Can some one explain to me why several people are so paranoid about goverments, in the sense that why in the current state of affairs would anyone care in the slightest about DASH? Maybe when we reach the 100+ million marketcap, until then I can not see any logic in worrying about governments or resonantly be able to predict the reaction, Even then if you are so petrified in your belief that this is a problem then there is a simple solution, host your node somewhere that don't require personal details. Hell if there is a problem you can always activate the node somewhere else. I feel this paranoia it has very little to do with the proposal and that your turning a feature of DASH(decentralized cold nodes) into a negative for no good reason.
Winners pre-empt. Losers react...
Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
Sooner than later the U.S. government is either going to coming knocking or will require all cryptos including DASH to introduce key changes that will lead to total regulatory capture as we see from the article below. No one has all the answers, but so long as we have these open discussions, some members of the DASH community will no doubt step up and provide some insights and solutions to these legal/tax aspects.
I learned a long time ago to read up on government policies especially those that directly or indirectly affect my field of work, and this saved me a lot of headache down the line whereas those who didn't bother ended up making lawyers and tax consultants very rich. I may not agree with the government policies, but the government's still hold the big sticks. If DASH is going to change the crypto landscape and potentially the world of digital cash, then we have to recognize that DASH won't be operating in the fringes especially when widespread adoption kicks in. The foundations we lay down now will affect how the government perceives DASH and reacts accordingly.
Let's not be naive to think for a moment that the decisions we are making with these new DGB innovations and voting mechanisms won't send ripples and eventually financial shockwaves out into the world and affect governments that are largely controlled or influenced by the legacy financial cartels.
I also won't be surprised if Bitcoin and other cryptos start to follow the footsteps of DASH.
How could the government seek to force changes to an open-source software platform that’s supposed to be free from any party’s centralized control? Could it feasibly apply to other digital currencies – including bitcoin, whose governance structure has no go-to management actor like Ripple Labs? How will users react to the notion that Ripple is snooping on them even if the company is not itself a counterparty to their trades?
It also seems impossible that FinCEN could wield similar influence over the management or monitoring of bitcoin’s decentralized protocol — there is, after all, no core company leading the development and adoption of bitcoin’s technology in the way that Ripple Labs leads the ripple network. But that didn’t stop bitcoiners from worrying about whether the government might try.
Prominent bitcoin developer Peter Todd, for one, took to Twitter put this question to Gavin Andresen, who leads a team of five core developers charged with updating and maintaining bitcoin’s core code:
, thoughts on FinCEN forcing Ripple to change their core protocol to add AML? How do we protect Bitcoin from that pressure?
— Peter Todd (@petertoddbtc) May 6, 2015
And Jerry Brito, executive director of Washington-based think tank the Coin Center said, “It makes me nervous that FinCEN is asking protocol level changes from a company. Ripple is a special case and I hope that FinCEN understands that.”
Others, including New York Law School Professor Houman Shadab, made the case that FinCEN had proven that the comprehensive state-by-state regulation of bitcoin companies as money transmitters was redundant.
FinCEN’s fine of Ripple suggests that federal enforcement of AML laws is robust and that state-level regulation is unnecessary. #Bitcoin
— Houman Shadab (@HoumanShadab) May 6, 2015
One thing’s for sure, however, this action comes as as reminder that digital currencies are on enforcement agencies’ radars.
“Rock solid anti-money laundering compliance should be at the forefront of every digital currency company’s agenda,” said Perianne Boring, President of the Washington-based Digital Chamber of Commerce. (Michael Casey)