Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
by lokar on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @06:12PM
(#38933691)
They were violating the law, and using the funds in the accounts to further the law breaking.
They call it civil disobedience. People seem to forget part of civil disobedience is going to jail and paying a fine. That’s always been the deal.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
by sokoloff on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @06:15PM
(#38933718)
Civil disobedience carrying a negative of some kind for the protester is a significant part of my respect for people doing it.
If it was entirely painless, it would have a lot less effect I think.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
by tick_tock_tick on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @06:44PM
(#38934021)
> People seem to forget part of civil disobedience is going to jail and paying a fine.
That's not even vaguely what happened here and it's well beyond arguing in bad faith to attempt to trivialize it to such.
The goal of freezing the accounts was to make the truckers unable to buy food or pay rent to force a near immediate end. If the civil disobedience starts being evictions and starving protests are going to become a thing of the past.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
by matthewrobertso on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @06:19PM
(#38933749)
Unbanking someone isn't the same as charging them a fine.
Did you mean intellectual property? You draw Mickey a year ago and a FBI helicopter would soon be overhead to kill your dog and take any cash they find in your wallet.