To those who wonder how things might play out in the future, rest assured that they should be handled quite well.  What I intend to eventually do is to file a lawsuit for an injunction, enjoining law enforcement people from acting against either Jim Bell Project researchers, or even those who might eventually implement an AP-type system.   

In America, and presumably other nations as well, people who have a reasonable belief that their actions aren't in violation of the law, but also believe that they will be subject to improper 'legal' action, are entitled to bring legal cases in court to shut down this action before it occurs.   I anticipate that such a lawsuit will be first filed in American courts, probably Federal.  (Mostly because I learned a great detail of Federal law while in prison.)  But, I hope to get a professional attorney to do the research for the action, and writing it.  

This will be a major advantage:  Cops (term used in general) no doubt want to rush in, acting as heroes, stopping the 'villain' in action.  Naturally, that must be avoided.  Instead, a lawsuit can be used to force such government agencies into court, and make them make their best case to prove that some hypothetical, future implementation of an AP system will necessarily be illegal.  Instead of letting them wait for the time they are waiting for, they should be made to defend their case at the point where it will be the weakest, rather than the strongest moment.  

My AP essay anticipated, and intended, that illegality (if it is committed by anyone at all) will only be committed by unknown people, location unknown, acting presumably alone, not directly connected with the AP-type organization, nor acting in coordination with others who have previously donated to the system.  Somebody will make a guess, perhaps it will come true, but nobody else needs to know who did that.   This compartmentalization is intended to protect the rest from the knowledge of, or liability for, the actions of those unknown guessors, the ones who eventually guess the name and date of demise of an unpopular named person.   These actions do not have to act in one specific country; in fact, they could be spread out over the entire globe.  (See Ethereum and Augur, to see how a computer program can be distributed around the world.)

While the 'burden of proof' to obtain an injunction will still be with the plaintiff bringing the suit, nevertheless the defendants (Federal and possibly state law enforcement people) will nevertheless have to make their best case against a system they won't like, but in fact won't yet be defined in detail.  Their objections will used against them, then and later, when and where possible, making it clear that they cannot prove that some hypothetical (or concrete) AP-type plan would necessarily be illegal.   At most, I anticipate that they will claim that somebody might, somewhere, commit a crime.  The fact that various forms of insurance legally exist, as well as gambling (legal in some regions) will tend to show that the organization is entitled to exist and interact with the public.

              Jim Bell