3 ms·

It's not true, though. The difficulty is getting USD, Euros, or Yen out of exchanges, not getting BTC into them. And while almost every exchange will happily ta

It's not true, though. The difficulty is getting USD, Euros, or Yen out of exchanges, not getting BTC into them. And while almost every exchange will happily take your BTC, very, very few will send you dollars without thorough vetting. You normally need a bank account in the country the exchange operates in, for example. It's true that you'd be able to use a service like localbitcoins to sell your coins, but in this hypothetical future, exchanges are using an agreed-upon protocol to identify and blacklist mixed coins. Even if it's not fully standardized, it's easy to check whether a coin has been tumbled through any mixer of sufficient size. So I'm not sure anybody on localbitcoins would be willing to pay the same prices for these.

stale2002 9y ago
But then Bitcoin is no longer Bitcoin. It is now censorship coin. You have it opposite. The price of censorship coin would crash to 0. Why would I as a consumer want to buy coins that can be blacklisted? Bitcoins would be useless and therefore worthless. I'd sell those censorship coins and buy alt coins that are not being censored. And the price of uncensored alt coins would skyrocket, and the exchanges transacting in inferior coins would go out of business.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Maybe that's what everyone would like to believe, but people believe many things about Bitcoin that aren't true. People love to make up explanations for why the price is rising, but it seems likely that the price is rising because people are buying them, not because people are buying them for a particular reason. Your vision of how things might turn out is certainly possible, but so is the opposite. One way the opposite could happen is if the US government officially backs bitcoin. They might do this if they realize that by banning mixed coins, it becomes the perfect tool for monitoring everyone's financial activities. It's unlikely, to be sure. Especially if implementing confidentiality into bitcoin is a real possibility. But without that, it seems at least equally likely as bitcoin crashing due to the ban.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    He's explaining in some detail why your assumptions are incorrect, and you're not taking the time to actually read what he's saying.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      I read every word. If you have a follow-up argument, let's hear it. You've been taking the conversations in personal directions -- for example, you accused someone else upthread of having Stockholm syndrome, and now you're saying I didn't read replies. Please engage with the argument, not the person.
      - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        I think I've been clear enough. You've been asked repeatedly how a facility could even be constructed that would be effective in your 'go for the exchanges' argument, and have yet to recognize the ineffectiveness of any suggestion you've made. This after repeatedly having it demonstrated to you. Furthermore, you're not presenting new arguments, just re-hashing the same one with more words and the same lack of understanding of the subject at hand. And I think the stockholm syndrome argument for people who argue for the type of control they think banks have without understanding their limitations is a pretty good description of that argument, especially from someone who, not me, brought up 'denial'. Like I said, these are old arguments and suggestions that wouldn't have been effective four years ago, let alone today, where there is even less possibility of control. For the reasons that have been demonstrated by not just me.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Money laundering regulations can stop there being major exchanges without anti-mixing features. Across all coins.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    It doesn't matter if you stop it on most exchanges. You have to stop it on every single exchange in the world. As long as there is a single way of converting Monero to Bitcoin, or any other crytocurrency to Bitcoin, then everyone will just use that. You don't even need a way to convert Monero to USD. All you need is a single output method to ANY other crytocurrency. How do you stop an exchange that is run over tor in a different country? You can stop them from transacting in USD, but you cannot stop them from transacting in crytocurrencies.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      It doesn't take blocking all the exchanges to cause a big drop in the value of blacklisted coins, and make most people not accept them. And any exchange that freely trades in blacklisted coins can itself be blacklisted, making an escape to another cryptocurrency fail.
      - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
        In the grand scheme of cryptos it doesn't really matter what the current value of a coin is as long as it meets its use case. But that is unrelated to your point. Most people can avoid these strategies with trivial ease. With the introduction of lightning and atomic swaps, trivial will become mundane. Less than mundane? It will quite literally not exist as an issue. My theory is that it is this introduction that is finally getting push back from banker types. Anyone who understands it thinks "pop! There goes the genie" > And any exchange that freely trades in blacklisted coins can itself be blacklisted And no one will trade with those exchanges.
    - polyomino 9y ago
      Most people have no need for usd.

stale2002 9y ago

But then Bitcoin is no longer Bitcoin. It is now censorship coin. You have it opposite. The price of censorship coin would crash to 0. Why would I as a consumer want to buy coins that can be blacklisted? Bitcoins would be useless and therefore worthless. I'd sell those censorship coins and buy alt coins that are not being censored. And the price of uncensored alt coins would skyrocket, and the exchanges transacting in inferior coins would go out of business.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Maybe that's what everyone would like to believe, but people believe many things about Bitcoin that aren't true. People love to make up explanations for why the price is rising, but it seems likely that the price is rising because people are buying them, not because people are buying them for a particular reason. Your vision of how things might turn out is certainly possible, but so is the opposite. One way the opposite could happen is if the US government officially backs bitcoin. They might do this if they realize that by banning mixed coins, it becomes the perfect tool for monitoring everyone's financial activities. It's unlikely, to be sure. Especially if implementing confidentiality into bitcoin is a real possibility. But without that, it seems at least equally likely as bitcoin crashing due to the ban.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  He's explaining in some detail why your assumptions are incorrect, and you're not taking the time to actually read what he's saying.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I read every word. If you have a follow-up argument, let's hear it. You've been taking the conversations in personal directions -- for example, you accused someone else upthread of having Stockholm syndrome, and now you're saying I didn't read replies. Please engage with the argument, not the person.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      I think I've been clear enough. You've been asked repeatedly how a facility could even be constructed that would be effective in your 'go for the exchanges' argument, and have yet to recognize the ineffectiveness of any suggestion you've made. This after repeatedly having it demonstrated to you. Furthermore, you're not presenting new arguments, just re-hashing the same one with more words and the same lack of understanding of the subject at hand. And I think the stockholm syndrome argument for people who argue for the type of control they think banks have without understanding their limitations is a pretty good description of that argument, especially from someone who, not me, brought up 'denial'. Like I said, these are old arguments and suggestions that wouldn't have been effective four years ago, let alone today, where there is even less possibility of control. For the reasons that have been demonstrated by not just me.
Dylan16807 9y ago
Money laundering regulations can stop there being major exchanges without anti-mixing features. Across all coins.
- stale2002 9y ago
  It doesn't matter if you stop it on most exchanges. You have to stop it on every single exchange in the world. As long as there is a single way of converting Monero to Bitcoin, or any other crytocurrency to Bitcoin, then everyone will just use that. You don't even need a way to convert Monero to USD. All you need is a single output method to ANY other crytocurrency. How do you stop an exchange that is run over tor in a different country? You can stop them from transacting in USD, but you cannot stop them from transacting in crytocurrencies.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    It doesn't take blocking all the exchanges to cause a big drop in the value of blacklisted coins, and make most people not accept them. And any exchange that freely trades in blacklisted coins can itself be blacklisted, making an escape to another cryptocurrency fail.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      In the grand scheme of cryptos it doesn't really matter what the current value of a coin is as long as it meets its use case. But that is unrelated to your point. Most people can avoid these strategies with trivial ease. With the introduction of lightning and atomic swaps, trivial will become mundane. Less than mundane? It will quite literally not exist as an issue. My theory is that it is this introduction that is finally getting push back from banker types. Anyone who understands it thinks "pop! There goes the genie" > And any exchange that freely trades in blacklisted coins can itself be blacklisted And no one will trade with those exchanges.
  - polyomino 9y ago
    Most people have no need for usd.