31 sats \ 1 reply \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 15 May \ parent \ on: Oklahoma signs bill into law protecting crypto spending, mining, & self-custody bitcoin
From a legal POV? Yes. Otherwise, you need the politicians to craft a law that distinguishes the two. Sure, you could have proof of work and decentralized inserted into the definition, but even there you won't eliminate all the coins out there. And the law could give a shit about being first or the network effect or any of that.
And whatever you think about shitcoins, if you're opposed to government interference and support free speech, that means in all cases, not just for things you like. Otherwise, those aren't principals, just word.
It blows my mind how people cannot understand exactly what you said. The law of the land at the end of the day has to be equal and not create favoritism or it ends up in court and eventually gets struck down. By protecting crypto you protect BTC and alts. If you hate shitcoins/alts/etc then just don't by them but why on Gods green earth would people rather them not protect BTC because of it is beyond me.
reply