On 11/16/2013 01:18 PM, Mark Lamb wrote:
> I'm Mark :) we could get "John" in the form of Jon Matonis I think.

Good. After that, we can move on the non-canonical gospel authors :)

Jon's opinion on money laundering is out there:

"""
Money laundering has been called the thoughtcrime of finance. Isn't it
really just banking with someone's possibly nefarious intentions
attached to the act? It's like buying a drive-thru donut in a stolen
vehicle. The theft of the vehicle may have been illegal and immoral but
the act of purchasing a donut is not. Money laundering is not pre-crime
but post-crime. And, it's difficult to identify the victim, other than
the bank shareholders that must expend millions of dollars for the
proactive compliance required as the state's deputized enforcers.

Moreover, money laundering is guilt by association. If the monetary
flows resulting from associated businesses are deemed illegal, then the
banking activity is defined as money laundering. But, in the absence of
victimless crime laws against drugs, gambling, and prostitution, the
majority of banking labeled as money laundering would simply be banking.
"""
(http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/money-laundering-is-financial-thoughtcrime-1058902-1.html)


> I'm opposed to Coin Validation - it's worse than what is done in
> USD/fiat world. It's not "anti-money laundering" for bitcoin, it's
> just a removal of the the fungibility aspect. In AML, a person is
> fined/jailed for Money Laundering, but the funds usually are still
> considered valid. Coin Validation would be far far worse and seems
> like a scheme to make the miners funds more valuable - although the
> real result almost inevitably would be that ALL bitcoin are worth
> less/nothing.

Hm. The "make miners' funds more valuable" is another dark aspect I
hadn't considered. It's quite encouraging, then, to see Luke publishing
and implementing code that would actually work against his own financial
self-interest as a mining pool operator in that respect.

> -Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Mike Gogulski <mike@???
> <mailto:mike@gogulski.com>> wrote:
>

>     We've got Matthew's and Luke's opinions on this, but I'd really
>     like to
>     hear from Mark and John... ;)

>