Quote from: LaudaM on August 10, 2015, 12:44:49 PM

Quote from: jbreher on August 05, 2015, 11:50:54 PM

-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 :

Quote

...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?