by barmstrong on 9/9/22, 5:13 AM with 79 comments
by Loic on 9/9/22, 6:44 AM
Privacy in crypto is basically reallowing tax havens in the "digital" world where we spent years to try to curtain them in the "real" world.
A good friend of us happens to be working at a high level at the EU commission. Discussing about Bitcoin/Crypto, his answer was simple: "We will ban all crypto as soon as we consider it to create problems with taxes".
Coinbase would win the case, it would be one more step in the direction of a ban in the EU.
by rdl on 9/9/22, 6:41 AM
There's also a coincenter lawsuit on purely constitutional grounds (https://www.coincenter.org/analysis-what-is-and-what-is-not-...).
by sunshinekitty on 9/9/22, 6:38 AM
by smithcoin on 9/9/22, 7:54 AM
by can16358p on 9/9/22, 6:37 AM
Crypto and digital assets should be free from regulation, even if it brings side effects (e.g. laundering). The moment we centralize crypto by state, we lose the war against corrupted states and centralization.
While I don't support bad actors that use crypto in any way, I still believe having them is a side effect that we need to accept for a better world without government survelliance.
The upside still outweighs the downsides.
by rax0m on 9/9/22, 7:19 AM
But kudos where kudos are due! I hope this goes the way
by nappy on 9/9/22, 6:55 AM
by mouzogu on 9/9/22, 7:18 AM
This is not really about crypto, or tornado cash. I think it's more about ownership and surveillance. The only solution is to innovate in the area of evasion. Since there is no middle ground amenable to the ones who make the laws in their own interests.
We can just look at wikileaks, panama papers and so on. Money laundering and embezzlement is much more pervasive and rapaciously damaging in the highest levels of "power". Wealth "inequality" is an oligopoly of concentrated power and wealth.
by FabHK on 9/9/22, 6:57 AM
However, I am much more hesitant with privacy in money transfers. It is not obvious to me at all that we should have unlimited unregulated money transfers. In fact, I fear that unreflected support for the latter might erode the (already tenuous) support for the former:
Currently, we might still be in a position to regulate and disrupt cryptocurrencies (for example, Bitcoin needs on- and off-ramps tied to tradFi, and Bitcoin traffic is unencrypted and can be detected (and censored), AFAIK). If that whole ecosystem were to succeed in ensuring encryption and anonymity in money transfers, we might get to a point where there is overwhelming political pressure to prohibit any encrypted communication, even more so than already.
TL;DR: Cryptocurrencies might jeopardise Signal et al. Yet another reason to oppose Crypto: to protect encryption.
by manholio on 9/9/22, 7:34 AM
This way, I would have guaranteed and auditable privacy that the government cannot surreptitiously break, but there is an route to find identifying information with a noisy and court approved process. This would involve both a technological side and an organizational one - brokers would have to setup some type of clearing house that processes legal documents and requests for unblinding, approve new brokers and terminate those that do not follow relevant KYC practices, etc. A middle option between banks (no privacy, 100% agents of the government) and crypto (anonymous brokers, untraceable in competent hands, excellent for money laundry).
We cannot continue to pretend that the current crypto crop "is just like cash". I most certainly cannot teleport 1 billion dollars in cash across borders, completely untraceable. If you cannot see a problem with this feature of crypto and the bad types of people it would attract and enable, then you might be suffering from a case of sociopathy.
by gerikson on 9/9/22, 7:09 AM
by bprasanna on 9/9/22, 6:38 AM