MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <583ef2d2-8315-da9f-7815-768cb4ccb515@thinlink.com>
References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <20170127212810.GA5856@nex>
	<CAAy62_KUSNTjivwJT87K9f1c=k-6gdaLXEBJjcy2KK+uLSTWDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201701280403.05558.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAt2M183=L=9N3HKVgGbsFbug4LWkGfMQzzcDQu9xxMJL+L1oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A6A9E83E-6A5A-4583-A4E3-A52DF33DCF4F@petertodd.org>
	<583ef2d2-8315-da9f-7815-768cb4ccb515@thinlink.com>
From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:39:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFVRnypBTCty8xgmqiGpp9cFb1pDahEhsgYSxbQzMzsDsfTnrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f2ed698ef17054740dc89
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs
Precedence: list

--f403045f2ed698ef17054740dc89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jan 29, 2017 2:28 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

If that's true, why haven't we already seen AML/KYC required of mining
pools?  That would be comparatively trivial.


Some regulators are already looking into it. Even at this point you'd
either need multinational cooperation or you'd need China to decide that
51% attacking a budding technology is a good thing to do, something that
would be sure to increase tensions across the world.

But there are two bigger reasons. The first is that regulators are used to
doing regulation at exchange points, regulating mining is new and
unfamiliar and requires a decent understanding of blockchains. And the
second is that Bitcoin is tiny potatoes at this point. To the best of my
knowledge, organized crime outside of DNMs doesn't use Bitcoin. There's
minimal reason to target it while it's so small.

Regulated mining I believe is going to be a genuine risk as Bitcoin grows.

--f403045f2ed698ef17054740dc89
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Jan 29, 2017 2:28 PM, &quot;Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If that&#39;s tr=
ue, why haven&#39;t we already seen AML/KYC required of mining<br>
pools?=C2=A0 That would be comparatively trivial.</blockquote></div></div><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"au=
to">Some regulators are already looking into it. Even at this point you&#39=
;d either need multinational cooperation or you&#39;d need China to decide =
that 51% attacking a budding technology is a good thing to do, something th=
at would be sure to increase tensions across the world.</div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">But there are two bigger reasons. The first=
 is that regulators are used to doing regulation at exchange points, regula=
ting mining is new and unfamiliar and requires a decent understanding of bl=
ockchains. And the second is that Bitcoin is tiny potatoes at this point. T=
o the best of my knowledge, organized crime outside of DNMs doesn&#39;t use=
 Bitcoin. There&#39;s minimal reason to target it while it&#39;s so small.<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Regulated mining I belie=
ve is going to be a genuine risk as Bitcoin grows.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div></div>

--f403045f2ed698ef17054740dc89--