Talking about money transmitter laws makes sense on stories about money transmitter laws, but doesn't make sense on other threads.
You've basically restated what I said but in much greater detail. Thanks.
I'm choosing my words less carefully than you are. When I said the states could "answer" your objection, I meant that the points you raised about transparency could be blunted by becoming very transparent but also more onerous.
I'm sorry, but that "other thread" was entitled "Major Bitcoin exchange shuts down, blaming regulation and loss of funds." You have harassed me relentlessly on this topic and others, as recently as a few days ago when you falsely accused me of having a sneaky ulterior motive for putting information in the public domain at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5282532), and I am tired of it.
I wrote a comment about financial regulation on a thread about financial regulation and you launched a personal attack against me for it, as you often do.
Just now, I did not restate what you said. I explained in great detail why the state of affairs is NOT as you say.
Perhaps in the future you could choose your words more carefully.
I'm not sure what the other thread you're pointing to has to do with money transmission laws. There, you were enlisting volunteer support for an effort that happened to be remunerative to yourself. You didn't mention that in your comment; I wished you had. (Note also that by the end of the thread the goalposts had also moved from Plainsite to Asymptote.) You then replied to the effect that I'd accused you of operating the entire effort as some kind of scam, which I of course hadn't done.
That exchange, like this one, is characteristic of the way you communicate on HN. You could just respond to questions or even refute them aggressively. Instead, you take things personally and create smokescreens.
It's an unfortunate habit because in this particular discussion you are probably in greater command of the facts than I am, and yet you spend credibility on pointless innuendo that is easily knocked down.
(I obviously have my own expansive portfolio of unfortunate HN habits, but unlike you I'm not appealing to HN for help in any particular cause, so I think it matters less for me.)
Obviously at this point we're talking about the fact that you are harassing me, not money transmission laws.
PlainSite's database of public information (which is freely available to non-lawyers) is a public good. Operation Asymptote is an attempt, from which I have no way of profiting exclusively or directly, to increase the value of that public good. The only way that I might profit from Operation Asymptote is indirectly. So your argument that the "effort that happened to be remunerative to [my]self" is plainly false and deliberately misleading and possibly damaging to my reputation.
Your insightful comments about computer security on this forum are a public good. You might profit from them if someone finds them one day and agrees with or wants to know more about something you say--but so might anyone else.
The difference here is that you are (wrongly and publicly) accusing me of improper conduct for failing to note that I might profit from more public information being available, and I am not accusing you of anything because helping to improve the commons is supposed to help everyone profit, and I am glad to learn about computer security from you, and to also see you make a living from it.
Thomas has a contrarian bent. I've disagreed with him as much as anyone, I think, but I wouldn't take it too personally.
Thanks for all the information, though. That was a fascinating read. FWIW, I'm on your side and would like to see some sensible regulation at the federal level, rather than a patchwork of state laws.
You've basically restated what I said but in much greater detail. Thanks.
I'm choosing my words less carefully than you are. When I said the states could "answer" your objection, I meant that the points you raised about transparency could be blunted by becoming very transparent but also more onerous.