@pattersonscott Had Armstrong allowed the mark-up in January to move forward with bipartisan support, seems like there was a window to get it done before (1) Trump disclosures dropped and (2) before Dems started feeling better about macro political environment
@FormerCFTCGC Now that I see the Dem language, I can understand your perspective better. The "Act" being referenced is not Clarity, but the CEA. However, the state law must apply to gaming, right? So a state does not have carte blanche to regulate, eg, corn futures trading on a DCM.
@FormerCFTCGC I think you are misinterpreting. This is fairly standard savings clause language that effectively says, "this new law (i.e., Clarity) does not change how existing laws relating to gaming or gambling can be interpreted or enforced." I don't see how you arrive at your conclusion.
@austincampbell That is not how US law works. Re: the CTA, there are multiple cases working through courts to adjudicate the legality of the law. In the one case that reached the Supreme Court, the high court essentially sided with CTA (Texas Top Cop Shop v Garland). The Exec Branch cannot
@austincampbell Applauding Treasury for disregarding statutory law undermines your constitutional arguments. Treasury should make best efforts to implement the law as Congress wrote it and allow the courts to decide legality.
@TheStalwart@JohnCarreyrou What is the strongest argument that revealing Satoshi has a large effect on bitcoin price? If identifying Satoshi has no effect on price, it seems unimportant.
Who has the most no-hitters ever in baseball? Nolan Ryan. Does knowing that really change our lives much?