

Bitcoin Laws Imminent - teadrinker
http://nerdr.com/bitcoin-laws-imminent-bit-coin-soon-to-be-illegal-in-us/

======
ColinWright
Submitted yesterday, flagged dead, same response there as here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2705077>

With regards items being resubmitted and repeatedly flagged dead, I offer the
following quotation:

    
    
       "Those who cannot remember the past
        are condemned to repeat it."
    
        George Santayana,
        The Life of Reason (1905-1906)
        Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense
    

(Copied from <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana>)

Last time I pointed out that an item had been submitted earlier and flagged
dead I got downvoted, so I then provided a further explanation. I reproduce it
here - it will be slightly disjointed as I don't have time to go through and
re-edit it for a single comment.

========

Firstly, this item is a repeat submission. It was submitted earlier, and so
there is some earier "discussion" to reference. I thought it would be of value
to point that out.

I especially thought it would be of value since it that discussion seems to
highlight some concerns about the item in question. Rather than simply repeat
them here, I thought it better to point to it over there.

The quotation was intended to point out a problem with items like this getting
flagged. Several times in the past I've seen items get flagged dead, only to
be submitted repeatedly, then flagged dead each time. Deleting the items by
having them flagged dead just means that the same thing is submitted over and
over again, and hence came to mind the given quotation. Paraphrased:

If you delete things, you can't learn from them, leading to the potential for
repeating the same errors over and over.

I thought people would find that interesting, relevant, and potentially a
useful tidbit.

Spam certainly should be flagged - no question.

The problem is that there are stories that people think will be interesting,
but which then get thoroughly discredited. Initially, no doubt, they should be
flagged, and therefore deleted. Fine.

But if they are submitted again then they should not be flagged. It's likely
that they will be submitted again and again and again. Instead, the original
should be pointed out, the fact that it's discredited recorded, and the
submission left so the dupe-detector prevents any further submissions. In that
way we learn from history.

~~~
teadrinker
Sorry, I had not seen it submitted previously and your link says deleted, but
not by whom.

It's not blatant spam selling counterfeit footwear or similar and I'm inclined
to think it was the submitter who deleted it fearing downvotes from the
bitcoin mob rather than a good old flagging (it has 4 upvotes right this
minute and is worth a read).

------
chadp
Bunk article.

\- no sources \- since when do the courts make legislation? \- courts are
doing research and the courts are "laws from the top"? \- search for bitcoin
on the uscourts.gov website brings up zilch.

Totally made up and false article if you ask me.

[http://www.uscourts.gov/SearchResults.aspx?IndexCatalogue=Al...](http://www.uscourts.gov/SearchResults.aspx?IndexCatalogue=AllIndexedContent&SearchQuery=bitcoin)

~~~
teadrinker
He mentions sources in the comments section and clears his intention with:

"This article highlights US laws are imminent based upon an increase in
research activity into Bitcoin by the US courts service."

We've been discussing this article on the Bitcoin forums and I think we all
know it's coming whether we agree with it or not. We can see any law passed
against Bitcoin will affect it's market value.

Point 5 at the bottom of the article (Further Work) is worth a look.

~~~
chadp
It is a pure speculation that any law is imminent. There is still no source
that says the US courts are "doing more research". Lastly, "we all know" is
his own opinion, not the opinion of any group, let alone the bitcoin forum.

~~~
teadrinker
You really think the US will sit idly by as Bitcoin use increases?

