Published on July 3rd, 2019 📆 | 7756 Views ⚑
0The Overlooked Reason The United States Would Struggle To Ban Bitcoin
One of the common criticisms thrown at bitcoin by those who are not bullish on its long term potential as a global, apolitical store of value and medium of exchange is that governments will eventually decide that the cryptocurrency should not be allowed to exist. Of course, it should be remembered that Bitcoin was designed in a decentralized manner specifically to prevent such a shutdown of the network.
Although there are indeed technical reasons that make it difficult to shut down Bitcoin, there are also legal constraints related to a potential bitcoin ban, at least according to Abra CEO Bill Barhydt.
Bitcoin is a Free Speech Issue
Barhydt appeared on a panel during the Bitcoin 2019 conference in San Francisco last week, and during his appearance, he discussed how Abra has enabled their non-American users to gain price exposure to the U.S. equities market.
Abra is built on top of Bitcoin smart contracts, which allow their users to peg the value of their bitcoin to a variety of traditional financial assets, such as Apple stock, in a non-custodial manner. In the past, Barhydt has explained how the non-custodial nature of Abra allows the company to avoid a large number of onerous financial regulations and restrictions (see more on how Abra works in this previous article).
During his appearance at Bitcoin 2019, Barhydt focused on the legality of Bitcoin as a free speech issue.
āThe edge of the network, I think, should scare all of us because itās not a Bitcoin-specific issue. Thatās, you know, a government overreach issue and a free speech issue that I think we donāt take seriously. We donāt hear enough of a narrative around Bitcoin as free speech. And free speech needs to be a protected human right across the board,ā said Barhydt.
At this point, Keiser Reportās Max Keiser, who was moderating the panel, noted that a philosophy exists among many individuals in the Bitcoin space that effectively states: Bitcoin is code, code is speech, and speech is protected.
āSure, but governments donāt [say that], and thatās my problem with this,ā responded Barhydt.
While there have been plenty of government hearings regarding the potential money laundering-related implications of Bitcoin, Barhydt stated that thereās another type of hearing that heād like to see take place related to this technology.
āWhere is the hearing about how weāre going to guarantee basic human rights as it relates to access to this technology?ā asked Barhydt. āThatās the hearing I want to see.ā
Itās āNot Possibleā for the United States to Ban Bitcoin
While Barhydt indicated Bitcoin bans could potentially happen in places like China and India, he also noted that such a ban would not be possible in the United States due to court rulings that date back to the previous Crypto Wars back in the 90s.
āItās not possible,ā responded Barhydt when the panel was asked how the U.S. government would potentially try to implement a Bitcoin ban. āThe government canāt stop ā the United States Supreme Court has already opined on this. You canāt prevent people from holding ones and zeros on a device in their pocket. That ship has sailed. We already know that. The question is: What can they do at the edge of the network ā the onramps and offramps, the places where they exert control over the banking system, the exchanges, [and the] stablecoins.ā
Barhydt added that the fact Facebookās Libra cryptocurrency is not as decentralized as Bitcoin and involves much more than just ones and zeros in someoneās pocket is a problem for that project (see this previous piece for more on the differences in how Bitcoin and Libra are structured).
That said, Barhydt and other panelists at the Bitcoin 2019 conference also made the case for how Libra could potentially benefit the bitcoin price in a rather roundabout way.
In the past, economist Saifedean Ammous and applied cryptography consultant Peter Todd have shared theories regarding governments creating their own cryptocurrencies as a potential way to harm bitcoin.
">
One of the common criticisms thrown at bitcoin by those who are not bullish on its long term potential as a global, apolitical store of value and medium of exchange is that governments will eventually decide that the cryptocurrency should not be allowed to exist. Of course, it should be remembered that Bitcoin was designed in a decentralized manner specifically to prevent such a shutdown of the network.
Although there are indeed technical reasons that make it difficult to shut down Bitcoin, there are also legal constraints related to a potential bitcoin ban, at least according to Abra CEO Bill Barhydt.
Bitcoin is a Free Speech Issue
Barhydt appeared on a panel during the Bitcoin 2019 conference in San Francisco last week, and during his appearance, he discussed how Abra has enabled their non-American users to gain price exposure to the U.S. equities market.
Abra is built on top of Bitcoin smart contracts, which allow their users to peg the value of their bitcoin to a variety of traditional financial assets, such as Apple stock, in a non-custodial manner. In the past, Barhydt has explained how the non-custodial nature of Abra allows the company to avoid a large number of onerous financial regulations and restrictions (see more on how Abra works in this previous article).
During his appearance at Bitcoin 2019, Barhydt focused on the legality of Bitcoin as a free speech issue.
āThe edge of the network, I think, should scare all of us because itās not a Bitcoin-specific issue. Thatās, you know, a government overreach issue and a free speech issue that I think we donāt take seriously. We donāt hear enough of a narrative around Bitcoin as free speech. And free speech needs to be a protected human right across the board,ā said Barhydt.
At this point, Keiser Reportās Max Keiser, who was moderating the panel, noted that a philosophy exists among many individuals in the Bitcoin space that effectively states: Bitcoin is code, code is speech, and speech is protected.
āSure, but governments donāt [say that], and thatās my problem with this,ā responded Barhydt.
While there have been plenty of government hearings regarding the potential money laundering-related implications of Bitcoin, Barhydt stated that thereās another type of hearing that heād like to see take place related to this technology.
āWhere is the hearing about how weāre going to guarantee basic human rights as it relates to access to this technology?ā asked Barhydt. āThatās the hearing I want to see.ā
Itās āNot Possibleā for the United States to Ban Bitcoin
While Barhydt indicated Bitcoin bans could potentially happen in places like China and India, he also noted that such a ban would not be possible in the United States due to court rulings that date back to the previous Crypto Wars back in the 90s.
āItās not possible,ā responded Barhydt when the panel was asked how the U.S. government would potentially try to implement a Bitcoin ban. āThe government canāt stop ā the United States Supreme Court has already opined on this. You canāt prevent people from holding ones and zeros on a device in their pocket. That ship has sailed. We already know that. The question is: What can they do at the edge of the network ā the onramps and offramps, the places where they exert control over the banking system, the exchanges, [and the] stablecoins.ā
Barhydt added that the fact Facebookās Libra cryptocurrency is not as decentralized as Bitcoin and involves much more than just ones and zeros in someoneās pocket is a problem for that project (see this previous piece for more on the differences in how Bitcoin and Libra are structured).
That said, Barhydt and other panelists at the Bitcoin 2019 conference also made the case for how Libra could potentially benefit the bitcoin price in a rather roundabout way.
In the past, economist Saifedean Ammous and applied cryptography consultant Peter Todd have shared theories regarding governments creating their own cryptocurrencies as a potential way to harm bitcoin.
Gloss