Whether it goes bang or is ultra-caustic, the structure ultimately will define how the blockchain interacts with the real world. Those with a hub are likely to become licensed and, provided they operate to at least a standard broadly similar to banks, to have a relatively easy life.

Those that have no hub will have a significantly more difficult time. They will not have a specific regulator and it is therefore their individual nodes (i.e. repositories and exchanges) that will have to be regulated and that will increase complexity and expense.

Those that do not perform any regulated function will be able to operate more or less as they please but as soon as there is a financial element to their activity, they will be regarded as subject to regulation and/or licensing.

Those that operate invisibly will be able to do so and, even if one node is compromised, it is, in the current state of technology, unlikely that other nodes will be readily identifiable although that may change in future with new tracking tools.

While governments are salivating at the chances of reducing computing costs and increasing security offered by block-chain technology for everything from moving to electronic elections (at least partially), to inexpensive plebiscites, maintaining health service records and even paying benefits, the fact is that there remains much to do on data protection and security.

As the Ethereum case shows, all new tech creates new opportunities for criminals. It won't be the last time someone does something unforeseen by those who thought they'd designed a perfect system.

This article is in five parts:
Part 1: https://worldmoneylaunderingreport.com/publications/web/wmlr_articles/s…
Part 2: https://worldmoneylaunderingreport.com/publications/web/wmlr_articles/s…
Part 3: https://worldmoneylaunderingreport.com/publications/web/wmlr_articles/s…
Part 4: https://worldmoneylaunderingreport.com/publications/web/wmlr_articles/s…
Part 5: https://worldmoneylaunderingreport.com/publications/web/wmlr_articles/s…