I'm going to make a few opening remarks in response the "money laundering" comments of the Ben Lawsky, the Superintendent of Financial Services for New York.
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/29/new-york-bitcoin-hearing-troubling-regulatory-view/I may edit these later
[1] What does Lawsky, define as money laundering?
[2] The proposition that money Laundering is inherently wrong needs to be evidenced by a reasoned position not just mere assertion of activities Lawsky appropriates emotive labels.
[3] The examples of 'narco' trade and "terrorism' are emotive labels on activities that can attract other terms,
[A]running a legitimate business, e.g. an alcohol brewer, it just so happens that certain classes of drugs face prohibition.
[B.] one person's so called 'terrorist act' is to another Self defence, freedom fighter.
The real question in relation the [3] is what are the circumstances that lead to these activities if they are deleterious in Lawsky's view. To attack a form of payment of money, simply move the medium of exchange to another for. Dealing with money laundering rather than the basal problem, is like shutting the gate after the horse has gone.
Until the basal conditions that create certain business models are changed, then anti money laundering will do nothing, except waste tax payer money. State actors via legislative regimes and policy decisions are largely responsible for creation of the business viability of Narcotics and Terrorism.
[C]Where is the evidence to demonstrate Money Laundering causes and increasing such activities, it may be that money laundering actually causes a decrease or has no effect.
[4] The Acts and omissions of the government/banking system and its massive failure and servitude on the people, is far worse than any money "supposed laundering outcome", by orders of magnitude. Essentially the economic output of the a good percentage of work force has been mis appropriated by Banks and their associated institutions, including regulators, through their monopoly, state sanctioned position. The bail out of the banks in the GFC evidences this, using the tax payers to prop up failed banking decisions. Historically examples such as the great depression, with all it consequences are also instructive of a poorly function monetary system.
[5] The innovation that a thousand flowers can bloom, is the mechanism to deal with many of the in-efficiencies of the existing system that may resolve many of the circumstances that leads to deleterious behaviour (in Lawsky's view).
[6] As observed elsewhere persons such as Lawsky, are infected by either actual bias or apprehended bias because their job function can be made completely redundant by the BitCoin technology. Accordingly a person must sit whose position is not so affected.
