I have some questions/comments regarding this article.
The currency was "no doubt developed for altruistic purposes by conscientious people, and there are perfectly legitimate, legal and philosophical reasons for wanting the financial anonymity that [Bitcoin] gives, but the other reality is, if this type of currency takes off, it will be a dream for the bad guys,"
I found this quite hilarious, given Satoshi's apparent purpose for creating Bitcoin, which seems to be to circumvent bank and government controlled financial systems.
By using multiple e-mail addresses and anonymous proxies to disguise their locations, criminals can open a new Bitcoin account for each transaction and ensure that their money movements are "virtually bombproof and untraceable to an investigator,"
What do email addresses have to do with Bitcoin?
At first blush, the origin and value behind bitcoins will likely seem strange to some. Few, if anyone, has met Nakamoto, organization principal Gavin Andresen said, during a March 15 interview with EconTalk. Control of the organization is decentralized and based on the premise that all users can have a say in monetary decisions.
I feel like they are misunderstanding what Bitcoin is. There is no organization, other than that which is spontaneously formed by the community. Gavin (in my opinion) is a principal only in the sense that he is filling the role, not that he was appointed or has an official title. (For what its worth, I think he's doing a great job.)
The currency, which is traded through software anyone can download, is not backed by precious metals or other commodities but relies on the fact that it is accepted by a group of consumers and merchants whose transactions are vetted by one another on a volunteer basis.
People just don't understand that all currencies rely on the fact that they are accepted by a group of consumers and merchants.
Still, court orders may be served to bitcoin exchanges, users and other operators, ordering them to "ban" specific bitcoins if needed, he said.
How did he get that idea? Would a court have authority to order an exchange to do such a thing? What does it even mean to "ban" specific Bitcoins?
"It avoids every reporting requirement out there, which is scary, and it's open source software, meaning someone could start their own currency
...
"There's nothing preventing drug dealers from starting their own bitcoin currency - nothing,"
This is my favorite quote of the article. If drug dealers started their own currency, presumably only drug dealers would use it, and it would be a dead giveaway. They need to be part of the main Bitcoin network if it is to be useful at all. Like with Tor, if only spies are using the software, it kind of defeats the point.
