China's "Google" Now Accepting Bitcoin

you should also mention that the price is now about $13 higher than it was before the silk road got shut down



isn't bitcoin amazing?

I find digital currencies in general to be interesting. Not saying I'm a "believer", but I find it interesting. I work in anti-money laundering consulting so for various reasons DC's intrigue me.

quote:

---

I work in anti-money laundering consulting

---

I mean, all bullshite aside, crypto-currencies have to frighten the crap out of people who are concerned with AML, right? They will pretty much make any AML efforts very, very expensive and very, very ineffective. What's the general attitude towards them in your industry?

quote:

---

I mean, all bullshite aside, crypto-currencies have to frighten the crap out of people who are concerned with AML, right? They will pretty much make any AML efforts very, very expensive and very, very ineffective. What's the general attitude towards them in your industry?

---

Honestly most in the industry aren't thinking about it. I mean most are only semi-aware of Bitcoin or Digital Currencies in general because of the FinCen advisory regarding how to treat digital currency exchanges. There was also some minor discussion in passing regarding Liberty Reserve as well.

The large banks are still trying to figure out how to meet regulatory expectations on AML for "typical" industries much less more advanced financial technologies.

I would imagine if digital currencies continue to grow, then most banks will view them as untouchable much like other MSB's. Most banks make it very difficult for an MSB to be a customer. The potential revenues for banking a BitCoin remitter will be viewed as being too low to make up for cost of compliance.

The other aspect of BitCoin that I think will eventually get attention are the considerable/potential OFAC concerns.

quote:

---

If you have to refer to baidu as "chinas google"... You shouldn't post here. Even if that is the article's title

---

quote:

---

Wiki, I found this article that is only a couple weeks old. Some of what this article states supports the theme of what I said.

LINK

---

Thanks for the article.

quote:

---

This article is very light on substance

---

Yea, and also somewhat naive in its understanding.


The article at least understands that regulation is only possible on the edges, but then fails to even discuss the internals of the digital currency networks.




And this:

quote:

---

Steps toward “privacy without anonymity” will offend some legitimate users who value the independence of digital currencies from the influence of national governments. Development of such mechanisms may prompt greater use of measures — such as mixing services and multiple addresses — to try to mask the source of funds. In the longer term, the industry may need to develop ways to prevent transactions involving users or funds that firms cannot adequately verify.

---

is an interesting paragraph.

Essentially he's arguing for creating a blacklist of coins. This concept is routinely discussed in the bitcoin community, even the core developers make comments on it. The typical conclusion is that blacklisting would not be adopted by the community, although individual companies could certainly do it, but it would be very difficult and riddled with problems.

Here's some comments from Jeff Garzik on that topic, albeit in relation to stolen coins (but the concept is the same): https://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-stolen-coins-and-transaction.html




Anyway, what I'd like your opinion on is what you think the success rate for AML regulations will be on a closed loop bitcoin/crypto-currency economy.

It's clear that the edges can and will be regulated. But what happens when no one needs the edges anymore?

quote:

---

Anyway, what I'd like your opinion on is what you think the success rate for AML regulations will be on a closed loop bitcoin/crypto-currency economy.

It's clear that the edges can and will be regulated. But what happens when no one needs the edges anymore?

---

So if Bitcoin or some other digital currency ever fully grows into a "self-sustaining" economy, then I'm not sure how successful current AML regs would be. I think what some in the Bitcoin community may not realize though is that there are several types of industries that are defined as "financial institutions" via the Bank Secrecy Act that one normally wouldn't consider an FI. Pawn shops, diamond/jewel dealers, Casinos, travel agents, Insurance, auto-dealers, and various others are required to have AML programs and/or comply by certain AML regs.

My point being that Bitcoin/digital currencies possibly could be "regulated" in a sense due to interacting with companies that may be subject to AML regs. Obviously this is still limited, but may affect Bitcoin users in ways they didn't initially expect.

I think what could be bigger than even AML reg implications are OFAC sanctions implications for digital currency users. OFAC sanctions, unlike AML, applies to all US citizens regardless of location, and not just financial institutions.

How exactly OFAC will "catch" the average bitcoin user as violating sanctions; I'm not really sure. Something to think about though.

Sorry if I didn't address your question correctly. I'm still learning about Bitcoin, and I have at best an elementary understanding.

quote:

---

the state is fighting a losing battle in the long term anyway.

---

More of a poliboard discussion, but I don't think those in power really care about what happens after they are gone.