[jmt_]

Possibly not. Satoshi likely did not intend nor desire their currency to be used to facilitate crimes. In fact, they were infamously weary of WikiLeaks using the currency for donations due to the legal issues surrounding them, and WikiLeaks "crimes" are not comparable to say arms trafficking or something substantially illegal. The public nature of the BTC blockchain helps facilitate decentralized, equal participation.

[thaumasiotes]

> Satoshi likely did not intend nor desire their currency to be used to facilitate crimes.

This is certainly false; the whole point is to invalidate money transmission laws.

[jmt_]

One can "invalidate" money transmission laws without committing crimes.

[thaumasiotes]

How?

[jmt_]

Use Bitcoin for legitimate purchases?

[drdeca]

How does this invalidate money transmission laws?

If all the transactions being done wouldn't be forbidden by money transmission laws even if they were transmitting money normally, then the transactions aren't doing anything to negate the effects of the money transmission laws.

On the other hand, if a transaction would go against money transaction laws if it were going by some other method, even if it would currently be legal if done with bitcoin (which I doubt is the case, but even supposing), the money transmission laws could just be amended to also forbid the analogous transactions which use bitcoin instead of whatever other method, therefore then making it a crime.

A plan to invalidate a law by making a technology that fits through a loophole in a law, and hoping the loophole never gets patched, seems, an odd plan.

A plan to make a law practically un-enforceable by making a technology, seems like a more reasonable plan to me, and is also inherently facilitating a crime.

[drdeca]

Isn't it meant to be censorship resistant? If a state made a law which forbade the use of bitcoin, that would make the use of bitcoin in that state a crime, but I think that making it difficult for a state to enforce such a law is kind of a design goal for bitcoin? Or at least, closely aligned with design goals of bitcoin.

Of course, it wouldn't be desired that it be made illegal, but I think the desire would be that, if possible, even if it was illegal, people would still be successful in attempting to use it.

[RandomBacon]

> Isn't it meant to be censorship resistant?

I don't think so. Satoshi included the headline of bank bailouts in the first block. It's been a decade since I scanned over the whitepaper, but I think it was to create a currency that people couldn't manipulate.

Bitcoin may be censorship resistant, but it is not censorship proof.

[drdeca]

The reason I said "if possible" was to suggest that some sufficiently powerful adversaries could censor it, but that this is just because it can't be avoided, not because it is desired that they be able to do so.

[lawn]

They were not wary of WikiLeaks using Bitcoin because of possible crime association, but because Bitcoin was so new and they didn't want to draw attention so early in the project.