Headlines frame quantum computing as a Bitcoin problem. It’s not.
“It’s an all-blockchain problem,” says cryptography researcher Nicolas Vescovo.
And actually the same cryptography protects your:
– banking
– messages
– web browsing
So why is Bitcoin getting all the attention?
What happens when money comes with conditions attached?
India is testing a digital currency that allows some welfare payments to be spent only on approved goods from approved vendors.
@HRF's free Financial Freedom webinar returns this month: 22-24 June
#Bitcoin@wkkaung
A government doesn't need to shut down a newspaper if it can freeze the journalists' bank accounts.
That's the concern after authorities in El Salvador froze assets linked to journalists at El Faro following a documentary investigation.
Full @HRF feature below 👇
Some governments tell you you have to "declare" that you "own" Bitcoin.
Now, how the heck do you do that, exactly?
In short, knowing a Private Key allows you to request that the network apply a specific alteration to the timechain that "moves" sats from one address to another.
But how can knowledge be equivalent to ownership in any legal sense?
And what happens if you utter the Private Key in court? Remember - the twelve magic words in a seed phrase are not a password - they ARE the key!
Now the entire court will be "guilty" of "owning Bitcoin."
And how do you prove that everyone else on Earth DOESN'T know the same twelve words?
Under man-made law, Bitcoin ownership is paradoxical. Under Natural Law, the keyholder simply IS the owner. No declaration is required, and no state is needed to validate it.
Study Praxeology! Read Rothbard!
JUST IN: Scotland's Lomond School launches a “Satoshi Scholarship” program, covering tuition and boarding for students, funded by donations from Bitcoiners 🏴
The school has also “begun establishing a Bitcoin treasury” 👏
The @Telegraph has published a series of articles over recent months that together paint a concerning picture of Reform UK's relationship with 'crypto'.
From coverage of how Tether’s empire has generated billions for Reform UK’s largest backer, Christopher Harborne, to the latest column raising serious questions about the party’s embrace of crypto policy.
I want to give the Telegraph credit where it is due. On the core connection they have got it right and it is dodgy. Christopher Harborne, a major Tether shareholder with ties to the iFinex and Bitfinex, has funnelled record sums including a £9m donation into Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
That money flows while the party pushes pro-crypto and stablecoin policies that could shape Bank of England regulation and the UK's role in the global stablecoin market.
This combination of one large Tether investor, massive personal gifts, and direct policy influence deserves real scrutiny. I want to give the Telegraph credit again. They are right to highlight this connection.
However, they are slightly barking up the wrong tree by framing it as a general problem with Reform’s 'love of crypto'. Reform’s crypto policy is actually good. With just a few tweaks it would be exactly what the UK needs.
The real issue is the specific stablecoin connection and heavy reliance on one powerful Tether investor. In fairness, Farage is not the only politician Harborne has bankrolled. He also donated £1 million to a company set up by Boris Johnson in 2022 and is the largest single shareholder in the defence firm QinetiQ.
Also, worth noting he sometimes goes by his Thai name Chakrit Sakunkrit after taking Thai citizenship.
The Telegraph’s reporting is strongest when it focuses on the specific Harborne > Tether > Reform connections. That said, their stories sometimes gets diluted by mixing Bitcoin with the crypto sector when the real issues here are much more targeted.
It also blends traceable on-chain crypto donations which are often far more transparent than traditional finance with the quite different issue of concentrated influence from a major Tether investor operating in a separate regulatory environment.
Reform's actual policy positions on crypto and stablecoins remain among the most sensible and forward looking of any major UK party. They prioritise innovation and London as a global hub over heavy handed regulation.
The real problem is the heavy reliance on and potential capture by powerful investors tied to a dominant stablecoin player and not the policy direction.
But I guess, that's not news ... it's our political system.
Full article here:
https://t.co/sn1pbRsF14
H/t to @JeremyWarnerUK & @matthfield.
“#AIagents still hallucinate, misunderstand intent or take actions they should not,” says #AI security leader Hammad Atta.
“Issues show up in messy, real-world conditions. Users don't behave like test cases – they jump between topics, reuse conversations and interact over time.”
I think the best part of the @TheBitcoinConf for me was when I met this guy who was only there because of a rent a human.
Some Claude Bot hired him to walk around the conf with meta glasses and film everything for him for “research”.
Guy knew nothing about Bitcoin. Was just there to make $100 (his Claude boss found a free ticket for him). I forgot to ask if Claude paid for the glasses or if he already had them.
We are early.
I’m not a technical person.
Most people using #AI agents aren’t experts – they’re just trying to do their work more efficiently.
So I didn't just want to know how the technology works.
I needed to see how it behaves in everyday use – and what happens when something goes wrong.
“I see parallels between #AI insurance and other industries where risk was financialised before being fully understood – think early #cyber insurance and the first wave of autonomous-vehicle coverage," says AI Advisor Avron Welgemoed.
"The same pattern is playing out here”
Do you use an AI agent?
Ever wondered what happens when it gets things not slightly wrong but catastrophically wrong?
We’re giving AI tools more and more power but, as the old adage goes, with great power comes great responsibility. Or does it?
Can AI be held responsible?