From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718EB949 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:39:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B98BFA4 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 196so1109736wmm.1 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:39:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QHvwPFoUuxKETXnU/2CDo90ek1iiFFXmvkPnltBuqag=; b=Yc0lz1ogzVtAeGyFtogAbA7QwMm/PC6DQSroPBaOdoW3MKWESzRA787nyRefp+1BfV 5jI7NHYB0iR+4i4+XtK2wpaVqCIK2PIZuAKWGAmLaGIB9gVfFfQRDuveCVhtk3BoTxXJ 4f4DJZABKLv+EJRNJMLwZMzDRZv8h+m/NL7EmC1pPYbO0xbIfNy+F8eK9/tybI5+amC8 ZiYuOYBdOWp27Waag1evxRIbUEbPthnwAJouzm8I9zjUgiwRiVGDxjkAjFE1ZU113DKv lxZzXj50uRxSBwBhtPNahOkf+GgTcOudEYrYNdGvHhin52BSpjtWZbnzxr7aDHdJlGiX D44w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=QHvwPFoUuxKETXnU/2CDo90ek1iiFFXmvkPnltBuqag=; b=tAJAymlhj14QguytslZp5y1SiObFtj7Jp3S+asrXumdSP6CYiSwcVoyNG3dIBF4E8+ /9gFIVJKYrdXTaG/HOIAOuK8IG0oQF2ciMkIul5xTy6bY4Sp90Lvn6JDV1QLnurl+N0L 3sC43VfblbodIsL9JEm9IdZ1tLW+4/t639/wvMyhQgmnwAiz4wh0qcCulx6eIex/ncPk uhI3BeN69LKNFHkPHK2ezBE43VeqHx5/UwLlqLx0PxDs8cVM3SJRdcf6fg1o9+5Qylm8 y1p7TveW/GEm3Ymzo1BN45teDDUwGiOfj7etNUnmZrIzljJZcg9Yz7PaibEmV6C+B1uy oYww== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKuMkCdAXD7ysYCGhWPPFyOrsIzpCJNXAuyJO2lKIfFJVZgjiJr7RDggGZXbaziRyeJYttYwnWr1qswiw== X-Received: by 10.223.161.194 with SMTP id v2mr15027431wrv.144.1485718788027; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:39:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.172.198 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.172.198 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <583ef2d2-8315-da9f-7815-768cb4ccb515@thinlink.com> References: <201701270107.01092.luke@dashjr.org> <20170127212810.GA5856@nex> <201701280403.05558.luke@dashjr.org> <583ef2d2-8315-da9f-7815-768cb4ccb515@thinlink.com> From: David Vorick Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:39:46 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev , Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f2ed698ef17054740dc89 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three hardfork-related BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:39:50 -0000 --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

On Jan 29, 2017 2:28 PM, "Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev" <= bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
If that's tr= ue, why haven't we already seen AML/KYC required of mining
pools?=C2=A0 That would be comparatively trivial.
<= /div>


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 th= at 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, 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't use= Bitcoin. There's minimal reason to target it while it's so small.<= /div>

Regulated mining I belie= ve is going to be a genuine risk as Bitcoin grows.
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
--f403045f2ed698ef17054740dc89--