Bitcoin Forum

In a sense, anonymity is to Bitcoin what copyright infringement was to Napster –the Achilles’ heel that can’t be left unsolved for.  Has someone written about the parallels between these two?  Interesting topic…

All I have left to say is that IT’S HAPPENING.  What I said in early March that would, I mean –“…[that] federal and state regulators and law enforcement agencies might be cooking up cases for regulatory action or even prosecution.”

When faced with what we can’t control, let’s just make the best of it!  We would be hard pressed to argue against the value of knowing our customer, right?  So, JDI (just do it)!  This is a golden opportunity to build a clean and thick customer database from day one.

Let’s JDI!

This isnt napster..
this is like Torrents..
cant stop them.

The regulators don't even know enough to know that yet, I imagine. Legitimizing part of bitcoin..is basically opening Pandora's box

This is pure nonsense. Bitcoin itself is completely unaffected by the latest legal threats and actions.

What *are* affected are above-ground Bitcoin businesses taking customer deposits in national currencies and/or providing services that go under money transmitter or exchanger rules.

NOT affected are people making cash-for-Bitcoin swaps in person, people transacting business solely on the Bitcoin block chain, and people and businesses that don’t care a whit about the repressive, innovation-stifling AML/KYC laws around the world — which, dressed up in the guise of “fighting crime”, are really about total financial surveillance to ensure the maximum tax grab for the ruling class and placing crushing burdens on anyone who would dare to compete against the creaky, bloated, diseased, super-privileged, 1%-owned legacy financial system. The latter group operate both above-ground but not yet at a scale to attract the attention of the ruling class’s goon squads as well as completely below ground, be it through the use of PGP encryption and anonymization networks like Tor or I2P or just on a person-to-person or “club” type basis.

Bitcoin itself is a protocol and a shared transaction register. Saying “the end of Bitcoin” is to misunderstand the nature of the thing entirely.

Talking through his pocket ... the guy is financial compliance consultant. Sounds like he doesn't know too much about how bitcoin works but knows he can make some money by talking about 'compliance' for bitcoin businesses.

Just another unnecessary layer of parasitism. Mike Gogulski in the comments nails his ass to the wall.


Guys like Juan use the "uphold the law" no matter how unfair because he profits from it. He is the worst kind because he knows better and realises the super-rich have stacked the deck over the little guy, but supports "the law" because he profits from the unfairness.

I agree enthusiastically, but now what? What follows from that? What should "BTC" do? What should "we" do?

Should we, for instance, ignore the noise? I'm guessing not, but what then?

Will BTC forks, when and as needed, always keep "them" at bay?

Should we get out of fiat as best we can, as soon as we can? (My preferred answer, but I need help thinking these things through down a few more levels).

Something else?