Quote from: jseverson on Today at 03:08:33 AM

Quote from: ChiBitCTy on June 01, 2020, 07:16:12 PM

Here's why- the governments wont allow it. Right now the U.S. government is working on bitcoin/cryptocurrency legislation that Steve Mnuchin (Secretary of the US Treasury) is putting together and recently said should release soon. I'm fearful of what's to come and bitcoin isn't even anonymous at the moment. Governments can kill the exchanges. Sure there's always over the counter, but that's not going to bring this to the heights we all hope it's headed.

I don't disagree, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It effectively means Bitcoin's development is going to be limited by what governments dictate. Sure some of us can live with just a pseudonymus Bitcoin, but what if they go after something else? With this reasoning, lawmakers are going to be able to mold Bitcoin into what they want with legislation, and we all lose out for it.

I mean, it's cool in this case because there are workarounds in mixers, layers, it was never designed to be fully anonymous to begin with, etc., but IMO future laws should never be a consideration in mapping out development.

Personally, I don't mind using a pseudonymous currency. I am quite contented with it. But, indeed, what if the rest of the people do not want to settle with it?

Or can we just consider pseudonymous as the middle and acceptable ground between anonymous and identified currency? A sort of a demilitarized zone between two countries trying to annihilate one another.

Otherwise, you could actually develop a fully anonymous currency which is going to be banned and will never reach full adoption for being such or try to tone down the feature a bit and perhaps gain acceptance.