That is an opinion editorial by Aaron Daniel, an appellate lawyer and creator of The Bitcoin Temporary authorized analysis e-newsletter.
Introduction
New York’s legislative meeting handed Bill No. A07389 on June 2, 2022, “establishing a moratorium on cryptocurrency mining operations that use proof-of-work authentication strategies,” similar to these utilized by Bitcoin, “to validate blockchain transactions” (hereinafter, the “Moratorium”).
In different phrases, the Moratorium singles out for regulation certainly one of many several types of cryptocurrency protocol consensus algorithms. And it singles out for regulation the customers — “miners” or “validators” — of 1 particular sort of algorithm.
The Moratorium, if signed into regulation by the governor, will violate proof-of-work miners’ rights to free speech below the First Modification.
It is because proof-of-work miners have interaction in protected speech by broadcasting blocks of information throughout a protocol’s community. In reality, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, defined that proof-of-work miners are engaged in “publishing” data for the world to see on an immutable, distributed “timestamp server.” The Moratorium singles out block publishers on proof-of-work protocols for a monetary burden not borne by block publishers of protocols utilizing different consensus mechanisms. As this text will present, such content-based differentiation is unsustainable below the U.S. Supreme Courtroom’s First Modification precedent.
The Moratorium thus gives a well-tailored case research to display that proof-of-work miners, particularly Bitcoin miners, are engaged in protected speech below the First Modification. If such a precedent might, someday, be established, it will present a powerful protection for the proof-of-work mining trade (and Bitcoin itself) towards burdensome rules such because the Moratorium, and even outright bans.
To be clear, the argument offered right here will not be that Bitcoin itself is speech. Whereas that argument might be made (as Justin Wales expertly demonstrated in his foundational regulation evaluation article “Bitcoin is Speech: Notes Toward Developing Conceptual Contours Of Its Protection Under The First Amendment,” and as Allen Farrington recognized in “Bitcoin is Venice”), that argument is unnecessarily broad for functions of addressing the Moratorium. And, extra basically, we’re too early for such a transformative argument. The judiciary is just not conversant sufficient with the technological, economical, psychological and philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin to render a well-reasoned choice on whether or not Bitcoin is speech. The time will come. However we are going to get there incrementally, because the judiciary learns and applies its rising information to every case it considers and every precedent it creates about Bitcoin.
So let’s begin that course of right here, with our first case research on Bitcoin as speech, within the slender context of proof-of-work mining.
This text first establishes that miners in a proof-of-work protocol are engaged in speech as contemplated by the First Modification. We’ll deal with Bitcoin as our instance, as a result of that is Bitcoin Journal, and due to Bitcoin’s overwhelming share of the proof-of-work market. Subsequent, the article will look at how proof-of-work miner speech is burdened by the Moratorium. Lastly, the article will analyze the Moratorium below the completely different ranges of constitutional scrutiny implicated by it.
Bitcoin Miners Publish Blocks Of Knowledge To An Immutable, Shared Database
The Position Of Miners
To grasp how Bitcoin miners are engaged in speech, one should perceive what miners do, and the way they do it.
This requires first dispelling a typical false impression about Bitcoin miners. A miner’s main job within the Bitcoin protocol is not to challenge new bitcoin. Andreas Antonopoulos explains it greatest in “The Internet Of Money Volume Two”:
“Mining doesn’t work to create bitcoin. That’s not the aim of mining; that could be a facet impact. The way in which I can show it’s a facet impact is that someday, there shall be no new bitcoin. However guess what? There’ll nonetheless be mining. Even after the final satoshi (the smallest unit of bitcoin) will get mined, mining continues. It should proceed as a result of its function is to not create bitcoin however to offer safety, to offer validation of the entire transactions and blocks based on the consensus guidelines. Producing bitcoin is a facet impact that at the moment serves as a mechanism of reward, creating game-theory incentives to ensure that the validation is finished proper. When you perceive that and also you notice what we’re paying for is safety, it adjustments the angle barely.”
“Modifications the angle,” certainly. “Miners” aren’t actually miners in any respect. They’re transaction validators. As Darin Feinstein has pointed out, the time period “miner” misrepresents the true nature of those nodes within the Bitcoin community: they’re accountants auditing the ledger. The time period “miner” conjures pictures of some sort of soiled, industrial strategy of pulling assets out of the bottom. That doesn’t sound like speech.
What does sound rather a lot like speech is Nakamoto’s description of the auditing course of in his white paper, the foundational doc they used to introduce and clarify their creation. Nakamoto didn’t use the noun “miner,” however they did use the verb “publish.” Explaining how Bitcoin solves the double-spend problem, Nakamoto wrote:
“The answer we suggest begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of things to be timestamped and extensively publishing the hash, similar to in a newspaper or Usenet submit [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the info will need to have existed on the time, clearly, as a way to get into the hash. Every timestamp contains the earlier timestamp in its hash, forming a sequence, with every further timestamp reinforcing those earlier than it.”
And, to “implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer foundation,” Nakamoto carried out “a proof-of-work system …, moderately than newspaper or Usenet posts,” which democratized and decentralized the method of publishing blocks “to file a public historical past of transactions” on the time chain, or blockchain.
In different phrases, the function of Bitcoin miners is to “validate new transactions and record them on the global ledger.” Miners do that by aggregating collectively pending transactions that adjust to the Bitcoin software program’s guidelines and together with them in a candidate block that the mining node will publish to the blockchain if it wins the proof-of-work contest for that spherical.
Proof-Of-Work Primer
Let’s take a second to look at how that proof-of-work contest features, so we will higher perceive the info that miners are processing and writing to the ledger.
First, a easy analogy: Miners compete to discover a successful lottery ticket that grants them the power to publish transactions to the blockchain. As Yan Pritzker wrote in “Inventing Bitcoin”:
“The idea behind Proof of Work is that you just take part in a random course of, just like rolling a die. However as an alternative of a six sided die, this one has about as many sides as there are atoms within the universe. With a purpose to roll the die and generate lottery numbers, your pc should carry out operations that value you by way of electrical energy.
“To win the lottery, you should produce a quantity which is mathematically derived from the transactions you need to write to the ledger plus the worth of the die you rolled. With a purpose to discover this successful quantity, you’ll have to roll this die billions, trillions, or quadrillions of instances, burning hundreds of {dollars} value of power. For the reason that course of relies on randomness, it’s doable for everybody to generate their very own lottery tickets with out a government utilizing only a random quantity producing pc and an inventory of transactions they need to write to the ledger.”
Subsequent, some particulars. To generate successful lottery numbers, miners use the SHA-256 hash operate, or algorithm, as described by Pritzker:
“The algorithm for proof of labor includes repeatedly hashing the header of the block and a random quantity with the SHA256 cryptographic algorithm till an answer matching a predetermined sample emerges. The primary miner to seek out such an answer wins the spherical of competitors and publishes that block into the blockchain.”
Hash features like SHA-256 soak up knowledge and produce a big, random quantity, referred to as a hash. A hash is sort of a digital fingerprint, as a result of “the output is deterministic: you at all times get the identical output for a similar enter,” and it’s “infeasible to seek out two strings that hash to the identical output,” per Pritzker.
Supply: Yan Pritzker, “Inventing Bitcoin” (2019).
The SHA-256 proof-of-work operate can be a one-way operate, which means it’s inconceivable to derive the enter given solely the output. However additionally it is uneven: given the enter, anybody can run the algorithm as soon as and confirm the output. Thus, whereas it takes a miner many tries, utilizing substantial compute energy and power, to provide a successful hash, it solely takes a fraction of a second to confirm the successful hash by the remainder of the community.
To supply a hash for entry into the lottery, miners enter the block header, plus a nonce, a quantity used solely as soon as. If the output hash is smaller than the goal quantity (set by the Bitcoin software program), the miner wins the precise to publish the block that spherical.
Supply: Yan Pritzker, “Inventing Bitcoin” (2019).
So there you’ve it, that’s proof of labor.
Proof-Of-Work Miners Publish Details And Opinions
With this background on proof of labor in thoughts, we will now look at intimately the forms of info miners publish. Knowledge printed in a successful block contains all pending transactions that match inside the block’s area limitation, metadata and arbitrary knowledge that the miners select to incorporate.
Particularly, miners write the next knowledge into blocks:
- The checklist of transactions;
- The block header, which incorporates
- timestamp,
- the protocol model,
- earlier block’s hash (successful lottery quantity),
- block’s Merkle root (hash of the checklist summarizing the block’s transactions),
- the problem goal quantity,
- and the nonce (the arbitrary quantity used as a part of enter for the proof-of-work computation);
- The technology or “coinbase” transaction (to not be confused with the corporate by the identical title) that rewards the miner, comprised of
- transaction charges,
- block subsidy (at the moment 6.25 bitcoin), and
- miner’s bitcoin handle to obtain transaction;
- Coinbase knowledge, which may embrace arbitrary messages from the miner.
Though the mining course of runs on pc code, block creation will not be completely predetermined. That’s, it displays deliberate decisions that miners have made about which knowledge to incorporate. For instance, miners can select whether or not to incorporate transactions with no charges (area allowing), and on which foundation to incorporate no-fee transactions. Miners additionally select what messages to incorporate within the coinbase transaction, from merely stating their title, to signaling help for proposals to improve Bitcoin’s software program (referred to as gentle forks).
Certainly, this signaling course of for software program upgrades is akin to voting, or, at a minimal, a non-binding straw ballot. Before Bitcoin’s most recent major upgrade, referred to as “Taproot,” mining swimming pools (teams of miners pooling their hashing energy collectively) included a message of their blocks signaling whether or not they supposed to improve their software program to accommodate the replace. Miner votes weren’t essential to implement the improve, however their indications of help meant that the transition can be rather a lot smoother.
One other instance of a political message in coinbase knowledge is discovered within the genesis block itself, the primary block mined by Nakamoto: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
This was a newspaper headline from the date of launch. It was also a political statement about government interference in money.
As soon as a miner finds a sound hash below the goal quantity, it broadcasts its candidate block (with all its knowledge, together with the proof-of-work resolution, seen for anybody to confirm) throughout the Bitcoin community for validation by the opposite nodes. If the proof-of-work is legitimate (the miner expended the assets to generate a sound hash below the goal), the nodes will embrace the block of their copies of the blockchain. By means of this course of, miners publish knowledge contained inside the block to the decentralized blockchain in perpetuity.
The Supreme Courtroom has lengthy held “that the creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment.” As defined above, creating and disseminating info are quintessential actions of proof-of-work mining nodes, not mere byproducts. Miners exist to assemble candidate blocks containing particulars of hundreds of verified transactions, in addition to different knowledge, for publishing and inclusion within the protocol’s blockchain. This strategy of propagating verifiable info throughout the protocol’s community of nodes is, due to this fact, speech.
“Details, in spite of everything, are the start level for a lot of the speech that’s most important to advance human information and to conduct human affairs,” the Supreme Court has argued.
Moreover, blocks replicate opinions held by miners, which vary from the sensible to the political.
Proof-of-work miners, due to this fact, fairly clearly have interaction in speech. “[I]f the acts of ‘disclosing’ and ‘publishing’ information do not constitute speech, it is hard to imagine what does fall within that category.”
The Moratorium Singles Out Proof-Of-Work Publishers For Monetary Burdens
The Moratorium will not be an outright ban on proof-of-work algorithms. As an alternative, it locations financial burdens on these mining firms working proof-of-work algorithms. However “[l]awmakers may no more silence unwanted speech by burdening its utterance than by censoring its content.”
The Moratorium burdens proof-of-work miners by stopping entry to lower-cost sources of electrical energy (for instance, pure gasoline energy vegetation). As currently drafted, it requires the New York Division of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to disclaim air air pollution permits to any electric-generating facility that makes use of a carbon-based gas and that gives, in entire or partially, behind-the-meter electrical power consumed or utilized by cryptocurrency mining operations that use proof-of-work authentication strategies to validate blockchain transactions.
And renewal functions won’t be granted to those identical carbon-based electrical energy suppliers in the event that they search contracts that may improve the power consumed by proof-of-work miners.
Electrical energy is the required enter of any knowledge middle, and represents the overwhelming majority of any mining firm’s working expense. By limiting new and elevated contracts for behind-the-meter electrical energy at carbon-based energy vegetation, the Moratorium forces proof-of-work miners in New York to seek out various sources of power, which are sometimes dearer. The Moratorium thus imposes a major financial burden on proof-of-work miners — a burden not imposed on different knowledge middle operators or cryptocurrency protocol validators — solely as a result of content material of the info they course of and publish (e.g., options to proof-of-work algorithms and transactions generated pursuant to the foundations of the respective proof-of-work protocol).
The Supreme Courtroom has not hesitated to strike down legal guidelines that impose financial burdens on audio system. In “Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue,” the Courtroom invalidated a use tax on “paper and ink products consumed in the production of a publication.” This was a tax borne solely by the press, and it solely utilized to a small subset of the press (publications that consumed greater than $100,000 value of ink and paper). Though Minnesota didn’t impose an outright ban on particular content material, the Courtroom nonetheless discovered that this financial burden, which utilized differentially to the press, was unconstitutional.
Electrical energy is to a proof-of-work miner what paper and ink are to a newspaper writer: a element consumed within the strategy of publishing. Just like the use tax in “Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.,” the Moratorium imposes a monetary burden by rising the price of “behind-the-meter electrical power consumed” within the publishing course of, which burden is borne solely by a particular class of speaker. And the Moratorium is much more “repugnant to First Amendment principles” than the use tax in “Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.,” as a result of the Moratorium imposes its burden by drawing content-based strains.
For that cause, the Moratorium bears similarities to a gross sales tax struck down in “Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland,” which taxed basic curiosity magazines, however exempted newspapers, spiritual, skilled, commerce and sports activities journals. In evaluating the Arkansas gross sales tax to the use tax in “Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.,” the Courtroom was particularly troubled by its content-based nature:
“Certainly, this case includes a extra disturbing use of selective taxation than Minneapolis Star, as a result of the premise on which Arkansas differentiates between magazines is especially repugnant to First Modification ideas: {a magazine}’s tax standing relies upon completely on its content material. Above all else, the First Modification implies that authorities has no energy to limit expression due to its message, its concepts, its subject material, or its content material. Rules which allow the Authorities to discriminate on the premise of the content material of the message can’t be tolerated below the First Modification.”
Just like the journal tax in “Ragland,” whether or not the Moratorium applies to any specific protocol “relies upon completely on its content material.” Thus, and as argued extra totally within the subsequent part, the Moratorium’s content-based monetary burden must be examined below the strictest scrutiny.
That Bitcoin miners should not a part of the institutional press nor mainstream media doesn’t deprive them of the protections loved by the newspaper and journal publishers within the foregoing examples. The Supreme Courtroom in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” discovered such protections utilized to a company fashioned to distribute political media, reiterating that:
“We have now constantly rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege past that of different audio system. With the appearance of the Web and the decline of print and broadcast media, furthermore, the road between the media and others who want to touch upon political and social points turns into way more blurred.”
The Courtroom additionally rejected arguments to decrease protections primarily based on the medium used to publish speech. The Courtroom declared it will not “draw, after which redraw, constitutional strains primarily based on the actual media or expertise used to disseminate political speech from a selected speaker,” which might have additional chilling results and quantity to a violation of the First Modification by the judiciary itself.
It makes no distinction to the First Modification that Bitcoin miners use the Bitcoin protocol and proof-of-work algorithm, moderately than newspapers, to publish info.
The State of New York would possibly defend the Moratorium by minimizing the burden to proof-of-work miners as a “short-term” pause on new and elevated contracts for carbon-based power, not a everlasting ban or burden on compensation.
However the Supreme Courtroom rejected the same temporal argument in “Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board,” when it struck down a New York regulation requiring convicted criminals to escrow the proceeds from any gross sales of media depicting or recounting their crimes, as a way to compensate victims. In “Simon & Schuster,” the writer sued after New York enforced this regulation towards it and Henry Hill, the notorious mobster-author of “Wiseguy,” an autobiography detailing Hill’s life as a “made man” for the New York mob (which Martin Scorsese became the Oscar-winning movie “Goodfellas”).
New York tried to differentiate its escrow regulation from the tax in “Ragland” by emphasizing that it didn’t confiscate funds outright, however held them for a time frame, after which, if no claims have been made by victims, the funds can be returned to the creator. The Supreme Courtroom rejected this distinction out of hand, stating “this distinction can hardly function the premise for disparate therapy below the First Modification,” as a result of each the escrow regulation and gross sales tax in “Ragland” have been “types of monetary burden” that “function[d] as disincentives to talk.”
Likewise, right here, the Moratorium could also be short-term, but it surely nonetheless “function[s] as [a] disincentive[] to talk.” Furthermore, there’s nothing stopping the “short-term” Moratorium from morphing right into a everlasting ban on the sale of “behind-the-meter electric energy consumed or utilized by cryptocurrency mining operations that use proof-of-work” by carbon-fuel-based electrical energy turbines. (Certainly, a gaggle of U.S. Senators just lately has proposed just such a total ban on carbon-fuel-based power to proof-of-work miners.)
The foregoing authorities display that the financial burdens imposed by the Moratorium are cognizable below the Supreme Courtroom’s First Modification jurisprudence.
The Moratorium Fails To Move Any Stage Of Scrutiny Utilized
Content material-Based mostly Rules — Strict Scrutiny
The Moratorium imposes a burden on speech that’s created on account of, and in furtherance of, proof-of-work consensus protocols, however no different forms of consensus mechanisms. It additionally particularly singles out two lessons of audio system: One, proof-of-work miners and two, carbon-fuel-based electrical energy suppliers that offer behind-the-meter electrical energy to these proof-of-work miners.
The Courtroom recently reiterated the test for determining whether a regulation is content-based:
“[A] regulation is content-based if a regulation of speech on its face attracts distinctions primarily based on the message a speaker conveys. That description applies to a regulation that singles out particular subject material for differential therapy. For instance, a regulation banning the usage of sound vans for political speech — and solely political speech — can be a content-based regulation, even when it imposed no limits on the political viewpoints that could possibly be expressed.”
The Moratorium undeniably “singles out particular subject material” — proof-of-work algorithms — “for differential therapy.” No different cryptocurrency consensus mechanisms or algorithms are topic to the Moratorium’s freeze on carbon-fuel-based power consumption. When figuring out whether or not to challenge new or renewed air licenses to carbon-fuel-based power suppliers, the Division of Environmental Conservation “must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed” by any behind-the-meter cryptocurrency miners colocated at that power supplier. If the blocks printed by miners colocated with the electrical energy supplier include options to proof-of-work algorithms and transaction knowledge for cryptocurrency protocols secured by proof-of-work consensus mechanisms, the Division is prohibited from issuing the license.
“A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech.” Accordingly, a “law that is content-based is subject to strict scrutiny.” Below strict scrutiny, the federal government bears the burden of proving:
- “its regulation is important to serve a compelling state curiosity,” and
- “is narrowly drawn to realize that finish.”
Below this commonplace, legal guidelines are virtually invariably declared unconstitutional. The very best stage of scrutiny applies to content-based legal guidelines because:
“Above all else, the First Modification implies that authorities has no energy to limit expression due to its message, its concepts, its subject material, or its content material. Rules which allow the Authorities to discriminate on the premise of the content material of the message can’t be tolerated below the First Modification.”
Making use of strict scrutiny, we first confirm New York’s curiosity served by the Moratorium. The legislative findings included with the enacting bill establish “local weather change” as a menace to the state. The invoice continues, “[i]t is the coverage of the State of New York to preserve, enhance and shield its pure assets and atmosphere and to forestall, abate and management water, land and air air pollution.” And the invoice identifies a concrete aim to cut back “statewide greenhouse gasoline emissions [by] … eighty-five p.c by 2050 and that the state has internet zero emissions in all sectors of the financial system by that point.”
To make sure, the prevention of local weather change and safety of the state’s pure atmosphere are certainly weighty pursuits. There may be little authority, nevertheless, on the place this nebulous curiosity lies on the spectrum from “rational foundation” (most deferential to authorities) to “compelling” (least deferential).
However even assuming for functions of argument that local weather change does current a compelling state curiosity, it’s inconceivable for the state to show that freezing greenhouse gasoline emissions at present ranges from a single subset of just one trade is “narrowly drawn” to forestall local weather change and shield the atmosphere. Even when the State of New York froze all emissions inside its borders, personal and business-related, at present ranges indefinitely, this is able to have negligible impacts on local weather change. Local weather change is a worldwide phenomenon.
Neither is the Moratorium on proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining emissions narrowly drawn to realize the state’s aim of decreasing emissions by 85% by 2050 and rendering “all sectors of the financial system” net-zero. Once more, proof-of-work mining is however one subset of 1 trade inside the New York financial system.
There is no such thing as a meritorious argument the state can marshal to rebut the presumption of unconstitutionality below a strict scrutiny evaluation.
Industrial Speech — Intermediate Scrutiny
Proof-of-work knowledge may also be thought-about business speech, because it could possibly be argued that it “propose[s] a commercial transaction.” That is, in fact, not correct, because the transaction knowledge printed by miners is sort of at all times between different events involving transactions to which miners should not a celebration. Furthermore, miners publish blocks that include knowledge past mere transactional info, as beforehand established, together with political views. However, a decide working with a superficial understanding of proof-of-work mining might attain for a straightforward heuristic like business speech.
However “even speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is protected by the First Amendment.” Speech proposing a business transaction is, nevertheless, “entitled to lesser protection than other constitutionally guaranteed expression.”
For commercial speech to be regulated under intermediate or heightened scrutiny:
- the speech should relate to “lawful exercise and never be deceptive”;
- the governmental curiosity should be “substantial”; and
- the regulation should “straight advance[] the governmental curiosity asserted,” and never be “extra intensive than is important to serve that curiosity.”
In different phrases, “[t]here must be a fit between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.”
Proof-of-work miners, by their nature, publish truthful info about transactions which might be verified by the protocol’s community of nodes. It is a lawful exercise and never deceptive.
Thus, below intermediate scrutiny, the state must show the Moratorium “straight advances” a “substantial curiosity.” Once more, the regulation is unsettled on the place basic local weather change and greenhouse emissions objectives fall inside the spectrum of governmental pursuits. However even below intermediate scrutiny, the state can not present that its concentrating on of a single subset of 1 single greenhouse-gas-emitting trade “straight advances” its local weather objectives, for the explanations mentioned above.
Whereas that is a better commonplace for the state to fulfill, the Moratorium is just too underinclusive and ineffective at its acknowledged objectives to cross any stage of scrutiny utilized. Nonetheless, any motion difficult the Moratorium ought to keep away from classification of proof-of-work block publishing as pure business speech as a way to set up a precedent securing the best ranges of safety.
Conclusion
Miners securing cryptocurrency protocols by way of proof-of-work algorithms, similar to Bitcoin, are publishers engaged in speech entitled to First Modification protections of the best order. Due to this, any regulation or regulation affecting proof-of-work miners should be typically relevant and content material impartial. Legal guidelines such because the Moratorium in New York Meeting Invoice A7389C, which goal proof-of-work miners primarily based on the content material of their speech, violate miners’ First Modification rights and must be invalidated.
Thus, the Moratorium (as soon as signed into regulation) gives a significant alternative for a check case to ascertain favorable precedent shielding the proof-of-work mining trade from burdensome regulation — and even outright bans. And, as a result of the problem of whether or not the Moratorium is narrowly drawn to forestall local weather change can be litigated in such a case, it will additionally present a chance to dispel power misinformation and worry, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), primarily based on credible skilled testimony and judicial fact-finding. Such a case might shift the narrative on Bitcoin mining and display the unimaginable advantages proof-of-work protocols present to society.
The aim of this text has been to spark considerate argument and debate on an necessary challenge pertinent to Bitcoin and Constitutional rights. Please be happy to contribute to the dialogue on Twitter, or by e-mail.
It is a visitor submit by Aaron Daniel. Opinions expressed are completely their very own and don’t essentially replicate these of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Journal.
