Jason Lowery
Jason Lowery 2 minutes reading from Bitcoin

Is BTC’s Self Defense Against Against UVA Bitcoin Calling it a Terrorism?

The intent of the 2nd amendment is to give ppl the right to physically defend themselves against the overreaching abstract power of their government by imposing severe physical cost on oppresors.

BTC hashing should be protected under 2nd amendment IMO.

pardon all my typos

This is why it's unfortunate that BTC maxis hate me so much for calling hashing a directed energy weapon. Self defense of property using weapons is protected by the constitution, peer-to-peer digital cash isnt.

Also, it's way worse for BTC's public image to frame it as a way to "dismantle the state" than to call it a non-lethal directed energy weapon system IMO. But I admit i have a bias view on this as an active duty military officer

like if ppl are truly so sensitive about protecting BTC's public image against nation state attacks, then why TF are you explicitly framing it as a technology to dismantle the nation state. doesn't seem rational to me 🤷‍♂️ but what do i know

@brettinthewoods The crippling fear of (accurately) describing BTC as a non-lethal directed energy weapon system is highly unwarranted IMO. USA is a country that values physical self defense of property & it's an easy/effective argument that simultaneously nukes ESG

FUD & altcoins.

@JohnnyBeeTC there's no reason to claim that "arms" precludes software-instantiated directed energy weapons just because they didn't exist when "arms" was written. The intent of the 2nd amendment is clear & PoW clearly has the same intent

This post is based on this twitter thread.


Please login to comment.
Jason Lowery Jason Lowery
read at 7 minutes

0 0 0
Phoenix Phoenix
read at 26 minutes

0 0 0