Andreas Antonopoulos Quotes

What I am objecting to is linking bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies by federal regulations to the real economy, which would happen if we were to clear bitcoin along with other products in the same trading house.

We will never hear about people's Bitcoin accounts being frozen or seized by a government agency.

Setting regulatory certainty is very important for bitcoin. I'm opposed to the regulations, but the bitcoin businesses need to know the rules of the game in order to move ahead.

Years of government inaction on air pollution has got people thinking that the state cannot even protect basic public goods like clean air.

I think it's going to end up a lot like the Internet. Some countries try to regulate the Internet - bitcoin will be very much like that. It will be legal, and there will be some countries with currency control.

In the business world, those who are slow to act and adapt find themselves out of business in a hurry. In Washington, it can take 10 years to get even a good idea across the finish line.

The Government has correctly recognised that this E.U. law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once.

I grew up outside of Washington D.C., a town in which the largest industry is government and in which almost everyone I knew was involved in creating policies which impact people across our country and around the globe.

Calling bitcoin volatile - it's a non-statement. Unregulated assets with unclear regulatory landscapes are always going to be volatile. That's what unregulated assets do.

You have to have a government to provide you with legal order, with stability, enforcement of property rights, enforcement of contracts, definition of rules and regulations - the rules of the game, so to speak - and to provide certain shared goods and services, public services. Several people have tried to estimate this and they come out with figures like government spending at 15% of GDP. In the modern world it has gone to 40% or above. So we are way beyond the optimal, and that is easier to say than what the optimum is.

I believe the states can best govern our home concerns, and the general government our foreign ones.

Local self-government…is the life-blood of liberty.

Anarchy works. Italy has proved it for a thousand years.

Governments not only are not necessary, but are harmful and most highly immoral institutions.

It's all very well to run around saying regulation is bad, get the government off our backs, etc. Of course our lives are regulated. When you come to a stop sign, you stop; if you want to go fishing, you get a license; if you want to shoot ducks, you can shoot only three ducks. The alternative is dead bodies at the intersections, no fish and no ducks. OK?

We are changing the way we govern ourselves - not just in the way we work in New Delhi, but also in the way we work together with state governments, districts and cities. Because we know, as you do, that our vision may be formed in Delhi, but our success will be determined by state capitals.

These so-called governments are in reality only great bands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert.

I have no interest in increasing the size of government. I just want to make sure we have got a smart government that is regulating, for example, the financial institutions smartly, so I don't have to engage in any kind of bank bailouts.

We want to see oil and gas regulations on a continental basis given the integrated nature of this industry, with the current conditions in the oil and gas sector, this government will not consider unilateral regulation.

I think the fact that within the bitcoin universe an algorithm replaces the functions of the government is actually pretty cool. I am a big fan of bitcoin.

We are entering an era in which national government, instead of directing, enables powerful regional and local initiatives to work, where Britain becomes as it should be - a Britain of nations and regions.

The government isn't going to say, "We're going to regulate banks, but we'll leave these other companies alone." I think the regulators want to make sure that they have some form of regulation on anything systemic. We like our hand. But, you know, honestly, who owns the future?

If the General Government should be left dependent on the State Legislatures, it would be happy for us if we had never met in this room.

In Germany, under the law, everything is prohibited, except that which is permitted. In France, under the law, everything is permitted, except that which is prohibited. In the Soviet Union, under the law, everything is prohibited, including that which is permitted. And in Italy, under the law, everything is permitted, especially that which is prohibited.

The government has to be on the side of the people if the corporations take too much power.