"When the outbreak of monkeypox expanded earlier this year, racist and stigmatizing language online, in other settings and in some communities was observed and reported to WHO. In several meetings, public and private, a number of individuals and countries raised concerns and asked WHO to propose a way forward to change the name."
Not really, the state of Bitcoin's surrounding ecosystem is radically different today versus ~15 years ago. With the insane proliferation of KYC exchanges and chain analysis, it's actually quite a bit more difficult to transact anonymously versus ~15 years ago.
No, only things that currently matters is the price at purchase, the price at selling, and the time gap between those 2.
Less than a year and it's the profit between the sell and the buy charged as normal income tax.
More than a year and that profit is charged as long term capital gains, which currently max out at 20%
DRS is the equivalent of a bank run on the DTCC, or the real owners of a gigantic portion of traded assets today.
The way things like stocks are traded is the DTCC actually owns the shares, while labeling the shares as "owned for the beneficiary of X". When stock trades hands, they just update the beneficiary to the new "owner" of the stock. The DTCC and it's member's abuse this system by allowing the update to not happen, causing "failure to delivers", and thereby GME's naked shorting.
DRS takes the stock from the DTCC and places you as the actual owner, not the beneficiary of the stock in someone else's hand. In doing so, the DTCC has less plausible deniability in allowing naked shorting, and if the combined DRS, insiders, and institutional shares near 100%, effectively create a bank run on the DTCC.
Your premise is retarded. Asking when a hypothetical happened to prove a hypothetical can't happen is faulty logic.
And again, how has corporate adoption effected Bitcoin? Have we seen actual improvements of on-chain a la Segwit? Or has it been increasing the "programmable money" CBDC paradigm with Taproot? Does the ecosystem grow with trustless exchanges and anonymous transfers, or do we increasingly see centralized exchanges and large mining companies attempting to block transactions based on US sanctions? Hell, even something as basic as block sizes (AKA, admitting Moore's law is still a thing) which would at bare-minimum temporarily alleviate the massive congestion issues that Bitcoin continues to have get shoved aside for complex, multi-layered solutions that reduces adoption due to the sheer technical debt of it all.
The simple fact of the matter is that Bitcoin fails horribly right now under the original Satoshi vision, in large part due to the corporate "adoption" poison that seeks to keep free, honest money from the public. Concepts like "Bitcoin's the new gold!" distract from the original whitepaper's goal, that being "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Cash doesn't require $20 transaction fees, or miners to make sure you aren't giving money to the wrong person. Cash doesn't have an army of analysts making sure you didn't get dirty money at any point in history, and black list you forever from transacting if you did get dirty money.
There are coins that fix these problems, and Bitcoin could too, but that requires understanding these are problems, something corporations, and apparently you too, don't do.
Bitcoin is susceptible to non-standard attack avenues, many of which harm it's usability and stability today. Blockstream hampering the on-chain scaling of BTC, the increasing rise of chain analytics all but destroying privacy, the double-edged sword of financal market adoption (Just like gold, BTC's adoption by financial markets WILL come with price suppression).
If these issues, and more, don't get overcome you will see BTC devolve into a CBDC just through the coercive power of corporations, much less through hostile governmental action.
Playing for just gold is going to work out to a big failure for the common citizenry. The gold standard was original Great Reset that robbed the common folk of their savings to further fund the rich with their stores of gold.
It's not a coincidence that the gold standard was ended for the common folk with the advent of the Bretton Woods system merely 60 years after it was instituted in 1873. Bimetallism is simply going to be the way forward unless you want to repeat 1933 and 1971 all over again.
Reeks of consensus cracking, with Burk and Charles trying to transmogrify supporting mifepristone in the context of the States deciding abortion policy, to "deep losses" and "The Trump team wants to water [abortion arguements] it down.
Gotta wonder if they're getting a paycheck to do it, consensus cracking is a shill's job after all.
The idea for Qualified immunity goes back to English Common law that the Crown, and by extension agents of the Crown, could not be prosecuted under the Crown's laws because they were for all purposes the law. In the case of the English, this is what we call Absolute immunity.
In recognition that the system we have is not one of lifetime kings, Qualified immunity comes about so you can't hold someone personally liable for civil issues through the actions of them in office. That's why the Supreme court ruled that it's not absolute in protection, only "qualified actions" under the authority of the office, not personal or private actions by the individual are covered.
2 things are associated with the highest increases in mortality, primarily cigarette use, and auxilliary inhalation of smoke.
People who inhale cigar or pipe smoke only have a doubled risk of lung cancer, from 1 in 16 chance to a 1 in 8 chance. People who do not inhale have negligible increases in all mortality rates versus background rates.
Cigarettes kill, not tobacco, not nicotine, cigarettes do.
It's the Obamacare defense, claiming that an unreasonable law that has a taxable component makes the entire law a tax law is a ludicrous stance to take.
When a $200 tax stamp gets slapped to a $209 gun (Cost of a Thompson machine gun during the advent of the NFA), that's not passed for the purposes of taxation, it's passed for the purposes of banning.