.

For Bitcoin, not only is any title of nobility irrelevant, but it is also irrelevant how many armed men the state representative has on his payroll. Even if the attacker possesses enough nuclear arsenal to wipe out all of humanity from the planet, this person cannot reverse or censor a single transaction.

In other words: the global human protocol for money transmission is immune to bullies, no matter how strong the bully or bullies are.

So, does it make sense to promote the use of Bitcoin in compliance? Can something positive be achieved for society by seeking to influence States so that this or that form of use of Bitcoin results in compliance? Are regulatory changes that expand the possibilities of using Bitcoin in compliance favorable for society as a whole? Does it make sense to educate the State trying not to violate freedoms due to errors in its understanding of technology? Would it be too far-fetched to think that the restriction of certain uses of this technology in a compliant way really constitutes an attack on the network? Due to the pretense of using the network contrary to its essence. If so, will the basilisk not bite those who want to cage it?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but it seems that Bitcoin and the State in their current form cannot coexist for long. One of the two will be forced to change, and it will not be Bitcoin that changes.

How do you rate this article?

22



Blockchain Development
Blockchain Development

A blog that covers everything that's happening in crypto world.

Send a $0.01 microtip in crypto to the author, and earn yourself as you read!

20% to author / 80% to me.
We pay the tips from our rewards pool.