Slashdot Mirror
EFF Resumes Accepting Bitcoin Donations After Two Year Hiatus
hypnosec writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has started accepting donations in the form of Bitcoins again after a two year hiatus, stating that the legal uncertainty hovering over the digital currency has all but disappeared. On their blog the EFF noted that a report from U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in addition to their own findings, 'have confirmed that, as a user of Bitcoin or any virtual currency, EFF itself is likely not subject to regulation.'"
Lawyers are nerds, too.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Pity they hadn't been collecting them for the past two years, and just saving them. They'd have made a mint!
Law is a curious mixture of logic, psychology, history, ethics, and economics. It is not dominated by any one of those areas, but rather its complexity comes from the myriad interactions between different aspects of a particular situation. There is a certain nerdy beauty in those interactions and, for instance, it can indeed be quite interesting to see logical arguments suggesting discarding centuries of history in response to a recent socioeconomic change. Then with all the fervor of a sporting match and the careful maneuvering of a chess game, the opposing lawyer presents his logical arguments for how the past centuries' traditions should be upheld because the people now widely believe them to be ethically right, regardless of some particular moral standpoint.
Almost equally interesting is watching the other nerds arguing about which team is better. It's like a sports-bar brawl, but with bigger words.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I donated some just because. I don't use my wallet that much anyway and there is never a bad reason to toss a little money EFF's way.
posting ac because <spookyvoice\>ooooo... bitcoin anonymity...</spookyvoice\>
You, sir, sound like someone who has only dealt with credit card companies as a consumer. Their per-transaction rates and additional fees are ridiculous and they reserve the right to reverse any transaction at any time on their own discretion. A move away from centralized payment systems, with their single points of control and the accompanying rent-seeking is a benefit to everyone except the major processors.
Do you really think that giving a few financial service companies a stranglehold on most economic activity is a good thing? If a handful of companies including Visa, Inc. work together, they can effectively stop payments to any organization they like. Bitcoin isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Question is, which one is more "real"?
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff, suddenly Bitcoin doesn't seem so fake after all.
(Though personally anyone who doesn't have some sort of tangible assets in their pile is asking for a total loss...)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Tangible assets have value only so long as someone else values them. What you think they are worth is beside the point. Tulips, anyone?
Sorta... Depends on which ones.
The ones in the building where I work are a mixed bag:
Attitude-wise, they range from egotistical asshats who deserve to be wrapped in chains and pitched into the river, to a couple of guys I know who are cheerful, friendly, and some of the kindest gents you'll ever meet... unless you're on the wrong end of their cases.
Nerd-wise? Some can dive damned deep into caselaw, to the point of sheer OCD - they argue legalities in casual settings like me and my co-workers debate offsite tape backups vs. offsite SAN snapshots. Those lawyers would qualify as pure nerds. Others are in it just for the ego boost, the money, the... wel, just like IT folk and programmers, really. Mixed bag.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Good point re. tulips. OTOH, tangible assets like precious metals, water rights, mineral rights, real estate? As long as you don't get stupid about investing in them, and do so with your eyes open, you generally do better in the long run, and have a very good hedge against monetary crashes (and don't invest in perishable items - hence you avoid commodities).
I'm not saying that one should entirely abandon cash, stocks, etc. What I am saying is that relying on fiat currency (or anything purely based on it, like stocks) as your sole source of security is pretty damned risky. You may get lucky, or you may lose your shirt if inflation ever gets out of its cage.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You can't live in a tulip; you can live in a house. Some assets are more tangible than others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff
Nothing less than those governments as well... the same governments that have control over stuff like the world's largest military, one of the world's largest economies, many of the world's largest banks, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenals...
Point being, it's not chopped liver.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Real estate is no more tangible than fiat. You don't actually "own" land in the event of government instability. Nor mineral rights, nor water rights, nor any other form of "ownership" that exists only by support of the government agreeing you own it. A tulip bulb on the other hand. That is yours at least as long as you can keep someone from taking it away.
Precious metals, guns, bullets, alcohol, gasoline, non-perishable food. Those are tangible assets. Anything secured by a court filed document you might as well have just left as fiat.
And money, real or imagined, is money !!
Question is, which one is more "real"?
The one people are willing to hold. If people who accept bitcoins for transactions immediately convert them to something else then that something else is more real.
Same as all money - it's convenient to many people to act as if they have value. You're at liberty to deny the value of the dollar, the pound, or a lump of gold, same as a bitcoin. You could also decide to use shiny pebbles as currency, as long as you find at least one other person who'll buy into the fiction. Of course "real" currencies have the weight of law propping them up (must be accepted as payment of debt, etc) but ultimately it's all made up.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You don't actually "own" land in the event of government instability. Nor mineral rights, nor water rights, nor any other form of "ownership" that exists only by support of the government agreeing you own it. A tulip bulb on the other hand. That is yours at least as long as you can keep someone from taking it away. Precious metals, guns, bullets, alcohol, gasoline, non-perishable food. Those are tangible assets.
Private property has collapsed much more rarely than fiat currencies, as a matter of degree. But if you find yourself in the middle of the Civil War II, chances are very good you'll be relieved of all your "tangible assets" by an army while your claim to the land might survive the war. And refugees are almost always robbed blind by bandits and armed gangs, if you're first driven from your land. I'd rely more on stealth, feigned poverty and forged surrender than mere accumulation of assets. Chances are you're not the biggest and baddest thing out there and any hoard will attract a lot of unwanted attention. On the other hand, I have to live somewhere too so I'd rather just try transferring my assets there ahead of me and escape by a long distance flight. I'd rather relocate across the globe than rely on a prepper bunker.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You don't actually "own" land in the event of government instability.
You do if you've taken enough advantage of your second amendment rights.
tangible assets like precious metals, water rights, mineral rights, real estate
So, most of the tangible assets you mention have a worth that is greatly dependent on the current market whims and/or the government that backs them... just like banknotes. It might be a good insurance against inflation, but not really against anything else...
An armed robber can ATTEMPT to take your food. His success isn't a given. There is no kind of asset that ultimately is more secure than your ability to secure it. I certainly am not depending on an armed government to protect my property now.
Legal rights of ownership and other things protected by a legal document aren't the physical thing they are related to. Investing in them is not investing in a tangible asset. They are no more secure than tangible than government bonds.