Would someone suggest how would hundreds of investigations (and courts? Or there were no courts at all?) were not able to shed any light on the bug? How is it even possible to continue for more than 20 years?
> but just any law enforcement would find such an amount of cash suspicious, and probably trigger an investigation
It feels like it's almost illegal to own cash when I read this. Would someone please tell why? It's OK to live in a debt, probably a very high one, buying expensive things like luxury car in credit. Is it forbidden to save cash? If it's OK, then why is it suspicious to travel in a car with cash?
Does it makes sense to push for representatives to discuss a law to forbid a city or state announcements to use any commercial platform for announcements?
> The promise of Bitcoin is to bring a monetary system politicians and bankers cannot manipulate. Whether that’s a good thing or even realistic is a separate discussion.
Never heard of any politician giving up power voluntarely.
And money is the power: no more printing - need to work hard for money.
Using adblock is indeed very convenient. Enable browser extension and forget about all web annoyances. Calm and peece.
Google Ad Premium disables google ads only (or most of them?), while other ad nets (avg more than 80 cookies on every major news site!) will continue to annoy.
Following the logics of requiring an official government-issued docs, is it required for any fact written in Wikipedia, or where they draw the line?
In other words, how exactly is the "common knowledge" separated from the "controversal" one, which requires a proof to present to self-appointed guardians of the True?