Quote from: toknormal on July 14, 2014, 07:13:29 PM

Quote from: shojayxt on July 14, 2014, 06:27:11 PM

Any anonymous coin is going to have a significant amount of difficulty not running into trouble with government regulations in many countries

This is one of the most persistently mistaken assumptions made regarding anonymous coins.

First of all, cryptocurrencies are not and never will be "regulated" since there are no counterparties involved in an individual's interaction with the blockchain an therefore no subject for that regulation. Rather, it is the fiat and retail gateways that form the subject of regulation. We do not "own" or "hold" cryptocurrency in any formal sense other than while we have funds on an exchange. Once off the exchange and on a blockchain, we cease to be owners or holders with any objectively identifiable meaning.

Secondly, regulatory authorities are not likely to make a distinction between one cryptocurrency and another for 3 reasons:

[1] - given the 'legal ownership' background described above, they will view the whole cryptocurrency economy as being anonymous and regulate the gateways as such unless a mechanism can be found to associate blockchain addresses with individuals

[2] - from a technical point of view, anonymity is too ambiguous a property to form a distinction between one cryptocurrency and another. Put another way, it isn't a permanently defining property of any 'coin'. Anonymity can be added at a fork or removed. It can be partial, optional etc.

[3] - once your funds are "inside" the crypto-economy ring fence, they are almost seamlessly interchangeable - through exchanges - in a network without national borders and potentially well beyond the reach of any regulation. Just this fact alone leaves regulatory bodies no option but to treat all cryptocurrencies as one, where if the technology allows an opaque blockchain in any one, they all must be regulated accordingly

So the idea that opaque blockchains will be treated any differently from transparent ones is bogus. There is no material difference when it comes to potential regulatory exposure.

On the other hand, there *is* a difference when it comes to end users because one supports financial privacy across all transactions and the other potentially doesn't. So the market will indeed make a distinction between opaque currencies and transparent ones which is why we can expect an ongoing favourable valuation in so called "anonymous" cryptos.

Really? Cryptocurrencies will never be regulated? It's already happening. I'm not making this up to start an argument. Governments are actually starting to implement regulations governing cryptocurrencies.

French Government Outlines New Regulations for Bitcoin Market Transparency

Transparency cited by regulators

The new regulations require bitcoin distributors to identify and verify their users to limit the level of anonymity.
http://www.coindesk.com/french-government-outlines-new-regulations-bitcoin-market-transparency/

Italian Authorities Issue Bitcoin Warnings, Urge Regulation

Bitcoin regulation urged

Speaking in an interview with Ansa.it, Attorney General of Rome, Luigi Ciampoli, warned that bitcoin could be abused by criminals engaged in money laundering, financing of terrorism, or mafia activities. He urged for regulation that would allow authorities to trace and identify all persons involved in digital currency transactions.

Reda told Italian daily La Repubblica that bitcoins volatility poses a risk for investors and that its anonymity allows Italian residents to hold and transfer wealth anonymously.
http://www.coindesk.com/italian-authorities-issue-new-bitcoin-warnings-urge-regulation/

Argentinian Money Regulator Mandates Reporting on Bitcoin Activity

The UIF document, which outlines amendments to previous regulations, cites the threat of money laundering and criminal financing.
http://www.coindesk.com/argentinian-money-regulator-mandates-reporting-bitcoin-activity/