4 ms·
That's because bitcoin adoption is so low that it's not a threat. Seriously: >9.29 The money laundering risk associated with digital currencies is low, though
by bduerst 11y ago
That's because bitcoin adoption is so low that it's not a threat.
Seriously:
>9.29 The money laundering risk associated with digital currencies is low, though if the use of digital currencies was to become more prevalent in the UK this risk could rise. Digital currencies are currently not a method by which terrorists raise or move money out of the UK (though they remain a viable method for doing so).
- vdaniuk 11y agoSo why don't we see headlines like "EU clamps down on banking industry and corruption in financial institutions"?
- bduerst 11y agoBecause the E.U. already does and it's not news. http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/focus_areas/eu-financial-sector/ http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/focus_areas/eu-finan...
- vdaniuk 11y agoReally? Transparency International is not a government organization but a non-profit registered in Belgium. edit: HN posting limit is extremely annoying, providing no way for a sustained discussion within multiple threads.
- bduerst 11y ago...Who runs a websites containing a series of announcements and headlines about financial regulation in the E.U. Next you'll say those aren't true headlines, a la no-true-scotsman.
- vdaniuk 11y agoHow exactly the Transparency International website that contains public statements critical of E.U. financial regulation backs up your point?
- bduerst 11y agoBecause it's proof of E.U. financial regulation. What is your point?
- Dylan16807 11y agoThat regulation of some sort exists, not that it is effective or "clamping down"
- makomk 11y agoThe Transparency International website that you've linked does talk about financial regulation in the EU, but Transparency International's position is that the regulators have failed - that they have not, in fact, clamped down on fraud and corruption, and that close ties between regulators and the banks they're regulating have made them unwilling to act. You're using a web page criticising regulators for failing to take action as proof that they didn't fail to take action.
- bduerst 11y agoI was using it as proof that E.U. financial regulation (however shitty it may seem) isn't new, since TI does a good job as watch dog and lists many examples that date back.
- myth_buster 11y agoPerhaps provide a _Rebuttal N:_ in the relevant post as you provided this edit.
- kbenson 11y agoHere's a hint, along with some advice. You can get around the posting limit by clicking on the direct link of the comment you are responding to. Then again, it's there for a reason, so it's probably best to make sure your reply at least has some context and analysis, so the discussion doesn't devolve into a bunch of one line responses, which rarely convey enough information to make the conversation worth while.
- howlingfantods 11y agoYou do. HSBC was fined billions of dollars for money laundering. Although some argue that convictions of individuals would be better.
- newjersey 11y agoNobody got a criminal conviction. How are we OK about this?
- ensignavenger 11y agoRumor has it that their profits from money laundering were substantially greater than the fines, though.
- xorcist 11y agoI don't think we have to call that just a rumor. I haven't heard anyone argue they weren't. But it's not important what the bank paid. Everyone involved got their bonuses. No one was responsible. No one paid back. I don't think anyone involved cried over any fines the company had to pay.
- return0 11y agoIt s also not anonymous, and i guess terrorists would need something more immediately liquid.
- bduerst 11y agoI'm not sure about the other digital currencies, but if you tumble with bitcoins it becomes anonymous, right?
- maxerickson 11y agoOnly sort of, and only if you have a lot of other people willing to participate with you. If you are just looking to see how money is flowing, you just see the tumble cloud between your collections of interesting source and destination addresses, you are not foiled by it (in the worst case scenario you consider every output address interesting, but then you start paring that down with other information). I wonder if some of the bitcoin gambling sites have really been operated by people trying to obscure the history of their bitcoin. If they can control how fast their coin moves through the site, they have some more assurance of how many addresses they are mixed with.
- paulsutter 11y agoBelieve in your lucky sunglasses all you want, but how much would you really stake on a tumbler? "Such tumblers do a very poor job of hiding transactions, especially when dealing with a thousand or a hundred thousand bitcoins. The simplest approach is to simply look for common flow patterns." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2015/01/15/how-prosecutors-might-nail-ross-ulbricht-using-the-supposedly-anonymous-bitcoin/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2015/01/15/how-pros...
- bduerst 11y agoInteresting article, but isn't that survivor bias? All the tumblers seem inept when the only detectable tumblers are inept. You don't see the competent or succesful tumblers.