> Fortunately, this case is much more about Charlie Shrem and his penchant for violating laws than Bitcoin itself. I think this guy - who now refers to himself as "Charlie van Bitcoin" - just doesn't get it. There are laws out there, and he doesn't seem to want to follow them.
I would argue that his aversion to laws was what led him to Bitcoin in the first place. Which is not to say that Bitcoin users are inherently prone to illegal activities, but it should not be surprising that those already prone to breaking the law would flock to a system designed to evade central regulation.
I would argue that his aversion to laws was what led him to Bitcoin in the first place. Which is not to say that Bitcoin users are inherently prone to illegal activities, but it should not be surprising that those already prone to breaking the law would flock to a system designed to evade central regulation.