{
  "txid": "e0ab688e5bfc0cc20bb4d0aeae710385ae5c2538d3adb3a1dc6cc5d1a17a67c1",
  "block_height": 0,
  "time": null,
  "app": "treechat",
  "type": "reply",
  "map_content": "I agree that precedences have to be sorted out.\r\nYes, \"not your keys not your coins\" is not what I agree with either. But for the other way I still advocate: \"Your keys, your coins, until proven otherwise\".\r\nCompanies like Microstrategy always had much higher reporting and bookkeeping duties and yes, blockchain will help.\r\nI'd like to further express my concerns, not addressed to you personally.\r\nI'm neither lawyer nor rich, so anybody shall correct me if I'm wrong.\r\nIt seems the common legal form of ownership in the \"good old democratic west\" was a combination of both, physical possession and third-party granted legal ownership. If intended or not, this reflects the natural balance or tension between individual and collective.\r\nPhysical possession could be legally contested only based on reasonable suspicion and confiscated only based on proof. It was even normal to purchase houses using physical cash (physical possession) and by the mere purchase to legally own the house.\r\nCertain physical possession is required for being an independent individual without permission from any third-party.\r\nThe legal element of ownership is increasingly extended by law makers until the loophole becomes a portal: Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US, which is routinely misused and affects mostly small fishes and often innocent individuals. Another example is Italy, which uses the excuse of fighting the mafia.\r\nThe trend is to fight money-laundering instead of underlying crime, to fight symptoms instead of cause, a sneaky way to legally erode any kind of private property and freedom. It is the same logic as prohibiting kitchen knifes to prevent stabbing, to put everyone in prison just to not miss one criminal. It is valid to impose certain duties, but these duties must be fulfillable by every legit individual under any circumstances.\r\nThe newest trend, popularized by crypto, is retroactive questioning of values by demanding \"source of funds\", which is often impossible for regular people, especially for elderly conservative frugal people, who often own highly appreciated old items. While this seems to be still managed somewhat gracefully (I hope), first EU countries now started to openly announce the literal legal reversal of burden of proof in the near future. Welcome to law? What will happen to stuff that now enters the blockchain? What will happen to stuff that never enters the blockchain? Will these be later legally invalidated?\r\nNow I learned from Sirtoshi that in original Bitcoin not the nodes but the users are legally accountable, which is genius. But I wonder what implications does it have now 15 years later with AML, KYC, SOF, SOW, ROBOP, XYZ, ...?\r\nI understand Craig Wright's opinion that a digital ID (e.g. the root key) must be exclusively legally granted, even if it obviously can be taken away by the government. Those who grant, own. It's the same with larger capital like real estate, company shares etc. There are no house owners who fully own their house. Also passports can be invalidated remotely by governments by old-fashioned communication to authorities. (by the way, the obligation to own a citizenship was introduced during WWI under the promise to be temporary) So far so bad (or maybe good). \r\nCraig Wright once mentioned that only large holdings can be subject to scrutiny. Maybe, but what is small now might grow very large in future.\r\nRe Monero I agree with Craig Wright. It is just \"hide-and-seek\" and an excuse for the powers to tighten the digital noose even further while not enforcing rightful behaviour onto them. For instance data analytics can detect \"suspicious\" consumption patterns (\"suspicious\" transactions already do exist), no matter if funded from Monero, Cash or elsewhere. In this context the AML fetishism makes perfect sense, because without it the control pod would not be water proof (the essence of ownership is control!). I also don't trust Monero because of it's intransparency and mutable protocol. Anything with a mutable protocol is subject to Murphy's law.\r\nAt the end it also must scale sufficiently for everybody, else it will again depend on controlled chokepoints somewhere, hence controlled and not really owned.\r\nWhatever, we certainly agree how essential it is to popularize BSV as mass payment, even if late. Bitcoins immutable protocol makes it perfect. The mutability of law is necessary due to it's imperfection.",
  "media_type": "text/markdown",
  "filename": "|",
  "author": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "display_name": "eigmev",
  "channel": null,
  "parent_txid": "bb19ba18cee5ef00db543a47cf0b50bdf5b392903f8c6ee3a485230561133ad0",
  "ref_txid": null,
  "tags": null,
  "reply_count": 0,
  "like_count": 0,
  "timestamp": "2025-11-01T14:38:23.000Z",
  "media_url": null,
  "aip_verified": true,
  "attachments": [],
  "ui_name": "eigmev",
  "ui_display_name": "eigmev",
  "ui_handle": "eigmev",
  "ui_display_raw": "eigmev",
  "ui_signer": "14aqJ2hMtENYJVCJaekcrqi12fiZJzoWGK",
  "ref_ui_name": "unknown",
  "ref_ui_signer": "unknown"
}