BradPowersQ9L

econ

SN release: better attached wallet logs, lnbits over tor, bug fixes

CassidyDuarte281

One of the things I keep seeing being discussed incorrectly is what the halving means for Bitcoin supply. Since Bitcoin is a durable good, it's supply is not equivalent to the amount being produced currently. All we can say is that, other things equal, the halving reduces the rate of supply increase.

Bitcoin's supply is the entirety of what's available for trade. This is actually a really difficult quantity to estimate, because of the unknown amounts of Bitcoin that have been lost and the amount being truly hodl'ed.

New production is a very small share of total Bitcoin, so whether the supply is increasing or decreasing is almost entirely related whether hodl'ers are becoming more or less willing to use their Bitcoin in transactions.

bitcoin_beginners

My experience with a FutureBit Apollo

SamuelWeissHUB

Yes, is exciting for me too! I never done something at this scale and hard work.
When I will finish this season, I will write an article about, with all details.

libertarian

Zeus Pay released to all alpha users

TommyNorman4PL

_every stacker refreshing their browser, thinking they are first to the daily discussion and reading the comment above: 👀_

Here is a link to the full PDF of the decision:

https://storage.mollywhite.net/pdfs/TornadoCash5Cir.pdf

I'm guessing there are stackers here who would like to dig through the original source material themselves rather than rely on news reports. 

I have been reading through it. There is a cryptocurrency primer at the beginning of the decision. 

This probably goes without saying, but stackers shouldn't be put off by all of the shitcoin discussion. The legal principles are relevant to bitcoin. 

It is interesting that the court refers to the Loper Bright case and the end of Chevron deference in its decision:

> In effect, the Supreme Court has instructed that we
must “independently identify and respect [constitutional] delegations of
authority, police the outer statutory boundaries of those delegations, and
ensure that agencies exercise their discretion consistent with” the
Administrative Procedure Act or have engaged in reasoned decisionmaking
within those boundaries. 37 To do so, we must “determine the ‘best’ reading
of a statute; a merely ‘permissible’ reading is not enough.”38

We are starting to see in practice how significant that ruling was.


I also recommend you read the discussion regarding the definition of property. Here's some of the language:

> The immutable smart contracts at issue in this appeal are not property
because they are not capable of being owned. More than one thousand
volunteers participated in a “trusted setup ceremony” to “irrevocably
remov[e] the option for anyone to update, remove, or otherwise control those
lines of code.” And as a result, no one can “exclude” anyone from using the
Tornado Cash pool smart contracts. In fact, because these immutable smart
contracts are unchangeable and unremovable, they remain available for
anyone to use and “the targeted North Korean wrongdoers are not actually
blocked from retrieving their assets,” even under the sanctions regime.

Here's some more:

> Sure, some smart contracts are capable of being owned in the sense
that Tornado Cash developers can create new smart contracts and
disconnect old mutable contracts. In theory, should Tornado Cash developers
choose to comply with sanctions on mutable smart contracts, those
developers could disconnect those mutable smart contracts to make them
inaccessible and unusable by anyone on the Ethereum blockchain. But they
cannot discard, change, disconnect, or control smart contracts that are
immutable—like the ones currently listed on OFAC’s SDN list and at issue
in this appeal. Even with the sanctions in place, “those immutable smart
contracts remain accessible to anyone with an internet connection.


This is particularly helpful language:

> Indeed, the immutable smart contract provides a “service” only when an individual cryptocurrency
owner makes the relevant input and withdrawal from the smart contract; at
that point, and only at that point, the immutable smart contract mixes
deposits, provides the depositor a withdrawal key, and, when provided with
that key, sends the specified amount to the designated withdrawal account.
In short, the immutable smart contract begins working only when prompted
to do so by a deposit or entry of a key for withdrawal.

Overall, a good decision. Of course there was no discussion of code as speech, but the court didn't need to make that leap. The best part, for me, is seeing Loper Bright in action.