It seems mum is the word. How they will react when they get a court order or executive order of any kind is anybody's guess. It's been made clear in court precedent that digital currencies with monetary value are subject to AML and other laws when developed or distributed on US territory. The Bitcoind software development, as it stands, may be compelled to comply through software patches or ceasing activities.

Although #bitcoin-dev supposedly is a open and transparent channel of the Bitcoind project, people were threatened for discussing a pertinent topic regarding development. Very suspicious.

[13:23] <agent8423> when the US government needs Bitcoin to comply with antimoney laundering laws will you guys comply in your development?
[13:24] <@jgarzik> their choice, and it helps full nodes
[13:24] <BlueMatt> jgarzik: uhhh...no its not
[13:24] <kjj_> ugh.
[13:24] <kjj_> agent8423: can't you leave that shit on the forums where it belongs?
[13:24] <@jgarzik> agent8423: offtopic for #bitcoin-dev
[13:24] <agent8423> but youre developers for Bitcoin? who am i supposed to ask?
[13:25] <gmaxwell> agent8423: uh. You're confused. There isn't anything like that we could do; nor are there any laws someone should rationally expect to be applicable there. Go ask coal mining equiment makers about their conformance with 'antimoney laundering laws'.
[13:25] == ThomasV_ [~ThomasV@200.180.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-dev
[13:25] <BlueMatt> jgarzik: its fine if an individual has a need for it and does it, and if its mentioned as an option, but it will no doubt be mentioned as heres how ALL users should get started, which is horrible ux and makes it all seem as poor as it is
[13:25] <Luke-Jr> I would appreciate if anyone can provide code reviews of new coinbase-creation code, especially the base58 parsing: https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=78192.msg1267851#msg1267851
[13:25] <kjj_> agent8423: it has been asked and answered a million times on the forums.  the government can ask us to change math, but we still can't do it
[13:25] <Luke-Jr> (the "code" link has the full diff)
[13:25] <MC1984> BlueMatt is right
[13:25] == denisx [~denis@91-65-138-255-dynip.superkabel.de] has joined #bitcoin-dev
[13:26] <agent8423> kjj_: you can release software that complies. you may have to fork the chain but you will have to.
[13:26] <Luke-Jr> agent8423: Bitcoin is just cash. AML laws are for financial instutition
[13:26] <agent8423> we live in a nation of laws
[13:26] <MC1984> wary of hacky this becoming de facto standard procedure
[13:26] <@jgarzik> Luke-Jr: bitcoins are digital messages, not cash
[13:26] <kjj_> agent8423: math is math.  congress can't change math.
[13:27] <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I'm simplifying :p
[13:27] <agent8423> schumer doesn't think so
[13:27] == mode/#bitcoin-dev [+o BlueMatt] by ChanServ
[13:27] <gmaxwell> agent8423: in any case, your question isn't concrete enough to form a meaningful answer.
[13:27] <@BlueMatt> next person to mention aml gets kicked

I remember covering many subjects that day. I think you're just mad that the Bitcoin Foundation hasn't risen to total power yet.

Show us the evidence.

Added.

No, I'm for one currency with many competing developers.

A fork isn't effective if only a small number of people are using it. It's like seceding from the United States -- but you're only a single man in a apartment.

Not if the dev team's new release is in the minority. The dev team could be the one forking.

...or they can just ignore the dev team's releases and do what they want with the current Bitcoin blockchain.

Well, this will have to be a preference poll because I can't change it to multiple choice.

At that time. They have no obligation to continue trusting Bitcoind forever.

Place your vote. Let's see what wallets are most used.

Who do you think assembles and markets the majority of mining software suites? Not the dev team. They only add to the protocol at their discretion and the miners could get vulnerabilities checked through other means.

As for clients, everybody is moving to online wallets, many with custom software.

The devs aren't Bitcoin. That's the entire point.

Exactly. And I don't need the dev's approval for my ideals to be implemented. They can be implemented with enough social resistance.

I'll say it one last time: Making my own coin doesn't do anything towards the ends a lot of us espouse. We value our Bitcoins as they are and we intend to protect them.

No, I don't want the devs to implement any of my ideal features. I intended to claim the features should implement themselves. I only railed against their ideal solutions. I don't want a damn thing from them. I only want them not to do certain things.

Except Gavin Andresen and Co. are not the drivers. Satoshi was and he left. It's all free game now.

No, success isn't guaranteed. The liquidity and support we have for Bitcoin is not a widely available commodity.

I don't even seek different properties. I like what we have now but I am afraid of future change proposed by a trusted and central developer. I am just speaking against possible dangers. That does not require me to run off and reinvent the wheel.

Like it or leave it doesn't apply in this case. It's actually like it and protect it.

If I just wanted "Bitcoins" to play around with like a kid and monopoly money, I would of created an alternate chain right now. That does not answer my concerns, at all -- AT ALL. The only thing worth defending is what we have now.

I am invested in a large sum of Bitcoins. I am guessing you guys have none. This is just a game for you, isn't it?

Bitcoins are like my home. To tell me to leave my home or place my home in abandoned wasteland does not give me choice. It is basically win or lose and you are asking me to lose.