what the treasury announcement is not saying is that the exchangers and the ransdomware guys knew of eachother and the exchangers still processed transactions without reporting it.
which made their exchange illegal.
if an exchange is running a business of exchange in america it needs a money business licence and needs to have a policy to report funds transfer IF the business becomes aware that the funds are directly involved in criminals
EG funds coming in are from a criminal and the criminal is using the exchange to swap funds to take out different funds back to the criminal (laundering)

if just handling funds that at some time somewhere may have orginated back to criminals. even without knowledge of the crime is still an 'accomplice'.. then many managers of walmart and cashiers of walmart in detroit should be arrested for simply handling cash

displaying the addresses is just showing one piece of 'proof' of a relationship, but has not shown the other proofs of relationship.

bitcoin is pocket money created by machines owned by people not by governments.
imagine the machines like complicated calculators that people can own in their homes

its done by putting a list of peoples pocket money spending together into a list, like writing down math stuff in a maths notepad. and then doing some complex maths based on stuff of that page of the notepad

each new notepad page has a link to the previous page, simply like "continiung from previous page" but using the complicated maths result to prove its continuing from the last page.
that way all pages of a math notepad can be proved to link together to stop anyone from just cheating and slipping a new page in the middle of a notepad so that teachers can easily spot who done their homework and who didnt


the people that own the complex calculators that do the complex math get paid new pocketmoney if the complex math is correct. but thy can only spend it after 100 new pages of maths homework is done and correct after the page that people want to spend their rewards from.
because the maths teachers around the world that check the answers not only want to check the answers are right. but also want to see lots of homework added on afterwards that its impossible to change an earlier answer because so many pages have been added to a math notepad

what its not saying is the 2 exchanges and the 2 randsomware people knew of each other and the exchangers knew they were funding ransomware and didnt report it
they were running an illegal exchange

the 2 published addresses are just posting proof that funds looped through the exchange that originated from the ransomware
to show proof of a financial relationship. but an actual AML crime is about knowing the PEOPLE receiving the funds and exchanging the fiat knew of the crime and still funded the criminals without reporting the criminals.

imagine detroit. street dealing fiat. imagine a dealer walked into walmart to buy gum.. walmart CEO is not liable because although fiat can be traced through its cashiers draw, there also needs to be proof that walmart knew their customer was a drug dealer and helped the drug dealer process a transaction.

what the treasury is not saying but the law requires is that an exchange could end up in trouble if it can be proven that there is a joint relationship and knowledge of a crime. and that the ones knowingly trading with criminals didnt report it. and that they were operating as a money business without a money business licence

its not a blanket ban that anyone touching funds with taint of criminal proceeds. otherwise walmart managers in detroit would get arrested for simply accepting cash payments

bitcoin does not ask/force you to use a centralised exchange.
bitcoin does not ask/force you for personal information
bitcoin does not ask/force you to use a certain bank

bitcoin does not ask/force you to avoid local swaps
bitcoin does not ask/force you to avoid OTC trades
bitcoin does not ask/force you to avoid paper money swaps

bitcoin did not code exchanges
bitcoin did not create regulations
bitcoin does not contain code that follow american regulations
bitcoin does not contain code that blacklist addresses

its businesses and people.
thus the problem is not bitcoin its businesses and people

if you want privacy dont give out personal information
if you dont want a business linked to regulation, regulating/prohibiting you. dont use that business

create your people group and circumvent/work around the problem

if THEY are blacklisting 2 addresses. then dont use services/exchanges tied to "they"

continue trading bitcoin locally. you will still see that you can swap your fiat for btc by not using exchanges that blacklist
again simple solution.

instead of sitting in a chair worrying yourself and thinking for years you cant swap bitcoin because you fear x,y,z.. find a work around

EG i see flaws of segwit and flaws of LN. my solution. i just dont use segwit or LN

if you want decentralised exchanges. organise a meetup and change hand to hand. code cant organise decentralised exchanges of people

its like your trying to ask a screwdriver to make a wooden box. yes a screw driver is the tool. but it requires a human to put things together and lay out the space to build it.
if you find out that a government is asking a popular retailer to report all screwdriver sales. find another retailer

its actually much simpler then people think

most spending happens via merchant services offered by coinbase and bitpay and other shopping cart offering services
as for exchanges. they are just exchanges

for UTILITY purposes. you just have to make another coin more acceptable by merchants/customers by slowing offering an alternative and then cutting down on bitcoin acceptance

EG if coinbase/bitpay stuck with just bitcoin. it would be hard for othr alts to get a chance. but now. its easier

for TRADING purposes. you just have to make another coins tradable withing exchanges, by slowing offering an alternative coins and then slowly cut down on bitcoin acceptance.

EG if exchanges stuck with just bitcoin<>usd. it would be hard for other alts to get a chance but now its easier

now here is the crux
check out this puppetmaster's controlling hand
www.dcg.co/portfolio

anyway moving on
in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

no
the community got divided. many were thrown off the network
not by desire to be thrown off the network. it was oh crap some nodes are gonna get banned

so they ended up a couple months after being told they are getting thrown off they had to:
.agree and rewrite their nodes to be full nodes
.just stall out if they had code that received full blockdata that disagreed with segwit1x
.became not full node by recieving stripped data just to remain on the network (become "compatible" <-devs buzzword)
.or create an altcoin

there wasnt a option to just say no to segwit1x on august 1st and prevent an activation. it was mandated

seriously this is not a thing you can decide by conversations. its something you have to realise by looking at the statistics and seeing what actually happened.
many stats exist

i have a question for you. are you trying to change history for a reason?
is it just entertainment for you and your buddies?
is it that your one of those flat earther/holocaust deniers that just loves twisting things?
is it that you cant actually research?

if you cant see that a true consensus bip had a november 2016 to november 2017 date, with no mandatory obligation or bans
where that consensus had no code related to anything around august.

if you cant see that a controversial hardfork bip occured in august due to code stating in august something will happen whereby it was mandated. thus not consensual .
cutting the community up and coercing the vote via diluting out opposers, ignoring some abstainers and only counting those that agree

then maybe best to you do some research.
it was not natural consensus. it was mandated
learn mandated
the word contains two word  man-date
a date chosen by man

august 1st was not consensus of do not activate unless 95% of whole community agree. because the consensus 95% was not counting the whole community because the community got divided to fake count an activation

and i can pre-empt your next ploy
it was not a consensual agreement to split it was a controversial split.
its the devs that call it "bilateral" where they wish to think the words mean joint agreement to split. again no it was a reluctant controversial split
some define the bilateral split to mean 2 splits because segwit split away from just being legacy code and cash split away from segwit

but long story short there was no way to avoid segwit1x activation due to the mandate
and who created the mandate. those wanting segwit1x

the reason is people dont want certain businesses to adopt it due to utility and need for users to buy things. but people want amazon and paypal more so to get fame and publicity of hearing media talk about amazon and mention "bitcoin"

thats why i said in my list of tips

again many silly fools dont want mass adoption. they just want mass awareness. purely for speculation rather than utility..
im more interested in utility not awareness
hense why its better to grass roots it locally by getting bitcoiners of the same time to organise which grocery store they all would use given the chance and to do something about it.

then if the shop stops accepting bitcoin due to lack of utility, those locals have themselves to blame for not shopping there.
the whole point of bitcoin is to take responsibility for your own funds and to look after the network. not to wait for some central agency/group/HQ to do something.

summary
its funny that people poke and finger point at me. yet i am not the one writing code that mandates crap.

if people dont like my opinion
if people dont like that i simplify explanations with analogies
if people dont like that i dont kiss a devs ass
if people dont like that i dont use devs buzzwords.. but then dont like it when i do use their buzzwords

then just get on with your lives. hit the ignore button and enjoy your blissful life of dev hugs

ill continue to care about the bitcoin networked utility and security. i care not for a devs reputation.. they will move on retire, change jobs, get bored at somepoint way before bitcoin. so ill concentrate on long term security of bitcoin. not short term financial security of a devs sponsorship ability
the core devs have plenty of funds, well over $100m to split between themselves so its not like they are starving and going to be eating chicken nuggets as their christmas meal.. so its not like they need protecting

i know some people want this forum to only contain a utopian empty promise rather than real open discussions of flaws. but in the real world its better to speak up when there are flaws. to atleast seek to get the flaws solved, or atleast warn others that things are not as they seem

if you only want to see the utopian fluffy clouds. press the ignore button and go find the fluff you seek

if it doubles the total coin supply. then deflation is dead. mindset changes from "guaranteed limit" to "if they done it once they will do it again"
trust is lost and people dont value the coin anymore as a store of value

(facepalm)
never said i fully supported or advocated for segwit2mb
as i have said.. community COMPROMISE to come to a consensus

EG the group that wanted 16mb, 8mb, 4mb  ended up compromising to 2mb
other groups that just wanted legacy compromised to accept segwit as long as it was more then 1mb base block

but yea just to end the debate and get things running if core actually held onto the 2015 consensus debate of segwit2mb they woulda had much more progress in late 2016

.. the funny part is the colourful chart you supplied. was a poll done AFTER certain events and drama. which swayed peoples minds in one direction or another.

but its usual for you and your buddies to pretend i say one thing . that i advocate things. when in fact i dont.
but anyway your deflecting
it clearly says better than nothing.. not love and adoration and full advocation of segwit
it clearly says better than nothing.. not love and adoration and full advocation of forking the network

this topic is about the split/fork. caused by MANDATED activation via events of august first. which the august 1st date was chosen by the segwit side.

anyway. you are still just trying to defend a dev and not talking from a secure blockchain network mindset.
so have a nice day.
(you might have a better day hugging a dev than trying to poke people that dont kiss a devs ass, because we value bitcoin security far more than dev reputation)

as for usefulness of crypto:

techy people are making (although it has flaws) a separate network for multiple coins to transact and swap around in. its not a bitcoin feature its a separate network for multiple coins to lock funds up with a trade partner or a central store and the aim is transacting faster and cheaper without using blockchains.
the network is called the lightning network(LN)
you will see many people screaming LN is a bitcoin 'solution' or a bitcoin feature. this is because the developers are playing off the bitcoin fame for sponsoring their labour via investment. and because they are testing LN using btc as the first test coin of the network.

institutions are doing something too their projects have many names but all revolve around 'hyperledger'

yes there are 2000+ currencies. and id say around 50 networks wanting to do multicoin trades. so there is alot happening that is still influx

with all that said most of these non-blockchain networks are no better than the old banking systems they are just playing off the fame by adding in buzzwords or trying to attach themselves to popular blockchains to self promote while from an average joes prospective, not offer anything really new.

now as long as a cryptocurrency remains relavant and has not just turned into a lock it up because fee's are too expensive to use on the blockchain. and while there are merchants and retailers accepting the currency. great. but if things just end up as a lock it up and use partnered(permissioned) transactions. or networks where other parties need to be online or sign just so you can move funds, for a convenience of cheap transactions. then inevitably people wont see benefit of crypto beyond speculative investment.. rather than mass utility adoption

ive been here since 2012. ive got a hoard i keep and dont touch and also another stash of btc for spending.

for me mass adoption is getting off our asses and actually getting our local stores to accept bitcoin. if we all convince atleast one shop. all shops will be convinced (there is more population than businesses)

me personally i buy groceries pay bills. im happy.
i helped many get involved in bitcoin and that included revealing the flaws not just the utopian dreams of bitcoin
(always best to be transparant of the reality rather than sound like a utopian salesman)

but i see many who want THEIR local car fuel/grocery store to accept bitcoin. but sit there waiting for code to grow legs and arms and vocal cords to get in contact with THEIR local stores.

mass adoption can only really occur if the masses help adoption.

so here's some tips:
1. if you live in a large town/city, find a good meet up location and then promote through local social groups free press that there is a bitcoin meetup happening in your area.
2. find out who within the meetup group are the main: bitcoin buyers bitcoin sellers bitcoin techy experts
that way you can start organising who people should go to you get or swap btc with. and who to approach to learn more about it
3. discuss local shops that a nice amount of people all regularly visit and would love to spend btc rgular with. this way you have an idea which shops to put most effort towards informing about bitcoin by pre-knowing and informing the shop how much business it may get regular by giving it a try

as for shop adoption.
the most simple and most non-tech/least jargon method that i seen work is as follows
1. find the meetup guy who buys btc regular who wants cash in hand trades
2. combine efforts to sort out a small reserve/bartab amount.
3. approach the store and speak with the manager about bitcoin and how you can show how easy it is to accept.
4. give him a bartab amount of fiat so the manager is not at risk (solving one objection before its raised)
5. give him a laminated QR code for the meetup buyers address for the manager to keep near the cashiers desk
6. give the manager a link to a bitcoin/fiat calculator
7shop like normal put goods into a grocery trolley and walk upto the cashier desk ask the manager to process like a normal cash transaction.
8. when the total arrives just ask the manager can you calculate the total into bitcoin please. let him calculate and tell you the amount. you scan the QR code and let the manager see that payment is accepted.
9. job done paid in bitcoin successful
10. all the manager needs to do is put the cash sale total amount from the bartab reserve into the cashiers P.o.s cashdrawer

all complete
then you can leave it to the meetup buyer who got the btc to keep the resrve/tab topped up as btc keeps entering his address over time. and the manager then without jargon can accept btc.
11. inform local press a grocery store is "first in town" to accept bitcoin. so that the grocery store gets free advertising/publicity
and thats it. no pressure
the manager is then fre to learn more about it and get involved to learn the techy stuff.. or just accept the local partnership non techy way

.......
as for institutional 'mass adoption' well local people cant push companies in skyscapers to do anything. but that being said many big institutions already know of bitcoin and are moving into the ecosystem all by themselves

the community is EVERYONE
devs, users, miners

i think you and doomad have core devs and community confused. the core DEVS wanted segwit. but the community of all 3 circles couldnt agree

before the mandated threats. segwit only had 35% opt-in agreement of pools
before the mandated threats. segwit only had no real uptake/growth of core nodes
core didnt like those results. hense why lukeJr double downed with the backdoor method.

i think when i say bitcoin you only think of core..  and when i say core you only think of bitcoin. which is where the confusion you have begins

when i point out issues with core thats not me attacking the bitcoin network (again your confusion of it)
my opinion is the network/community should not be solely reliant on core. should not kiss their royal ring and sheepishly follow core devs whims.

now if you imagine the community being everyone. you start to actually picture how consensus should be a united community. and not a opportunity to kick half certain cirlces out if one circle wants something.
the endless cicle of cries that certain people have that core devs should have absolute right to do anything they like to the network is wrong.
yes let the write code. whether it be on github, a thai brides thigh or paper. release code. but saying they have the right to mandate its activation. is wrong.. as thats centralising the network to a core team

there needs to be united agreement where if for instance core propose something. they shouldnt simply get it activated due to them having a backdoor. or because they make threats and set deadlines.
if core dont get majority.. like they didnt in november 2016-spring 2017 then they should put their tail between their legs and redesign things / make a few tweaks to produce something the WHOLE community would like.

to save tim, not cause delay and actually save face. they could have actually listened to the community and obided by the late 2015 consensus which was a combination of users, merchants, devs and miners. who majority agreed to a segwit2mb
meaning by late 2016 they would have got their segwit AND the community also get 2mb baseblock
no drama. no delay. no fingerpointing, no splitting the network. no problems

november 2016-spring 2017 = natural normal consensus.

summer 2017=forced mandated= not natural

i said many many many times if core wrote segwit2mb as they said they would in 2015 the community would have accepted NATURALLY via original consensus segwit. because the opposers would have also got more base block.. thus majority happy naturally.
the thing is. what got activated was not done naturally hense why a year later (3 years of debate so far) people are still waiting for bitcoin scaling solutions


again
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

again
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

and again
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

i know you want to deflect the topic and try to make is sound like im talking about what code they can write.

but no.. what im talking about is what code should be activated on the network.
segwit august 2017 was not activated by a united community vote of users and miners.
united communiy vote of majority=consensus
bilateral split=not comsensus
mandated or ban =not consensus
apartheid=not consensus

again
the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

to other readers i am sorry for repeating myself but certain people poke into topics and meander into personal social dram of twisting information and making is sound like things such as
i was advocating splitting the network.. no i my opinion has always been CONSENSUS without MANDATED threats /forks
and
i want to stop devs writing code.. no my opinion is devs shouldnt use backdoors to change the network without consensus
and
how im authoritarian.. no i am not the one with the mandated threats and backdoor code that is a security risk to the network

its strange how certain people want to argue and defend the devs then realise the point is bitcoin network security again malicious activations/backdoors

my opinion use consensus to stay united and upgrade feature the majority community want = consensus
some others opinions if you dont like it f**k off = not consensus

to the point of the topic
to make it clear
I DO NOT ADVOCATE BILATERAL SPLITS

yep and thats exactly what caused the october 2013 price movement. the inception of asics.
ofcourse the hashrate rise would have only caused the price to move up so much, but speculators FOMO'd and over shot the mining cost/btc buy cost equilibrium..
(i too done the math and got(still havenow as a footrest) a avalon 3module 100gh asic from that period )

pools learned the hard way that pushing up hashrate would shoot them in the foot which is why instead of limping along for 2 years in 2014-15. they would play a differnt game this year

this is why when new next gen asics started running in october '18 as "QA testing" cough cough..  pools didnt want to push the hashrate up and spark another FOMO event. as that would just shoot them in the foot again.
so while taking out say 8 old miners they replaced 3 new double efficiency miners of effectively same power as 6 old miners to keep hashrate down. save on costs while making the old miners of competitors lose out. while QA testers profit to be able to sell even in low prices. its just a temporary event.

but anyways this is just temporary dip drama (unrelated to altcoin drama) which when the public delivery of new next gen asics ocurs last week of dcember. we will see the hashrate and price rise and 2019 will start on a positive. 

what threat.
if you fear your bank freezing your account. take your fiat out
they cant freeze what they dont have.

then with fiat in hand organise a meetup and buy bitcoin hand to hand
there, done, no threat.
now your free from the worry of banks

i dont play dumb. what i do is take something that someone over complicates using buzzwords and finger pointing. and i simplify it into simple terms and solutions. not just for your benefit. but all readers,

i dont bother finding simple solutions and then twist them into sounding complicated by giving them buzzwords. though many people in other topics hate it when i use simple terms. so now and again i use other peoples buzzwords just to shut people up arguing offtopic about lack of buzzwords, so that the topic can revert back to simple explanations for ALL readers to understand.

EG your buzzword "axiom" ill call it what it is to common people.... "common sense"

so i am sorry if i dont use your buzz word. but 99% of readers would prefer to read a topic that gets straight from problem to solution. rather than have to deep dive search engines for definitions

if they would rather just talk about the complexities of the problem, so be it i just tell them to go research and deep dive the search engines in their own time

same goes for solutions
instead of over complicating solutions requiring trying to lobby governments to change or lobbying devs to change. i just give out a simple idea for a simple solution any average common person can do. and just leave them to do it.

thats where people think that i should be pushing things. nope. i just untwist complicated FUD, mis understandings and correct it into simple terms. people think i should push for change because i am mentioning the problem.. others think i am trying to force change because i mention a problem/solution. again no.
i just show the simple real understanding all common people can understand and then, if people want to wake up one day and do something that will change something. they can

but its up to them to do it.
code cant change itself and as this topic has shown no matter how much you tell a person to do something they wont. because THEY/YOU need to do it. not rely on others to do it

people/businesses are the problem. if you cant change them. avoid them and find another way.
hense. find the simple solution that solves the issue without you having to bang your head against the wall

so your problem with KYX banking regs and seizing funds. easy dont use a bank. do things locally
so your problem with not being able to buy brad locally with btc. easy locally organise a meet up and plan to help grocer store use bitcoin

bitcoins privacy has not changed from 2009-2018
satoshi a person rmained anonymous even while writing hundreds of posts and emails. not due to changing code. but by him as a person not doing something(giving out his real name)

bitcoin does not ask for real names.
its peoples decision to go public. the problem is not bitcoin code its peoples choice to reveal their name
so if you want code (which people will ignore at times)
{
ShowMessage("dont give out real name");
}
but as you can see the code cant enforce people. its people that need to act.
again code cant shut down pools because people will find a work around.
even with PoS instead of PoW people are already syndicating their funds('stake') into pools
agaiin the problems you raise cannot be sorted by getting writing on paper(laws) changed. or keys on keyboard(code)
people need to be the change.

to kill a pool/exchange people just need to stop using such services. and it can only happen if people do things and people change their normal habits

so if you dont like american regulations holding iranians hostage against international trade. stop using businesses linked to american rgulations. then do something local to get your btc and be able to buy things in your local town with btc without the need of american tied services

what you are quoting is not code doing the work
its people

code cannot hand deliver weapons through the postal system. people do. businesses do
if DHL suddenly stops delivering guns to peoples homes. code cannot mandate that people stop using DHL people choose to stop using DHL
people would then choose to use the amazon logistics similar to uber(for parcels) again. people

so if you want to circumvent weapons policies people need to act.