The meat of it:
A company listed with FinCEN has explicitly entered into a legally binding agreement with them to spy on its customers and partners and has a duty to report 'large and suspicious' transactions to the State.
but here's where the 14yo emo kid thinking comes in
:
The real problem behind this FinCEN registration is the thinking driving those entrepreneurs who so desperately seek a stamp of legitimacy from the State. Rather than build secure services that are sticky, viral, disruptive and useful, it appears that these well meaning people are trying to get a psychological boost by receiving the blessings of the State. This simply will not work to catapult their businesses into widespread acceptance and profitability. And it will not help to gain them users; on the contrary, in the long term, it may make it impossible for them to even operate at all.
Why then would you even think of asking for permission to operate from the very people who stand to be wiped out by the success of the innovation you are working on?
uhhh...yeah..why would you??
I forgot about all the statist trolls on this site - they really outnumber the decent folk, but I guess when you're a parasite you have a lot of time to sit around posting on forums.
I guess this is where our political views are the differentiating factor. I believe that Bitcoin can be made to work with laws and regulations alongside the USD - the key differentiating factors being the semi-anonymous nature of transfers and one being deflationary while the other is inflationary. But, that is my opinion. Obviously, you're an anarchist, and probably don't believe in any form of government whatsoever, so that's why you take the side of not having government involved at all.
I believe not following rules and regulations is a very quick path to getting shut down by the government. Following those rules and regulations will allow Bitcoin financial establishments to operate legally, at least until/unless there is some ruling against Bitcoins themselves.
