To say we have no right to regulate monitoring/prosecuting, yet those who monitor/prosecute can regulate all that we do.. Is just a damn scary idea to me.
Is that what you're getting from me?! That's ... amazing
What I'm getting from you is avoidance..
I've asked you at least 3-times at this point,
What laws is bitcoin not currently abiding by that other currencies abide by which make them less likely to be used for illegal activity (e.g. Child-porn)?AML/KYC laws, for starters. But Bitcoin is more than a currency, it is also a payment processor. So this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-security-financing-idUSKCN0ZL1RH is another step in the right direction.
I'm not sure why you've fixating on this, I merely pointed out that Bitcoin is not exempt from currency laws by virtue of being decentralized.
Which part of that don't you agree with?
I agree it isn't exempt by virtue of being decentralized. Although I also notice that the most reputable bitcoin exchanges, at least half a dozen follow AML / KYC compliance. These laws can't be pushed into the bitcoin protocol feasibly, so it makes sense that these exchanges are compliant. Any exchange that is not compliant is subject to the AML / KYC laws within their jurisdiction. So where's the problem?
Of course "These laws can't be pushed into the bitcoin protocol feasibly," that's the gist of Bitcoin's appeal.
And while there are exchanges that comply with AML / KYC laws within their jurisdictions, that's a small comfort -- Bitcoin is borderless, so compliance with Somali laws doesn't help me much in US.
Do you believe that it needs to be centralized in order for it to be properly regulated, that bitcoin mining need be AML / KYC Complicit, or that countries be more strict with their approach towards bitcoin and it's components?
Neither. Centralized Bitcoin is grossly insecure, and, as such, a pointless exercise in waste and goldbergian complexity.
And I don't think that countries *should* tighten Bitcoin regulations, but
if we fail to police ourselves, there *will be* stricter regulations.Do you not see the difference between "should" and "will"?
What exactly is your gripe about the state of bitcoin in relation to KYC / AML laws?
The reuter's link you sent was decent, but it seems like it doesn't actually address the issue, it simply minimizes it or makes it slightly more inconvenient to perform. While I agree this is a step in the right direction, those regulations were for only EU companies unless I'm mistaken.. So unless we can enforce the same rules globally, there will always be a country that is a Laundering-Haven.
Again, you are asking me to defend a statement that I have never made.
Again:
ELY5:
1. I didn't suggest that child porn would vanish if Bitcoin complied with laws applicable to other currencies.
2. I said that Bitcoin is not exempt from those laws by virtue of being decentralized.
I have no "gripe about the state of bitcoin in relation to KYC / AML laws." I said that decentralization does not make it exempt from those laws, thus is "neither here nor there." Centralization is irrelevant to this discussion. It's a non-issue, and should have never been brought up by you.
How else can I explain this? What remains unclear? Please point to a single specific thing I could clarify, phrase it as a single question, and I will try to answer it so that we could move on.
Now then:
opposite to FIAT which is almost 100% anonymous. 
