We need to get in the habit of not saying "to prevent money laundering" and instead saying "under the pretense of preventing money laundering".

I know everyone is all up in arms about the IRS ruling and while I believe that's important I think what will harm bitcoin more in the long run is AML regulation. We need to put a stop to allowing governments to dictate the common narrative. As long as the public continues to believe that scanning a passport and jumping through numerous hoops to acquire any crypto-currencies is for their own safety nothing will ever change. This subreddit is visited by a large number of individuals that know more about crypto-currencies than the general public. If we begin using the same or similar phrases when discussing various topics will bring more attention to a counter perspective that governments have successfully downplayed for long enough.

Here are some points we should hammer in any relevant conversations.

1. AML regulation does no more to prevent money laundering than the NSA spying prevents terrorist attacks.


2. HSBC was able to circumvent existing AML regulation easily and was only charged a fine when caught. We as citizens deserve the same rights.


3. Who stands to benefit from using AML regulation as an excuse to stifle the growth of a new digital currency system?


4. What sort of negative outcomes would result if money laundering occurred through a crypto-currency? Can you name a single outcome that doesn't already occur on a global scale?

I want to start seeing articles that question the effectiveness of AML regulation or at the very least use phrasing which recognizes it's not a foregone conclusion. We need to erode the confidence that has been built around these regulations and this subreddit seems like a great place to start.

submitted by definitely_in_doubt

[link] [10 commentaires]



from Bitcoin http://ift.tt/1prlwJU