lol: blockchain - yes; bitcoin - no

[jbreher]

Off with your head!* Bitcoin revolutionizes illegal actions -- does it hold your interest?
-snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.

Wrong. There's a reason for which Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous and you obviously aren't seeing it.

Misinterpreting words much yourself? I most certainly did NOT claim that there is no reason for Bitcoin to be pseudo-anonymous. Though perhaps you might enlighten by explaining exactly what you see as the reason for something such as Bitcoin to be pseudo-anonymous. What benefit, exactly, does this bring in your estimation?

My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?

DASH/Monero/similar coins can't become legal...

Perhaps you've not been paying attention. In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.

...and regulated properly because of their anonymous nature.

All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.

Incidentally, if you want me to 'stop misinterpreting your words', you are going to have to be more clear about writing exactly what you mean.

[neurotypical]

The day I wake up and I can look at reddit for news without seeing news of a bank saying how cool the blockchain is but not mentioning Bitcoin, that will be a good one.

[Lagartijo]

They show more interest in blockchain because blockchain is good and you can copy blockchain. And because Bitcoin cannot copy adoption.

http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/

This is the third story today by someone who asserts their brilliance by saying: "we are interested in blockchain; bitcoin not so much".  It is meant to show you are a bigshot if you can put forth another version of this over-used line.  
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london

Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/

It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'.  I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too.  Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.

There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain.  Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it.  Let's see where that will get you.  

People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting.  All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency.  There is not blockchain without bitcoin.  

[Lauda]

-snip-
In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.

All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.

I guess you just misunderstood me. Pseudo-anonymity is definitely something that has helped Bitcoin become regulated or even classified as a currency in some places. Governments are definitely going to be against fully anonymous coins because of the dangers of money laundering (some are even against Bitcoin for this very reason).  When I say that they can't become legal, I did not imply that they were illegal (now). I thought that things weren't legal unless declared so, thus being in a neutral stance?

I was talking about regulation in legal norm. Algorithmic rulesets are irrelevant to this.

I thought Monero wasn't able to be transparent but I remember reading Monero also had an inbuilt feature to make payments transparent if the user wanted. I think this is a good thing. I don't think Bitcoin the way it is now, would be a good idea to be mainstream, it needs to be more anonymous. Greg Maxwell has commented on this, he said he doesn't want to live in a world with a global transparent ledger, that's why he wants to introduce the confidential transactions BIP. I think he is right, and a global transparent ledger like we have now is NSAs wet dream. We need a more obfuscated way to deal with transactions in a standardized way.

I'm not aware of the exact functionality that Monero offers. I've been trying to stay away from things that shills promote out of their respective section.
Well this suggestion might be actually a good thing. I looked around and it is related to Blockstream. However, I think that there should be no change to the default anonymity of Bitcoin, but rather just add this functionality.

[jbreher]

-snip-
In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.

All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.

I guess you just misunderstood me. Pseudo-anonymity is definitely something that has helped Bitcoin become regulated or even classified as a currency in some places. Governments are definitely going to be against fully anonymous coins because of the dangers of money laundering (some are even against Bitcoin for this very reason).  When I say that they can't become legal, I did not imply that they were illegal (now). I thought that things weren't legal unless declared so, thus being in a neutral stance?

I was talking about regulation in legal norm. Algorithmic rulesets are irrelevant to this.

OK - this I think I understand. Not necessarily agree, but understand.

In the so-called 'free world' -- of which the USA, despite our accelerating slide into totalitarianism, is still a part -- all things not specifically legislated as being 'illegal' are fully legal. It may be different in other corners of the world. (Why would any people accept such a default?)

Governments may try to ban fully anonymous currency. I am unaware of any significant countries doing so as of yet. If they stay sleeping at the switch for too much longer, they may miss their opportunity to make such currencies illegal. The power that governments have -- while significant -- is limited by the demands of the people. If the people refuse a government mandate en masse, their government's legalistic proclamations become powerless. If enough poeple become invested in a fully anonymous currency before their government gets around to banning it, there is a non-negligible possiblity that the people will refuse to abide by such a directive. When a people is determined that their government shall change course or be abolished, the people's will is usually done.

I think I understood what you initially meant by :

...and regulated properly because of their anonymous nature.

Perhaps my response was unclear. My point is that all the regulation that is proper is embodied in the algorithmic ruleset. I stand by my assertion that any legalistic regulation is improper.

Incidentally:
My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?

[Lauda]

OK - this I think I understand. Not necessarily agree, but understand.

In the so-called 'free world' -- of which the USA, despite our accelerating slide into totalitarianism, is still a part -- all things not specifically legislated as being 'illegal' are fully legal. It may be different in other corners of the world. (Why would any people accept such a default?)
-snip-

Incidentally:
My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?

So let me get this straight, anything new that has no laws or regulations related to it is labeled as legal until stated otherwise? I was not aware that this was the case in the USA.
I do not deny that assertion, however I would say that one of the main reasons for complete anonymity are illegal activities. I do realize (as I'm part of such a group) that there are people who wish to stay outside of the system and stay anonymous. However, coins such as Bitcoin (needs a bit more work, i.e. something as confidential transactions ) with their "pseudoanonymity" should be enough.

A coin does not have to be completely anonymous by default else making it legal or proclaiming it as a currency is going to be harder.
Update: I never stated that I do not need anonymity.

[jbreher]

So let me get this straight, anything new that has no laws or regulations related to it is labeled as legal until stated otherwise? I was not aware that this was the case in the USA.

That is correct. The 'authorities' cannot charge a person for made-up infractions*. All prosecution must tie back to written law, specifically legislated.

*Well, it does happen sometimes. The protections are not infallible. However, such prosecution rarely stands under scrutiny of appeal, if it even makes it to the first stages of prosecution.

I do not deny that assertion, however I would say that one of the main reasons for complete anonymity are illegal activities. I do realize (as I'm part of such a group) that there are people who wish to stay outside of the system and stay anonymous. However, coins such as Bitcoin (needs a bit more work, i.e. something as confidential transactions ) with their "pseudoanonymity" should be enough.

Pseudoanonimity may be enough for you. It may not be enough for others -- whether or not they desire it for only fully legal purposes. Accordingly, your 'should be enough' -- being stated from your own perspective -- may be irrelevant from the perspective of another. Fortunately, your statement that you don't need actual anonymity does not bar this ability to others.

A coin does not have to be completely anonymous by default else making it legal or proclaiming it as a currency is going to be harder.

Maybe we have some sort of philosophical breach here. I cannot imagine any legitimacy to any regime that asserts that one can be imprisoned for things not specifically enumerated as being illegal. I guess I've divulged that I live in the USA. Here, things must be specifically prohibited by law for them to be illegal. Where do you live that enacts (what seems to me to be) 'law by whim of superiors'? Is this widespread in the world?

With that is background, I don't believe that much of the world needs to worry about 'making it legal', as it already is legal. Of course, I've not lived in all corners of the globe.

[irfan01]

I think during this blockchain only for bitcoin wallet
but I think the best thing that bitcoin is owned blockchain