When you say bitcoin doesn't have them, you just mean bitcoin is currently making it possible for you to commit tax fraud, right?
Bitcoin hasn't magically changed the laws of the world, it's not freeing anyone from restrictions. If you're using it in a manner to avoid taxes, launder money, fund terrorists or whatever, that's still just as illegal as if you were doing it with a briefcase of cash or gold.
Would you say the same thing about technology that allowed people to defy apartheid, evade slavery, escape genocide, concentration camps, blasphemy laws, execution for cowardice in war because they won't kill and die for a bandit with a pretty title, not have to sit at the back of the bus due to the colour of their skin, or any of the other thousands of examples of the egregious and obvious abuse of political power throughout recorded history?
Anyone opposing those things was breaking the law. The law is not as important as you imagine. Cryptocurrencies enormously erode the ability of the state to enforce tax law, this is a simple fact. The world may not like it, the world may not even realise it, but this is the state of reality now. Throwing up objections in the form of laws is beside the point entirely.
I truly do not understand people who in light of the history of the abuse of political power can honestly expect "it's against the law" alone to be taken as a serious objection to anything.
> Under "Operation Choke Point," the DOJ and its allies are going after legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures by pressuring banks to terminate their bank accounts or refuse their business. The very premise is clearly chilling—the DOJ is coercing private businesses in an attempt to centrally engineer the American marketplace based on it's own politically biased moral judgements. Targeted business categories so far have included payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites.
Bitcoin on the other hand doesn't care about these things.
That specific article is spreading FUD and perpetuating a hoax. There's no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Presley's case is related to the DoJ.
>Bitcoin on the other hand doesn't care about these things.
Bitcoin certainly has made itself quite a reputation for being the currency of choice for scammers, hackers, drug dealers, online gamblers, and child pornographers. Merchants who consider accepting BTC might care about those things.
> That specific article is spreading FUD and perpetuating a hoax. There's no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Presley's case is related to the DoJ.
Who cares if that particular case was tied to Operation Chokepoint? The fact that Operation Chokepoint is real and really targeting perfectly legal businesses should be enough!
> Bitcoin certainly has made itself quite a reputation for being the currency of choice for scammers, hackers, drug dealers, online gamblers, and child pornographers. Merchants who consider accepting BTC might care about those things.
The US dollar is still more popular for those sorts of things, AFAIK. Maybe some merchants will be dissuaded from accepting it for a while by those things. The question is whether enough merchants won't be dissuaded for Bitcoin to reach a critical mass of acceptance and use.
As someone who sells a lot of digital goods, the main appeal of Bitcoin for me is the complete elimination of chargeback fraud. It's just as good a tool for avoiding malicious intent as it is for enabling it.
The nearly non-existent transaction fees are worth mentioning as well.
Whether you agree with those restrictions or not, Bitcoin does not have them.