According to the article, Bitcoin's significance is that it "allows low-cost and regulation-free transfer of wealth." I am seeking to achieve many of the same objectives in the context of a high-cost and poorly regulated environment, just in a different manner. As it so happens, that manner might impact the legality of some uses of Bitcoin.
Furthermore, behind the shadow of its lobbying group, Western Union is one of the main sponsors of the legislation directly in question that it and other companies use to maintain an oligopoly. No one else seems to be discussing that point, though it seems rather significant, both in terms of Bitcoin and other startups wishing to enter the market.
The tactic you're employing here and on every other money thread is so common that Wikipedia has a name for it: "coat-rack arguments".
You're using HN threads about money transactions as coat-racks for comments that are nominally germane (ie, "Bitcoin allows low-cost and regulation-free &c and ...") but really about your personal drama ("... and that's what I'm trying to do with my [totally unrelated scheme]").
I hope you're starting to notice that HN people aren't going to let you keep doing this without calling you on it, and that off-topic comments are therefore a poor promotional vehicle for your pet controversies. Either way, please stop.
Second, I didn't post an advertisement, or a job offer, or a discussion about a random topic. I posted a federal lawsuit about money transmission that is directly related to Bitcoin's purported goals and the title of this article.
Enough people have contacted me, some of whom read Hacker News, and some of whom do not, who fully support what I am doing, that I believe your viewpoint to be both in the minority and in this particular case, incorrect besides.
Just to point out to others reading: The lawsuit thinkcomp posted is one filed by his company.
News at 11.