From: Black Unicorn " What is important, and a point on which I think we agree, is that the regulation of strong crypto, or in your definition, the interference in the marketplace, is unacceptable, unneeded and nothing more than a calculated attempt to maintain the status quo of usurpation of individual rights in favor of federal power and influence. Even the national security externality falls when one considers the uselessness of export regulation in the age of digital communication." ..................................................... Okay, last word from me on any of this, and only because it relates to the above; the quote below is from a newsletter I just recently received (Imprimis, from Hillsdale College, by Richard Duesenberg of the Monsanto Company): "While there are indications that the [Supreme] Court might be resuming some sensitivity to property (e.g., under the takings clause) the deference it gives to legislative action is still near-absolute. If a law or regulation simply stresses "urgent need" or "the public interest", the Court is sure to let it stand. The judicial review process is so biased that only the most absurd edicts are found unconstitutional. Legal scholar Bernard Siegan has noted that this bias has led to the impeding of the democratic process. If the Court refuses to review the legitimacy of economic regulation, then the government is essentially free to dominate the entire American business community and, indeed, the life of every American citizen. . . . . Even more alarming is the loss of freedom that has accompanied growing involvement in our affairs. But freedom is valueless to the government planner. He requires coercive force in order to have his way, and he regards centralized planning as far superior to the untidy, unpredictable actions and decisions of free men and women." Blanc