Quote from: kazuki49 on April 02, 2015, 05:53:53 PM

Quote from: Melbustus on April 02, 2015, 05:48:26 PM

Well, there *is* a "whiff" of it, so to speak. During the Jan 2013 NYDFS BitLicense exploratory panels, Lawsky made some comment to the effect of: "...maybe we need to require that all virtual currencies use a transparent ledger" (paraphrasing). Remember, Zerocash has been on the radar for a while.

In any event, I think Bitcoin kind-of luck-boxed into being something that govs can accept. There's some quote from Satoshi where he basically outlines something akin to ring-signatures as a desirable design, but didn't have an implementation for it. If he had, and Bitcoin had been launched with native robust privacy, I fear it's path would've been *much* more difficult. As is, I think it's path is workable and probably leads to much higher market cap. Some people around here seem to underestimate the degree to which truly aggressive widespread multi-government legal action would curtail adoption and value.

I thought Bitcoin goal was replace nation-states not negotiate its co-existance with status quo Grin

Anyway, I have yet to find a sound argument that makes Monero less law-abiding than Bitcoin, except in the scenario everyone using Bitcoin is required to have its ID linked to his address in order to transact with other persons or business so everything can be tracked forever, in this scenario Monero wins tremendously more.

Well, I think bitcoin can possibly become high-enough adoption and high-enough market-cap to serve as a check on fiat money; ie, if/when govs get too reckless with their currencies, wealth will flow to bitcoin and disincent the reckless behavior.

That happens by more and more people using and holding bitcoin. Bitcoin being legal to use/hold in most parts of the world is probably necessary for significant adoption, at least on <50yr timescales.